Chunks of mud and drops of blood fly across bleak, gray skies and craggy highlands in super slow motion. (Adam Arkapaw, the cinematographer, also shot the great Aussie indie “Animal Kingdom” as well as Kurzel’s debut feature, “Snowtown.”) The look of it is so richly rough-hewn, you’ll feel as if you could reach out and touch it, even as the characters’ actions become increasingly repulsive.
Macbeth (2015) After murdering King Duncan (David Thewlis) and seizing the throne, Macbeth (Michael Fassbender) becomes consumed with guilt and paranoia as the tyrannical ruler of Scotland. Macbeth is a 2015 British-French film drama film based on William Shakespeare's play Macbeth. The film was directed by Justin Kurzel from a screenplay adapted by Jacob Koskoff, Todd Louiso, and Michael Lesslie. It stars Michael Fassbender in the title role and Marion Cotillard as Lady Macbeth. Macbeth is the story of a fearless warrior and inspiring leader brought low by ambition and desire. A thrilling interpretation of the dramatic realities of the times and a reimagining of what.
This “Macbeth” also grabs you with the charismatic presence of its two stars, Michael Fassbender and Marion Cotillard. Fassbender has made a career out of playing complicated, tormented figures, in movies ranging from “Hunger” to “Shame” to “12 Years a Slave.” The murder and madness of Macbeth are his bread and butter. Still, the danger that lurks beneath his lean, cool good looks gives his Macbeth an especially unsettling air. Cardcaptor sakura clear card watch online. Cotillard, meanwhile, has an otherworldly quality that makes her menacing—a quiet intensity in those enormous eyes and a standoffishness that makes her seem unpredictable, even though we’re all-too aware of the devious plot her Lady Macbeth has in store.
In case it’s been a while since high school English class, or since you’ve watched previous film adaptations of “Macbeth” by Roman Polanski or Orson Welles: In 11th-Century Scotland, the great warrior Macbeth, Thane of Glamis, receives a prophecy from three witches that he will be king someday. (Kurzel’s version actually gives us a fourth witch for fun.) His miserable and driven wife urges him to expedite the process by killing King Duncan (David Thewlis) and seizing the crown for himself. None of this goes down as easily as he’d hoped.
This is a massive oversimplification, of course—and Kurzel’s “Macbeth,” adapted by Jacob Koskoff, Michael Lesslie and Todd Louiso and running just under two hours, does feel a bit truncated. If you’re not already somewhat familiar with Shakespeare’s tragedy, this incarnation isn’t about to go out of its way to provide much context or explain why certain characters matter. But in an intriguing contrast, while the scale of the battles and the scenery is enormous and awe-inspiring, some of the more famous moments and lines arrive in understated fashion in intimate spaces.
This document contains a complete Azada: Elementa game walkthrough featuring annotated screenshots from actual gameplay! We hope you find this information useful as you play your way through the game. Use the walkthrough menu below to quickly jump to whatever stage of the game. Apr 06, 2013 Big Fish Games Studios, along with Titus, summon you back to the deep mystery and magic of Azada. Use the official Strategy Guide to solve logic puzzles and unveil the hidden secrets buried in Uncle Argus`s library. The Azada: Ancient Magic Strategy Guide is written in a special format to keep the ending a surprise. Jun 29, 2007 Azada Tips & Tricks Walkthrough. Your mission in Azada, a new game from Big Fish Studios, is to free Titus, who has been trapped in a haunted room and bound by magical spells. To free Titus you must solve a series of puzzles, look for hidden. Azada walkthrough big fish games. Jan 05, 2013 Azada ™ Strategy Guide for iPad, iPhone, Android, Mac & PC! A detailed Strategy Guide made specifically to help you get through the game but not spoil the fun.! Welcome to the Azada: In Libro Walkthrough. Save the three worlds contained inside of a magical book in Azada: In Libro! Stop a dark magician from conquering Azada! Whether you use this document as a reference when things get difficult or as a road map to get you from beginning to end, we’re pretty sure you’ll find what you’re looking for.
Lady Macbeth’s guilt-riddled “Out, damned spot” soliloquy comes in the form of an early-morning, misty-white sleepwalk, her oft-quoted words a mere whisper in the sacred stillness of a spare chapel. It’s breathtaking. And later, Macbeth seems to be in a dreamlike state himself during the discovery he makes in the “Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow” monologue, delivering his lamentations about “sound and fury” with neither of the above. He’s already a shell of his former self at this point, and Fassbender makes his character’s despair as powerful as his ambition.
The score from the director’s brother, Jed Kurzel, adds to the pervasive feeling of unease; string-heavy and rather rustic, it enhances the eeriness of both the prophecies of the witches and the lingering of the dead. In this regard, Paddy Considine is especially well-cast as the doomed Banquo, Macbeth’s longtime friend who comes to an unsavory end.
What’s done is done, as Lady Macbeth says in futilely trying to reassure her husband. But the dead don’t have to like it.
Gripping, Intense, Beautifully shot, with Unforgettable Performances
stephendaxter14 October 2015
HAIL MACBETH, HAIL MACBETH, HAIL MACBETH.
