Watch it at Amazon
19 out of 22 people found the following review useful: Worth Seeing, 3 October 2006 Author: Silent_Bob_ from Australia
Perhaps it was the fact that I went to see the movie after reading the (mostly) negative reviews here, but I found that the movie far exceeded my expectations. It's true that the dialog comes off as a little odd when the movie first starts but it was easy to adjust to and by the end, as another reviewer said, it really seems to fit with the movie. Sam Worthington does an excellent job at playing the haunted character of Macbeth. For the most part the other actors do extremely well with their role as well. The action scenes seem to have songs that are actually appropriate as opposed to ones focusing on what big star they can throw in.All in all, I think it certainly deserves a higher rating than it has been receiving. It may not be the movie of the year but it was extremely enjoyable.
24 out of 33 people found the following review useful: Shakespeare for the Tarantino generation, 17 September 2006 Author: huigh from Canberra, Australia
Saw this at a preview screening today. I have never seen the Director's most famous film, Romper Stomper, and know it only by reputation. My guess is this very graphic and bloody version will satisfy his fans and many others. Doubt I would recommend it to anyone who was unfamiliar with the play but, taken simply as a film, I believe it is excellent. Superb cinematography and great sound track back up a 'reading' of the play that seems to me to have real integrity.I note the current average rating on IMDb is a fraction over 3/10. Assuming the vast bulk of those are votes by the illiterate and inexperienced voters with a mental age of 12 who usually bulk out the meter, that probably bodes well for what is quite an exceptional film. If you don't know the play, for god's sake read it and don't send your ignorant comments to this forum.
7 out of 9 people found the following review useful: Worth a watch but not as exciting as expected, 17 September 2006 Author: asphodelfilms from Melbourne, Australia
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Modernizations of Shakespeare are always a tricky affair. Ones that use the plot but not the dialogue (ie. West Side Story and O) tend to fare better than those that attempt the dialogue as well. Only Baz Luhrmann's Romeo & Juliet really shine in the latter category.So, it's with no small amount of ambition that director Geoffrey Wright transports Macbeth from the Scottish moors to the Docklands of contemporary Melbourne. Macbeth and Macduff are drug-trading mobsters working under the command of crime boss, Duncan. Lady Macbeth is the trophy wife with a coke habit. So does it work?Almost.It gets off to a rather messy beginning with short, fragmented scenes inundated with characters and some blink-or-you'll-miss-it backstory. The film doesn't really hit its stride until Macbeth and his Lady invite Duncan to their house and the blood starts to flow. By this point, however, my attention was already beginning to wane and judgement was already being passed.One of the major problems of the film is that what makes Macbeth so great on stage simply doesn't translate to film. Even Polanski's version never quite gets there. There are too many secondary characters that are too similar and they distract you from the main story – Macbeth and his ambition – a part of the film that gets surprisingly little screen time and never really develops any momentum or psychological crediblity.Little snippets of scenes and character come across the screen so quickly and seem to have so little relevance that it becomes quite a frustrating watch. What should be an exciting, adrenaline pumping film (such as Wright's earlier film, Romper Stomper) becomes bogged down and the finale is anti-climactic and has no emotional resonance. One begins to wonder why they bothered to modernise the play or even tell it at all. The theme of murder begets murder doesn't really shine through and Macbeth never seems that ambitious nor do we see much difference in his circumstance as he begins his bloody rise. Maybe the film should have taken a few more chances or liberties with the text– why you'd include the line "merciful heavens" after the announcement of one character's murder and not expect the audience to laugh is beyond me. At the very least, some deeper thought needed to be given to the modernising of the text. It seems a little too much like it's just been run through the "REPLACE" feature on Microsoft Word. Replace swords with guns. Witches with schoolgirls. Dread with campy hissing.Sam Worthington brings his typical Aussie masculinity to the role and once he gets warmed up, does quite a fine job even though he has to compete with some rather odd costumes including a paisley leisure suit and a leather kilt that drew more than few titters from the audience. Victoria Hill as Lady Macbeth is also quite believable and her "come you spirits" monologue, delivered in voice over as she walks down the driveway to greet Duncan, is one of the film's finer moments. The actors who really shine are the ones you least expect though – The Molloy brothers as Macbeth's semi-loyal henchmen nail it while Louis Corbett in the almost silent role of Macduff's son has a quiet intensity that much of the film sorely needs.Stylistically, the film shines. It's probably the best use of HD I've seen so far with great colours and a strong, confident approach to the design – think Scarface goes to Moulin Rouge as directed by Mario Bava. And one should applaud the film for its ambition. It's nice to see an Australian film really take some risks and try something different. But ultimately it's a hollow, unengaging experience that seems to be trying too hard to shock its audience and ends up boring them instead. Maybe they should play it alongside Book of Revelation as two films that should have rocked us but didn't. Disappointing.
