Macbeth (2010)

The Worst Film Ever

Terrible acting, screenplay and direction.

I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

best movie i've ever seen.

On the day of his victory on the battlefield, Macbeth is told of his future by three sinister harpies – first as Thane, but then also as King. Sharing these visions with his wife, the two commence immediately to work towards this fate – with villainous murder and deception as the tools they choose to employ.I have seen a few versions of this play now and while this one is not my favorite, it is one with plenty to love. Since the series that holds this film is called 'Great Performances', it does seem natural to start with that element of it and of course the performances are, as the title states, great. Stewart of course is the draw, and he plays his Macbeth really well; he keeps him believable and understandable whether he is being guided by his wife past his doubts and morals, and also when he is soaked in blood and mad with guilt. He would not be as good though were he not matched by a brilliant Lady Macbeth from Kate Fleetwood; she is by far the best I have seen this character played and she is utterly convincing in her manipulation and also in her madness. The support cast features a few faces and names you will know, but even if you do not, all of them are on-message with the tone of the production, and their performances are strong.The tone of the production is very much set by the design of the piece. Shot entirely in Welbeck Abbey, the film does feel a little limited in some ways by the lack of variety in the location, but hard to complain as it brings so much more. Darkness, cold stone, a sense of war, and a genuine sense of creepy dread, all come across here really well. The lighting and framing of shots is equally great and while it is a very dark film visually, it is also one that has a lot of effective style to it. It does seem to run slower than it needed to at times, but it is a strong production, with two really great performances in the leads.

I get the point that other reviewers have made, a lot of Shakespeare's works do work in a modern setting. But to me, it only works if you also update the dialogue. I found the text jarring with the setting, the exact text (as far as I could tell) spoken in an utterly different context. Zero believability. No basis for a suspension of disbelief.If they'd had the sense to update the language a bit and make it fit a 21st century authoritarian regime it might have worked a lot better, at least for me.It also lost the clues in the prophecies that fool Macbeth, that could have been included without difficulty.

I love all Shakespeare, but for some reason Macbeth is not among my favorite works of the Bard. Nor do I think that the brilliance of Shakespeare's darker plays are usually well-handled by directors. Consequently, I am difficult to impress when it comes to individual film or DVD productions of the play. I consider Polanski's very traditional 1971 version to be the best (a 9 rating), and my second favorite version is Jason Connery's underrated and rare 1997 production (which I rate an 8). For me, both Orson Welles', Ian McKellen's, Jeremy Brett's and now Patrick Stewart's versions rate no higher than a 7 out of 10, and that goes for Kurosawa's Throne of Blood as well. They're good, but considering how marvelously Shakespeare CAN be staged or filmed (think Branagh or Taymor), they are just not THAT good. Nicol Williamson in the BBC version was very underwhelming to me, although Jane Lapotaire as Lady Macbeth was at least as good as, perhaps better than, Francesca Annis in the Polanski version.What was wrong with Patrick Stewart's 2010 version? It had many good things and scenes in it. But I found it to be too dark (yes, such a thing is very much possible) and in places too dull and drawn-out. I liked the whole Stalin motif, but setting the play in an underground bunker just smacks of low-budget requirements. That it all sort of took place in hell was perhaps an interesting take, but it's not the kind of thing that resonates with me. I want an interesting, variegated, poetic environment; one that does Shakespeare's words justice, and provides an interesting interpretation of the scenes and phrases. A limited environment of darkness does nothing of the sort. But perhaps this all owes to the budgetary restraints. I admit they did go far with little - there were some impressive scenes here and there.Comparing this production with Ian McKellen's 1995 Richard III movie is very apt; McKellen did enact Adolf Hitler; Stewart did enact Joseph Stalin. Both productions had a war motif, a tyrant motif, murderers serving the king, etc. It is hard to believe that McKellen's RIII performance did not significantly inspire this Macbeth.Is it worth your while? Definitely. It is made by people who have an obvious understanding of staging Shakespeare, which in itself is very good. However, a fabulous masterpiece it is not. Good, but not THAT good.

This is by far the best Macbeth I have ever seen. It is definitely not just a camera filming a stage production, it is a horror film. Everything from the acting to the lighting was fresh and original.Patrick Stewart and Kate Fleetwood are chillingly superb and the supporting cast just as good. There was not a weak link.Some people have said that Patrick Stewart is too old to play this part, however there is absolutely no indication of age anywhere in the text. In fact, the age of Macbeth compared to that of his wife's actually helps support Macbeth's sudden lust for power. He is a man who was satisfied to be the star military general, but when he married a young, ambitious (crazy) woman, it gave him a reason to want more.This is a better quality film than almost everything in theaters today.