WOW, that was a gripping, intense, beautifully shot film with unforgettable performances and has to be the best retellings of not only 'Macbeth' but all of Shakespeare's plays on screen. This movie did an incredibly amazing job at sticking to the source material whilst also incorporating a visually stunning cinematic style. It has a very interesting cinematic style using slow motion effects and sped up film in order to capture the emotions that the characters are feeling at every moment. I was in awe at how beautiful this film was, the wide shots of the landscapes were incredible whether there was something going on or nothing at all. And i don't know where the cgi in this film was if there was much at all because it all looks so incredibly real and grand and it only adds to the scope of the film. The movie's amazing cinematography is accompanied by many amazing performances including two of the best performances this year. Sean Harris and David Thewlis were standouts in their supporting roles as Macduff and Duncan and really displayed some of their best performances but the show was stolen by the two leads. Michael Fassbender and Marion Cotillard as Macbeth and Lady Macbeth were absolutely mind- blowing and amazing and encapsulated these characters as perfectly as you could get. They did incredible jobs at playing these extremely complex personalities and led me to see only Macbeth and Lady Macbeth, forgetting their previous roles. They pull of their monologues so well that you are fully engaged in what they are saying and can see that what they are feeling is not only expressed through what they are saying but just from the expressions on their faces. And Lady Macbeth's most iconic scene/monologue was represented so perfectly that it was one of the best and most gripping scenes in the film. The Oscar race is heating up and Fassbender and Cotillard have to be the front-runners for Best Actor and Actress, truly amazing. Having read the play a little while ago i was able to still recall many of the key events and know mostly what was coming up next. So hearing plenty of familiar lines from the play and seeing these scenes was incredibly rewarding. And reading the play i feel helped to follow along with what is happening at all times. But for someone unfamiliar with the story of Macbeth i think it might be a little hard to follow at times. This is definitely not a film where you can look away for even a minute and still know what is going on. If you miss a few lines of dialogue or zone out during a scene, when you zone back into the film you will probably be lost. The Shakespearean dialogue is probably going to be a barrier for people to understand and if you can't understand that dialogue you really won't like this film. But as i was saying i felt that if i hadn't read the play i would have been quite lost during the film. If you aren't paying careful attention and reading into even the most subtle of hints some scenes will seem random and you'll have no idea what is going on. So i think this is definitely not for general audiences who just want to relax and check out a film, it requires a fair amount of attention. So in the end, it is beautifully shot, intense, extremely well acted and a great adaptation of this incredible play. Maybe not for the general audience but any fans of the source material or lovers of film should love this movie. - 8.6/10
78 out of 107 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote. Mumbles And Mumbles
Permalink
AliceofX15 December 2015
Well it was certainly very artistic and certain parts were just gorgeous. However there is not much more to recommend Macbeth. The worst part to me was how the dialogue was spoken, or not spoken since it was mostly whispers and mumbles. Just mumbles and mumbles. Shakespeare's prose just begs to be enjoyed but here I couldn't understand what they were saying half the time.
Also they seemed to have no idea what to do with the talking parts and just tried to invent weird action scenes to go with them that felt out of place. Too theatrical is how I would describe this film. It tries to be realistic and set in historical times, but it just makes the theatrical stick out more in awkward ways. Performance wise there is nothing to complain about as everyone did a great job. Overall there are sparks of brilliance here but I just get the feeling that the makers gave up before reaching the goal and the final product is hence mediocre.
154 out of 224 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote. A Stunning And Savage Epic Drama
Permalink
Fantastic adaptation of Shakespeare's iconic tragedy, Justin Kurzel's drama is a stunning and well-crafted epic, featuring some unforgettable performances from Marion Cotillard, Paddy Considine, Sean Harris and of course, Michael Fassbender in the role of the savage tyrant, Macbeth. Joining the other great Shakespearean masters such as Olivier and Branagh, Kurzel has created a brutal and ambitious depiction, caught by the awe-inspiring cinematography of Adam Arkapaw. Featuring glorious locations across the bleak and wintery Highlands of Scotland, 'Macbeth' is a film adaptation that even the great playwright himself would be proud of.
Macbeth Movie 2015 Watch Online Free
97 out of 143 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote. Marion Cotillard and Michael Fassbender excel in Justin Kurzel's thrillingly savage interpretation of the Scottish Play.
Permalink
nsharath0095 September 2015
As the shortest, sharpest and most stormily violent of William Shakespeare's tragedies, 'Macbeth' may be the most readily cinematic: The swirling mists of the Highlands, tough to fabricate in a theater, practically rise off the printed page. So it's odd that, while 'Romeo and Juliet' and 'Hamlet' get dusted off at least once a generation by filmmakers, the Scottish Play hasn't enjoyed significant bigscreen treatment since Roman Polanski's admirable if tortured 1971 version. The wait for another may be even longer after Justin Kurzel's scarcely improvable new adaptation: Fearsomely visceral and impeccably performed, it's a brisk, bracing update, even as it remains exquisitely in period. Though the Bard's words are handled with care by an ideal ensemble, fronted by Michael Fassbender and a boldly cast Marion Cotillard, it's the Australian helmer's fervid sensory storytelling that makes this a Shakespeare pic for the ages — albeit one surely too savage for the classroom.