12 out of 19 people found the following review useful: Interesting concept turned into a tragic, deluded and awful nightmare, 23 October 2006 Author: Matthew Murphy from Australia
An interesting concept turned into carnage...My first seeing feature from Geoffrey Wright (Romper Stomper), When i first took interest in it, it seemed at the time an interesting concept...Shakespere + Aussie Film + Gothic setting + Melbourne GanglandA very odd mixed that turned into a disastrous piece of Aussie cinema that gives my country a bad name...Pros: -Interesting conceptCons: -Waste of a good cast -Stuffed and stupid plot -Crooked camera angles -Not much variety of locations -Crap use of Shakespearian diologueOverall: Australia's worst attempt of a Shakespere film, Stick to Baz Lurhman...or Romper Stomper (WARNING: That film is dangerous)
4 out of 4 people found the following review useful: 'All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players', 28 October 2007 Author: gradyharp from United States
It is refreshing to rest assured that Shakespeare remains a viable writer and no matter how his plays are manipulated or 'updated' or altered or interpreted, his majesty of the English language remains intact and the impact of his ideas and words sustain even the most bizarre reconsiderations. Such, for this viewer, is the case of MACBETH as condensed for the screen by writer/actress Victoria Hill and directed with intensity and sensitivity of communication by Geoffrey Wright. The result may seem to be a bloody mad feud suggesting a majority of the teen driven films of today, but consider the source: imagining Shakespeare's MACBETH without the gore would mean the meat had been removed.Transferred from Scotland to Melbourne, Australia, the well-known fight for kingship among the Scots is transposed to be the turf struggle for supremacy in the underworld gangland of Melbourne. The script and the direction make this transposition work, using the original dialog from the play, placing it in the voices and bodies of an all-Australian cast, to the point that the allegiance of the actors as to place is far less important than the telling of a powerful tale of ambition. Sam Worthington makes an enigmatic yet strong Macbeth, well paired by Victoria Hill as his conniving and ultimately mad wife Lady Macbeth: the two form a chemistry that serves the original intent of the author well. The many characters who rise and fall in the wake of the ambition of Macbeth tend to blend a bit because of the condensation of the script, but Gary Sweet as the doomed Duncan, Steve Batoni as Banquo, and Lachy Hulme as Macduff are particularly fine. The three witches whose predictions drive the play here become nude seductresses and are well interpreted by Miranda Nation, Chloe Armstrong, and Kate Bell.The battle scenes are appropriately gruesome and the musical score that accompanies this film is an odd mixture of rock and piano transcriptions of Beethoven symphony movements. With the bracing cinematography by Will Gibson it all works well. Unfortunately the Shakespearean language can become lost with the heavy Aussie accents and subtitles would have been helpful. But if your television set has that subtitle option available, this small defect can be overcome. Yes, it helps to know the original play well in order to fully appreciate the transposition, but the script and cast and director make a fine case for involving even the uninitiated into the power of MACBETH. Worth your time, this. Grady Harp
7 out of 10 people found the following review useful: eh, 3 December 2007 Author: phlsphr42 from United States
A very hyped-up, slick, edgy reinterpretation.They've fallen into the "because it's modern, it has to be hyped-up, slick, etc." trap."Romeo and Juliet" carried this idea off much more successfully, but I really think it's time we move beyond the two extremes here (period piece vs. edgy film).Just because this is a "modern" retelling, doesn't mean the movie has to look like a magazine ad, or have anything to do with drugs or guns.If the trappings were as subtle as the honeyed words, Macbeth would be a far more powerful film. As it is, read your Shakespeare. Read it out loud. Ask your Oxford dictionary some questions. Skip the film. Or don't, but you've been warned.Sorry for the super-long review. IMDb made me do it.
7 out of 10 people found the following review useful: 10 for Shakespeare, 9 for production.....make the whole a 4!, 7 August 2007 Author: stalker vogler from Xanadu
The story of Macbeth was one of the most successful Shakespeare ever wrote. This may be due to some features that place it close to the slasher genre, murder, murder, kill, kill, gallons of blood, a tense sexual relation between the main characters etc. More than this, the original play is very appealing taking into consideration the length (it's only half the size of Hamlet) and the focus on Macbeth for whom we are constrained to care in spite of his bloody nature. The play would seem ideal to base a movie on. Not so lengthy it gives the directors the possibility to explore it's many levels, a good actor can play the role of his lifetime, the film has deep meaning in any historical period. Unfortunately this has not been the case with Macbeth. Polanski's version comes quite close but it insists too much on the medieval period. Welles' film is too personal, with an interesting twist towards totalitarianism, the 1990 or so TV version is too shallow. This 2006 movie is no exception. It is very far from a Shakespeare film, but it is interesting to see how the director understood the story and where he places it in contemporary life. No knights in shiny armor but gangsters in shiny cars. A lot of drugs and trippy music replace the dread of night in the original play. The idea of Macbeth is so simple that to take and implant it in modern day life doesn't need Shakespeare at all. The worst part in the film are the lines. Most of the poignant scenes of the play, such as the dagger scene are trimmed so much they seem pointless. Replacing the knocks in the door with doorbells and horses with cars seems funny. If they wanted to make a movie about power and its temptation they could have done it easily without Shakespeare. This Macbeth seems to be a looser with a brain injury not a valiant warrior, brave and ambitious that wants power so much he is prepared to to kill and who gets caught up in a net of fears and despair. The movie doesn't make clear what drives Lady Macbeth to madness, it doesn't give a reason why some of the characters should fear Macbeth and his "terror" (since there is no hereditary ascension to the throne, what with no throne and all) and it places Macbeth in an awkward position, since the leadership of a gang is as far from kingship as this whole movie is far from any Shakespeare. In conclusion, we have two superimposed ideas that never quite meet making this a film that's ultimately pointless.... Stand not upon the order of your going but go!