90 out of 134 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote. poetry in motion
Permalink
PadmeAgnes27 September 2015
peaceful candles on violent faces - rough vision of emotions deep - motion matched the poetry - of wondering thoughts to keep.
a master piece combining theatre - excellent acting and visual art - authenticity in dress and location - even Shakespeare would take heart. Michael Fassbender made Macbeth, raw yet vulnerable which solved an issue I always had with this character. How can a strong war lord completely losing it? He portrayed Macbeth in a such a way that made me feel, that he truly (twistingly) believed it was also for survival and not just for simple ambition. He solved it for me. At the same time, I always thought of Lady Macbeth as a conniving, over-ambitious gold-digger. She still was yet at the same time I saw a strong person who helped surviving despite her pain and loss. Marion Cotillard's acting was so pure and emotionally complex, awesome. A Scottish friend who loves his country's history, was pleasantly surprised regarding the relative authenticity of highlander living and praised the costumes: no tartan, but Roman type with leather/metal battle uniforms which would be likely correct considering that Macbeth lived in the 11th century. The music was powerful, supporting the Shakespearian lines, subtly giving them more impact. @Sales: subtitles would be useful even for people whose first language is English .. although it would reduce the magnitude of this visual spectacle. This films was everything I was hoping for when seeing the trailer. It was a piece of art with moving pictures and words. Even if you don't like Shakespeare, it's an amazing film. A very high 9 score !
76 out of 118 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote. Full of sound and fury, signifying nothingWarning: Spoilers
Permalink
The most recent of the many screen versions of the Scottish Play, this is a truly abysmal adaptation of one of Shakespeare's finest works. Justin Kurzel's direction is appalling. He seems to be more interested in artistic gimmicks such as the pointless and distracting slow motion in the first battle scene and in showing blood and guts than in the raw emotion and psychology of the play. It is an exercise in flash over substance, which comes across as pretentious. It is as if he is trying to convince us that he is a great filmmaker. Well, he succeeded in convincing me of quite the opposite, I'm afraid. Not only that but the film looks cheap. At one point, I was worried that there was something wrong with the DVD as the camera work was so shoddy. Sadly, there wasn't. I could not help comparing the would-be affecting battle scenes to the powerful and gritty ones seen in Kenneth Branagh's version of 'Henry V' and I could also not help finding them wanting. All I kept thinking was that it would have been considerably better if Branagh, my favourite living director, had been given the job. Rumour has it that he is considering his own version and I really hope that that's true.
The shots of Scottish scenery are nice but so what? I could easily just go back to Scotland (where I lived for a year) and see them in person without suffering through this. Kurzel's direction is utterly lacking in energy, style or flair and, if he understands the play, there's not much indication of it on screen. Although if you like fog, you're in luck. Presumably this was intended to make the film moody and atmospheric but it is merely another entry in its litany of failures. This is the 24th Shakespearean adaptation that I have watched since January 2015 so I am a bit of an aficionado of the Bard's work. I am afraid that this is the worst Shakespearean adaptation that I have ever seen. I was not enamoured of either Orson Welles' lacklustre 1948 version or Roman Polanski's creepy and off-putting 1971 version but I preferred both of them to this. 'Macbeth' is one of my favourite Shakespearean plays but I have yet to see a screen version that does it justice. I'd sell my soul to be able to see Laurence Olivier's unmade 1950s version which would have starred himself and his then wife Vivien Leigh. Richard Burton and Sean Connery's unmade versions would have probably been worthwhile as well. This version, however, is a masterclass in how not to make Shakespeare for the screen. I can't remember the last time that I was so utterly and bitterly disappointed by a film. Shakespearean adaptations live or die on the strength of their cast and this one suffers from poor performances from otherwise good actors. The film stars Michael Fassbender in an atypically bad performance as the Thane of Glamis and later of Cawdor whose vaulting ambition propels him onto the throne of Scotland. Fassbender makes for an extremely uninvolving Macbeth and he often seems more bored than anything. He is completely unable to convey the character's inner conflict, self- doubt or lack of strength and is particularly weak during the crucial 'Dagger of the mind' and 'Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow' soliloquies. I would have much preferred to see his 'X-Men' co-star James McAvoy in the role and not just because he is actually Scottish. Marion Cotillard is better but only marginally so since Lady Macbeth is nowhere near as compelling or even interesting a character in the film as she is in the play. The supporting cast includes Paddy Considine, David Hayman, David Thewlis, Sean Harris, Maurice Roëves and Jack Reynor but only Hayman and Harris are particularly impressive or even memorable and then only in small doses. Seylan Baxter, Lynn Kennedy, Kayla Fallon and Amber Rissmann play the Witches but you would not know that there was anything the least bit supernatural about them in spite of the fact that was rather what Shakespeare was going for. Presumably at the (poor) direction of Kurzel, most of the actors mumble their lines rather than enunciate clearly. Another bad idea poorly executed. I will say this about Kurzel though: at least he's consistent. Overall, this is a simply deplorable version of a fantastic play. If I were Shakespeare, I would want my name taken off it. After Duncan's murder, Lady Macbeth says what's done cannot be undone. Well, I wish that I could find a way to undo watching this travesty. There's an old saying in Hollywood: 'You can make a bad film out of a good script but you can't make a good film out of a bad script.' This may not be a Hollywood film but it is a textbook example of the first part of that aphorism. This will undoubtedly be one of my Bottom Five of 2016. At the moment, it is No. 2 after the Chinese film 'Pingguo', which was unleashed on the unsuspecting English speaking world as 'Lost in Beijing'. Hopefully, unlike Duncan and later the title character himself, the film 'Macbeth' will not be usurped.
18 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote. Shakespeare - it's about the language, stupid!
Permalink
vstefani-260-40487218 December 2015
I wanted so much to love this movie! A stellar cast, wonderful source material, what could go wrong. What went right was the visuals; the film looks great. Locations, costumes, cinematography, all are just splendid. But all that is spoiled because most of the time you can't understand what the actors are saying! Other critics commented on this issue but I went anyway, hoping they were wrong. They weren't. And there is simply no excuse. I've seen all these actors in other roles and they know how to enunciate quite well, so what went wrong? It's Shakespeare, people! The words matter! Now, I don't know if this was sloppy sound editing or deliberate obfuscation, but the result was that a movie that worked magnificently on every other level was totally spoiled, a disappointment to viewers and I'm sure an embarrassment to the cast and, I hope, the filmmakers.
90 out of 146 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote. What was done, was done well.
Permalink
brendandevere2 October 2015
The world of William Shakespeare can be a tricky road to navigate, especially if you are not educated in his tediously difficult language that arrogantly lies in waiting, sprawled across the pages of his many plays. If you are neither a Thespian or English Literature Graduate (which I am clearly not), you will struggle to understand the famous playwrights narrative. It just might be easier to learn French or German at the local community college than it is to painfully study what Shakespeare is actually trying to say. I have seen just a handful of the Elizabethan era writers work; the tragic love story of Romeo and Juliet, Julius Caesar and the very puzzling comedy, A Midsummer Night's Dream. Each time I came away scratching my head, my feeble brain trying its best to piece together the events that had actually taken place. Through all the confusion, I still found myself enjoying the fragments of dialogue and story that made sense to me. This is why I was drawn to another of Shakespeare's great tragedies, even though I knew I would be sitting through nearly two hours of theatre without the use of subtitles.
Macbeth is a well known story of ambition, murder, rage and tyranny but what I was looking for in Justin Kurzel's interpretation was a connection that an uneducated sloth like myself could get from a tale that had four hundred years of retelling. I wanted to feel the characters emotions and I wanted to visualise their world. I wanted to be able to identify Macbeth's tragic blind ambition and lust for power. More importantly, I wanted a tangible belief in the story being presented to me. Kurzel knows his audience well because he has directed one of the greatest Shakespearean plays ever put onto film. The brutal and bloody world that Kurzel has visioned, creates an authentic and powerful atmosphere that never deserts the viewer, allowing the famous story to illustrate itself effortlessly across the screen. Half the battle is won. Accompanied by an outstandingly appropriate score sets the scene for a film that would not look out of place amongst the very best movie releases this year. The eerie and sombre acoustics help keep the audience fixed to their seats as the savage tragedy of Macbeth unfolds in all its brutal glory. Michael Fassbender (Macbeth), plays the character to perfection and it is his performance alone that makes it easier for the common man to understand Shakespeare's historic language. Fassbender is thoroughly engaged in his role and every word he delivers oozes emotion. Marion Cotillard is equally impressive as the conniving Lady Macbeth. Cotillard was an interesting choice to play the femme fatal, but she has proved here that she can rise to any challenge. This performance is a very colourful feather in a exceptional cap. Her Lady Macbeth helped me to realise that she became somewhat of a victim to the King she had created. 'What is done, is done.' I am quite sure that she didn't envisage her warrior husband to become the tyrant that he became. Adding to the list of superb performances is Sean Harris, the vengeful and savage Macduff, who is hell bent on ending Macbeth's reign as the Scottish Monarch. Great little cameos by David Thewlis (King Duncan) and Elisabeth Debicki (Lady Macduff), along with brilliant visionary direction by Justin Kurzel will give the uneducated hordes a chance to witness one of Shakespeare's masterpieces.
63 out of 101 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote. Five Word Review: Extraordinarily Acted Gritty Shakespearean Drama
Permalink
BillSims2812 October 2015
William Shakespeare's most famous (and quotable) tragedy has not had a major big-screen adaptation that has stayed faithful to the play in many a year. Justin Kurzel's film attempts to provide a definitive cinematic version of the iconic play with this gritty, war-based work of drama starring Michael Fassbender (Oscar-nominated for '12 Years a Slave, 2013) in the eponymous role and Marion Cotillard, who won the award for her role in Edith Piaf biopic 'La Vie en Rose,' 2007.