7 out of 10 people found the following review useful: Macbeth - worth a watch, 15 September 2006 Author: thepyromaniacs from Australia
I agree there is something lacking in this Macbeth, but i don't think its in Sam Worthington's acting. I thought Macbeth was suitably insane and very hot. wasn't so impressed with lady Macbeth, or the gratuitous nudity. also, Mick malloy was downright odd trying to be serious... maybe we just can't get our head around it because we know what he's usually like. i don't know. and yes, it is very bloody, but how exactly you're meant to make Macbeth without a large amount of blood is beyond me. some graphic violence is involved, not for the very faint of stomach. best character i reckon was Fleance, even thought he doesn't really say much. all in all, i thought it was worth seeing, good, but not mindbogglingly fantastic. i gave it 7.
16 out of 28 people found the following review useful: Melbourne Macbeth, 20 August 2006 Author: shatteredbluedreams from Hell!
The famous Macbeth play is uprooted from old Britain to 2005 Melbourne. The transplant is only successful with immunosuppressant drugs, i.e. & e.g. I was quite melancholy depressed when I saw this movie. The front half of the theatre was empty; sitting in the first occupied row in the centre of the theatre, the view of the dark emptiness blended with the mood of the film.Rather than the cloud world of kings and queens and nobles, this Macbeth is set in the glamorously untouchable underworld. Guns and drugs and lots of unhappy good-looking people. That kind of stuff. A modern day tyrant king and his world could have been paralleled with a representation of some of the most powerful and wealthy people in the modern world, rather than a petty crime lord. Oh well.Initially the movie is violent nasty crime. As it goes on it becomes more and more surreal. The hit men and thugs that play for modern lords and nobles seem to more and more live in an enchanted mediaeval world albeit decorated with guns and motorcycles and televisions and security cameras and mobile phones. The strange Shakespeare speech seems less and less ridiculous, more fitting and real. This is true for the weaker actors and stronger actors both.Macbeth is played by Sam Worthington. He struggles with the Shakespeare dialogue sometimes but he is charismatic, enticing; he does seem like a brave champion with a dark side. Victoria Hill does a similar job as his wife, the Lady Macbeth. She splutters the dialogue sometimes yet always seems to actually be the Lady Macbeth. She's unhappy and cold and charming and manipulative. Gary Sweet is very good as Duncan. Steve Bastoni, Lachy Hulme and Kat Stewart all are very convincing. Mick Molloy drew unintentional laughs of recognition even though he is very good. A famous Australian comedian, he is just right as one of the menacing cutthroats. Bob Franklin and Kym Gyngell are two other famous Australian comedians with small roles well performed.The film looks very polished and professional from a production standpoint. The film is actually a bit too flashy and aesthetically oriented. The famous psychological struggles of Macbeth and the Lady Macbeth are skimped over and caricatured. Ambiguous things are made unequivocal and one of the most memorable parts of the entire play, involving Lady Macbeth and her hands, is rushed by so quickly that it's almost skipped by entirely.Overall this production has the same depth of a poor adaptation of a famous book, comic or TV show. Most everything famous about the play is included in some form but not in an emotionally involving or mentally engrossing way. At all. This film is worth seeing once.
7 out of 11 people found the following review useful: Watchable!, 17 September 2006 Author: Bono Cudgney from Australia
Sam Worthington has an interesting take on the character of Macbeth but overall his performance was surprisingly compelling. There's some really good and some really not so good aspects to this film. Firstly, It's all shot with HD cameras, which is a fairly brave move as it's an emerging discipline and I think was managed rather well *mostly* I really am unable to comment with any authority on the accuracy or delivery of the lines, not having read or seen Macbeth, but apart from a few almost comically ocker Aussie delivered lines, it was handled with a fair degree of finesse and even didn't feel out of place for the majority of the movie.The action scenes (of which there are surprisingly many) are well choreographed and shot.. with the exception of the big finale schlock-fest, which seems entirely shot in slow-motion and to be honest felt like it was more a bad remake of the ending of scarface than Macbeth.The only other, fairly minor gripe I had was with the soundtrack.. which felt like it could have needed some more money/polishing/talent. Nice effort but not at all satisfying.
Add another review