As a quick word of warning: if you've not read any Shakespeare, then I'd advise you not to watch this film. Rife with Shakespearean language told through coarse Scottish accents, this is not a story easy to follow for those unfamiliar with it. Having studied the Scottish play in school, I can bring you up to speed if you're unaware - Macbeth is a Scottish thane (equivalent of a lord) who sees a premonition of witches after winning a battle. The witches' prophecies trigger a spiral which sends Macbeth beyond sanity. And a character-based war drama is, in my opinion, the perfect direction to go in for a Macbeth adaptation. I always thought in school of what a good film Macbeth would be if made with sweeping battle scenes and a rough, gritty take on the tale. This is what Kurzel does, to great success. The first thing to note is the acting. Easily his best role (which is saying something,) Michael Fassbender portrays the flawed deterioration of the eponymous protagonist with gravitas yet often relatable humanity, even as his deeds become more and more ghastly (a scene with stakes is especially hard to watch.) It will be interesting to see how Fassbender's upcoming performance in Danny Boyle's Steve Jobs biopic compares to this. An Oscar nod is almost inevitable; it would be a travesty for him not to gain a nomination for this. Marion Cotillard is not to be over- shadowed in a role which would require a considerable lack of talent to play badly. Luckily the French actress has that talent in spades and at first she brings to the table hardened resolve before the true extent of Macbeth's madness is revealed and her acting changes accordingly with an impeccable change-over. Also good is the haunting score and stunning Scottish scenery, bleak yet beautiful in a cold, austere way. The supporting turns from David Thewlis as King Duncan, Sean Harris as Macduff and Paddy Considine as Banquo are also all fantastic. In addition the ending is unexpected, but in a good way. There's little bad to be said about the technique that went into the process of making Macbeth. The only things which detract are the admittedly shallow complaint that the dialogue, and therefore the story, is often hard to understand due to the coarse accents and antiquated language. This does sometimes have the effect of ruining scenes due to being taken out of it trying to understand the speech. Also, the slow motion is used rather poorly. Too much to be used effectively, with the slow motion lingering a little too long mid-battle, but not enough to be part of the visual style like Zack Snyder's 300. However, apart from this Justin Kurzel's Macbeth is a masterfully made film that may not win over those unfamiliar with the source material but will be a true treat for fans of Shakespeare and cinema. 79/100.
18 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote. a muddled effort that fundamentally misunderstands the play
Permalink
guycox6514 December 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Not sure what I just watched. Every scene was cold and lifeless. Lady Macbeth could not decide if she were Scottish or English.. mostly she was just shell shocked and incapable of any emotion, particularly the passion she should have for her husband. Macbeth's castle, where he is supposed to defend the king, is worse than a poor Mongol's circle of yurts. Any wandering cow could have passed the tent entrance and gored the king to death.
The most important scenes are turned on their heads for no apparent reason and to the great diminishment of the work. The dagger doesn't float. It is carried by a ghost over to the king's bed. The King's ghost skips the feast perhaps the most important scene in the play - clearly spelled out by the bard. No ghost occupies Macbeth's chair. The director favors having a less important ghost at a side table, thereby removing the force of King Duncan's presence and the cause of Macbeth's madness. The most intriguing prophesy in all of Shakespeare - Birnam wood moving to Dunsinane- - it goes up in smoke, literally. The forest doesn't move, so there is no reason for Macbeth to fear failure, yet he falls anyway, which makes it a pointless and inaccurate prophecy. So why not cut it out? In the end Macbeth is replaced (as king) by a child killer. Good does not prevail. The new king takes up a sword and goes chasing a child across the moors, despite the fact that Shakespeare goes to great lengths to establish Prince Malcolm as an honest and mild virgin. The film is beautiful, in many respects, but it is a scandal to say it is Shakespeare's play - or that it is good. Roman Polanski did a version that was true to the play. This version felt like Peter Jackson took over and tried to make it more-better. We are not amused.
47 out of 74 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote. Hell Is Murky and So Is Scotland
Permalink
TheExpatriate70010 January 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Macbeth is a beautifully shot but in many respect weak adaption of Shakespeare's play. Although the major performers give it their best, they are undermined by at times odd choices in staging by the director. The result is pretty but ultimately underwhelming.
On one hand, the Scottish play has never been more beautiful. The cinematography makes excellent use of lighting, fog, smoke, and more fog. Scotland has never been gloomier, nor have battles looked more ominous. The excellent camera work is complemented by good use of the landscape of the Scottish highlands. The acting, while not mind blowing, does the material justice. Michael Fassbender embodies Macbeth's descent into madness, slowly transitioning from reluctant killer into bloodthirsty tyrant. Although her performance is less showy, Marion Cotillard does well with her role as Lady Macbeth. She is helped by some changes from the original play that make her shift from ruthless killer to guilt ridden maniac more plausible. However, this is undermined by some odd choices in direction, which range from distracting to outright ruining scenes. For instance, whenever a character is talking, the camera zooms into his or her face, to the point that it borders on self-parody. Moreover, in some scenes the overall murkiness is overdone, as in the climactic fight between Macbeth and Macduff where it is hard to tell what is going on through all the smoke. One especially poorly executed scene is the banquet where Banquo's ghost appears. When Macbeth talks to the hired killers, he practically announces the murder to the entire room. While the convention of the stage whisper works in the theater, it makes no sense in a cinema production and renders Macbeth's attempts to feign surprise at Banquo's failure to appear comical. In the end, this flawed execution undermines the beautiful camera work and effective performances.
14 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink ![]()
Sleepin_Dragon15 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Being made to study the Scottish play in School, I had always hoped one day it would come in handy, and on this occasion finally it did. I didn't think i'd be going to the Cinema to see Macbeth, but what a pleasant and rewarding surprise.
The story and plot are well known, so it falls on the two leads Michael Fassbender and Marion Cotillard to bring the goods, both do they!! Fantastic performances from both, he is outstanding, strong, powerful, charismatic, when he is on the screen, you watch! Cotillard too, she was just so good, she made Lady M very believable, so manipulative. Great performances from the supporting cast too, Sean Harris in particular, that guy has got something. The locations were superb, beautiful and hugely dramatic, so fitting to the big production. The music was excellent, I loved it, I'm not sure if it was the Cinema's issue, but on a few occasions the dialogue seemed muffled, and was difficult to make out. Excellent, 9/10
30 out of 46 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote. Phenomenal
Permalink
NeonRaptor18 October 2015
I recently saw Macbeth with Michael Fassbender and Marion Cotillard and directed by Justin Kurzel and is easily my number 1 film of the year so far. While the Shakespearean dialogue may be hard to follow at times, it doesn't matter as this film is a visual masterpiece and not only i the way of shot types but also in the use of colour (which the end scene uses in a truly jaw dropping sequence). The cinematography in Macbeth is truly something to marvel at and is perfectly accompanied by magnificent performances from the 2 leads and also the rest of the cast. Fassbender was born to play this role and portrays Macbeth in a powerful and emotionally engrossing way and Cotillard is a beautiful and faultless Lady Macbeth (she has a great monologue in one scene which gave me goosebumps). Another element that I loved was the score, wonderfully haunting and powerful and matches the scenery and setting of the film. Overall, Do. Not. Miss. This. It is spectacular and I've probably hyped it up too much now but what ever its great. If I had to fault it I would saw that there are some iconic lines from the original play that aren't used in the film which was disappointing but it probably wouldn't have fit with the tone so maybe it was for the best.
12 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote. Complete and utter disappointment
Permalink
f-scheike10 January 2016
Wow. What a complete and utter disappointment. From the moment that I saw the rumours and the pictures popping up around the web that Michael Fassbender was to play Macbeth, one of the most brilliantly written characters of all time, I was all over the place of excitement. The imagery looked stunning and anything that Fassbender touches becomes gold. To follow it up with a brilliantly cast Paddy Considine as Banquo and, in my opinion a little too young, Marion Cotillard as Lady Macbeth I thought we were set for success.
The opening is harrowing, beautiful and brilliant and it really sucks you in to their world. From the first moment costumes, props and carpentry look great, cinematography beyond beautiful and it really sets the mood. For nothing. What follows is a drawn out, slow-paced, pretentious interpretation of the text that loses it's insanity and rhythm completely. Now I'm all for revisioning and reimagining, and there's a LOT of room for that in the play Macbeth, so I was excited, but utterly disappointed. It's an orgy of meaningless violence in slow motion, topped off with so many close ups of blood and vomit that doesn't serve a purpose, sprinkled with, what I can only imagine being a directors 'vision' with complete disregard of his actors talents. The 'redeeming part' is it's beautiful imagery, but everything else pushes this movie down to the very bottom of my list. To cite Macbeth himself, 'It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.'
62 out of 107 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote. What bloody man is that?
Permalink
gsygsy29 September 2015
Macbeth Movie 2015 Compared To Play
A visually impressive, intelligently adapted, atmospheric version of a very famous play. Michael Fassbender is stunning in the title role. What an actor he is! Brutal and sensitive, cruel and caressing, he handles the verse effortlessly, the fights viciously, and he radiates a huge wattage of charisma. He and Marion Cottilard make a convincingly sexy couple. She is not obvious casting - usually the role is the province of more steely performers. All the same, she makes a success of it, forceful in the electrically effective banquet scene, and touchingly melancholy as she drifts into the deep depression of her mad scene.
The supporting cast is terrific, the technical side superb, the score by the director's brother mesmerising. I have a couple of quibbles: the emphasis on interiority makes the pace feel insufficiently varied, and so much close-miking gives the impression that too much of the text is whispered. But on the whole this is a bravely envisioned, powerfully acted movie.
21 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote. 'Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely' (Lord Acton), in Shakespeare's Scottish play of assassination, set in scenes of blood and mud.
Permalink
Elizabethan play-write William Shakespeare staged plays of great historical events. Necessarily limited by the stage-setting, these were the masterpieces of carefully crafted words and speeches that we now consider as Shakespearian English. Thus this reviewer considered the film version of Shakespeare's Scottish play as perhaps being too wordy and stagey to go and see. However, I was beguiled by the trailer, that seemed to suggest lots of action and battles. Alas, this was not to be. However, this dull, but worthy product, is a fine showcase for Shakespeare, Scotland, and the performing thespians of the film.
This Scottish-themed film does open up on the battlefield. There are some interesting scenes as the warriors prepare for battle and the battle itself is shown well. (A later battle also has some interesting two-sworded battle scenes). During the battle, witches appear, and make a prophecy about the King of Scotland. The film tells the story of an attempt to fulfil the prophecy and of the aftermath of that attempt. The male lead is played by Michael Fassbender and the female lead playing opposite him is Marion Cottilard. They are superb in their roles and must have actually suffered hard for their craft. Location shooting for the film was in the Isle of Skye in Scotland. This reviewer has paddled in water there, and can assure readers that even in the height of summer, it is like putting your feet into buckets of ice. Yet, we have Mr Fassbender in water in a scene, and Miss Cottilard, far from her native France, is seen scampering about barefoot and lightly dressed. Bravo! it should be said that there is little sight of the summer in this story. There are many, many, scenes of bleak mountains and bogs and moorland. The climate is cold and wet, with swirling fogs often covering the rough terrain. The scenes are in fact very bleak and compare with those in the Viking film 'Valhalla Rising' (2009). Elizabeth Debicki, who also appeared in this year of 2015 in 'Everest', here does a standout scene, as relevant to us now as it was in the era it was set in. Sean Harris, who like Michael Fassbender, also appeared in Prometheus (2012), here delivers a brilliant and powerful performance. There is a scene in the 1995 Scottish film 'Braveheart' where William Wallace is floored in shock when he encounters the English champion. Here, in this film, Sean Harris, similarly has his emotions plunged to the depths, more than once. His acting is superb throughout the film. David Thewlis seems to have an ability to really inhabit his roles. The source material, (book), for the film 'Seven Years in Tibet' (1997) seems to show he got the part just right. So too, for his OTT role in the 2010 film 'Mr Nice' which again matched the source material in the book of the same name. In this year of 2015 though, his performances have seemed more subdued but still true to the source material. I found his portrayal in 'Legend' to be fascinating. Here, in this film, he takes a part and makes it very believable. The part he plays is very like one today and he seems to play it like that too. There are some obvious differences too in that role of course, but that is the essence of the plot of this Scottish film. We also get good supporting roles from Paddy Considine, David Hayman and Jack Reynor. Much of the location shooting is on the Isle of Skye in Scotland, though I did spot Bamburgh Castle too. Ely Cathedral is also featured. The cathedral scenes are spectacular as are the castle interiors, however the bulk of the film is shot in realistically grim surroundings. Our thespians spend most of their time wallowing in blood and mud, and the climate and terrain are both as gloomy and grim as the storyline. The use of hand-held cameras does detract though. As do some of the special-effects that take us out of the moment. This film is a good introduction to Shakespeare and his Scottish play. Political students can learn lessons from this story today, just as they can from 'I Claudius'. For those interested in the subjects of assassination, conspiracy, politics and statecraft, then the writings of the Renaissance Florentine statesman and writer Niccolo Machiavelli may also be of interest. This film of the Scottish play serves as a good way to engage a modern audience and as such has been a worthwhile project. 9/10.
39 out of 65 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote. A must see and then again, and again..
Permalink
michbissy28 September 2015
![]()
I was lucky to see this in a cinema where no one spoke during the entire duration of the film (a rarity I find nowadays) - it may be because people were holding their breath in anticipation of what was to come next. Wow. Had me transfixed the entire way through. Those familiar lines no less haunting for the multiple times my eyes have seen them and my ears heard them. Some clever interpretation of the original text including additions that were only spoken of in the original play script. Some purists might not like these additions and interpretations but I found them equitable to the original. Fassbender was amazing. Understated where needed, alternately a powerhouse. I can and will watch again.
35 out of 59 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote. Fatuous
Permalink
ferdinand193220 January 2016
While the strongest features of this version: the locations, photography and production design, are quite outstanding the overall impression is less than memorable. It is afflicted by a meddling director, changes that serves little purpose or revelation in the end, and all the normal problems of cinematic adaptations of Shakespeare.
A major defect is the music which constantly scrapes – telling us that all things are seething with malignancy. It does, however strain the nerves like a dentist's drill, and is just as annoying. In essence that is the flaw with the whole thing, and certainly the first hour which is dour and dreary, though not in a good way because it's so simplistically portentous and saved only by the scenery and the light. The actors manage quite well, even if they speak in a very mannered sotto voce. In itself this is a weakness as it leads through most of the film to a vocal range that is very narrow. This pitch is evident between Macbeth and his wife as though all relationships are marked by the same register and it is necessarily identical between all parties. Paradoxically this approach leads Macbeth to be nearly unchanged from the beginning to the end, which is not how the play deals with the character. The important 'Tomorrow ' soliloquy is rendered lame by the continuity of the low voice which preceded it and so this speech is no different to the rest. The typical problem of all cinematic adaptations of Shakespeare is apparent here. The two forms, poetic drama and cinema are anathema to each other. The former requires words and once they are edited it's not Shakespeare but an etiolated revision, replaced by montage and glances; which compared to a great text, are of very little consequence. Kurosawa's Throne of Blood was another prism by which to see this drama but it was only cognate in the same plot and story, not the language, and stands in the same way as his superb Ran is to King Lear. There are several film versions of this play and now there are more filmed staged versions to view and to compare. This particular version looks quite pointless by comparison. It has made some changes, cut some parts, removed the small portion of vulgar humor which relieved the glowering doom, but in the end, it is rather fatuous.
19 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote. Best Shakespearean play put to film yet !
Permalink
jwilde65214 October 2015
My most favourite film ever, and I ask a lot, not since the Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford have I been moved so much, my only sour note was the film was too short, I could have indulged a little longer, especially the banquet scene. The soundtrack was sublime, the cinematography was on the level of Roger Deakins, (therefore the best), acting was outstanding from all quarters, location was exact, costumes were breathtaking, reminded me of my favourite designer Alexander McQueen. It had the right pace for the time in history too, my mind, body and soul were transported back to my ancestors, and all the way through I had spine chilling goose bumps. Thank you so much cast and crew ! ;)
14 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote. Strong Adaptation
Permalink
TimMeade4 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Studying Macbeth at school, I recall not being convinced when an army camouflaged itself with trees to bring Birnam Wood to Dunsinane thus enabling the witches' prophecy. For me, it always conjured an image of the Dad's Army platoon on manoeuvre in an English wood with twigs in their helmets. I doubt my rejection of this plot device ever caused Shakespeare to turn in his grave.
Nonetheless, director Justin Kurzel seems to share my misgivings. In an innovative way he adapts the text to improve greatly this scenario; it is cinematically spectacular while simultaneously bringing with it the portent of death. No spoilers, but it's a highlight of a film which is very well-paced and quite deliberately, with this exception, relentlessly dour in its approach – no glamour, no humour. The cinematography is subdued, the acting understated. It couldn't be further removed from Olivier's glorious Technicolor Henry V which, for me, remains the greatest screen Shakespeare. But the film has successfully found its niche and is a very worthy successor to the great adaptations of the mid- twentieth century.
14 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote. MacBeth mumbles and stares off into middle distance for nearly 2 hours.
Permalink
ifneid8 May 2016
When Shakespeare wrote his plays, he was writing for crowds of restless commoners who craved entertainment. He wrote captivating, expressive poetry for colorful characters to speak in telling magnificent and moving stories. Unfortunately, Hollywood directors have entered a new era of movie making where excessive lip movement or speaking above a mumble is out of style. Anyone who has seen the Mockingjay Trilogy will know what I mean. The words being mumbled seem to be incidental to the opportunity to film long lingering stares, someone standing in a field being wistful, a shot of horses grazing, curtains blowing in the wind, someone standing on a hillside being wistful. Meanwhile, time is passing, the audience is waiting for a story to be told but we are faced with more and more self indulgent cinematography. Everything that happens in this movie happens very, very slowly. Shakespeare didn't need clever cameramen, nor did he see any theatrical value in ten minutes of silent pondering.
To make the experience even less pleasant, the sound track is someone playing a cello with only one string. When I say 'playing' I mean whining like a petulant child, an unending drone that expresses nothing. The sound track is awful. As for the witches, an integral element in the story of MacBeth, they were about as interesting as suburban Wiccans at a baby shower. Once again, mumbled words through barely moving lips on expressionless faces made them seem more bored than chilling as they should be. If you want to see MacBeth, try one of the versions that came before this silly attempt to be clever.
24 out of 40 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote. Among the very best!
Permalink
mak-718346 October 2015
Sustained brooding crushing dread! From the superb cinematography of the perfect landscapes to the masterful performances of the principles this was a truly memorable cinema experience. We can only guess at what Shakespeare's reaction to the 'miracle' medium of cinema would be but I suspect, technology shock aside, he would have been moved by this splendid interpretation of his work. Fassbender and Cotillard are perfect. The decision to use the Black Cuillin on the Isle of Skye is inspired and the landscape becomes a star of the show too rather than just a background. I have witnessed some unfortunate 'adjustments' to Shakespeare's text over the years (principally in the theatre!) but the departures here fell naturally into place and felt by no means awkward. A stunning achievement by all concerned. If this film is not highly feted at awards time I'll eat my tartan!
26 out of 44 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote. Cinema meets Theatre
Permalink Macbeth Movie 2015 Witches
Antoiswrong6 January 2016
If you are going to the Cinema to watching Macbeth you just need to know one thing: Macbeth is a Tragedy written by Shakespeare; so you are going to see an ancient theatrical Tragedy on a screen. This is a good film in optical of the Drama, but you will dislike it if you are going for watching war, battle and fighting. I think Fassbender and Cotillard played very good their role, they are sublime in this film, because they have to explain all the Drama with only words and facial expressions, like they are in Theatre and not in Cinema. The dialogue are intricate, they speak like Shakespeare write the Opera, so metaphor and turn of phrase, you need to keep concentrate to follow all the dialogues. Enjoy it, like you will enjoy in Theatre a Shakespearian Tragedy.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote. So much red
Permalink
AverxgeJoe10 January 2016
Macbeth is visually stunning. Great landscapes, shots, everything. I didn't like certain slow motion scenes, particularly in the beginning of the film. The very beginning is actually the worst part of the movie. The movie takes some time to get started and it definitely gets better as it goes on. The third act and especially the ending is breathtakingly beautiful.
My biggest problem with this movie is the old English they are speaking. English is not my first language, nor are my academic goals in English literature. It is nice to see that they stayed true to Shakespeare's writing but I can't make myself to enjoy the dialogue when it's spoken. Other than that the movie is good. Acting is great and the constant ambient score was nice.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote. Missing Macbeth
Permalink
zaileia3 October 2015
I am baffled by the positive reviews this film has received. I have seen many Macbeth adaptations and live on stage and this film portrays none of the raw human emotion that makes the play great. Instead we are subjected to a self congratulating aesthetic that might look visually visceral, misses the point of the characters. Sorely disappointed with Fassbender who usually has such depth was monotonous and dull. The concept of a historically realistic setting was a good one, but the execution left much to be desired. Shakespeare aficionados will notice the alterations and cuts made to the text, which I can't help but wonder the point of since the missing scenes would have aided the character construction a lot. I'm fine with artistic license but why remove the overtly pagan aspect yet retain the witches as true characters rather than figments of Macbeths mind? There are so many better versions of Macbeth out there, I don't see any value in this one at all. In short, this Macbeth is well worth a miss.
48 out of 90 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink Macbeth 2015 Movie Online
An error has occured. Please try again.
Comments are closed.
|
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |