Macbeth

Who was Macbeth actually made for? Connoisseurs will not find any superior value in it compared to the original, on the contrary, they will be convinced that its proper place is in the auditorium of theatres, and the less knowledgeable viewers will not get a warmer concept either. Only die-hard fans of the actors might find the excellent cast to their liking. The new version of the famous play does not bring a faster pace or a more original concept, the only change is that the grandiose conversations of the characters have replaced the theatre setting with the realities of the Scottish Highlands. Shakespeare is already challenging, so I don't understand why it's stretched out with long slow-motion shots of chilling landscapes or the faces of dejected actors. In the final analysis, therefore, this is a great-looking drama that brings nothing but misery to everyone involved, from the audience to Macbeth. (01/29/2016)

Shakespearean film adaptations used to fall into two groups – academically respectful and faithful to the source material (Branagh) or hysterically out of touch (Romeo+Juliet, O). But so far no one has come up with such an autonomous audiovisual treatment that envelops the entire plot in its own enclosed world of heather, fog, and smoke. Macbeth is filled with formalist shortcuts, the language of the original play is spoken by the characters, thus gaining impenetrability, and the insistent stylization culminates in a surreal conclusion that is essentially the greatest creative license over the play. It is here that Kurzel's ability to not only create images, but more importantly to think within them, can be seen. Sean Harris, in turn, steals the show. The nominations should have been flying here. I was in raptures for the entire running time. PS: I think, ironically, the greatest enjoyment of the film will be had by those who know little or nothing about Macbeth. PPS: great soundtrack! (02/23/2016)

Sociopaths of the verbal type (the multiple species among us) won't appreciate this film, of course; it is only for sensitive people able to cherish the celluloid language called film that takes you back to a time when stories where still told with pictures without making artistic compromises. Here, the trump card is the modest production design. It’s not about large crowds and lavish sets, but about compositions and atmosphere. In that respect, I particularly enjoyed the first half fantastically, up to the point where Macbeth is made king. The visual aspect is so unique that it doesn't really matter if the source material was written by Shakespeare or another theatrical titan. I'm genuinely curious about Assassins Creed now, because Kurzel's cinematic language is completely incompatible with the game poetics of an assassin running on rooftops and jumping into haystacks. (06/08/2016)

A completely honest artistic ego-stroking affair that benefits from the great camera and focuses predominantly on silence. On top of that, the movie, with its look and approach to storytelling, reminded me of Valhalla Rising, which also pretends to be this epic, but in reality, you are just watching an overdressed nothing. On the other hand, I get that the creators set out to do a very unusual form of Macbeth. They wanted to be different and so they added an artistic cinematic touch to the classic Shakespearean ornate speech, which didn’t really sit well with me. I don’t know, if a specific number of falling-asleep scenes is the proof of quality art, but I feel that the more there are, the better it is for the fans. It is, indisputably, interesting, but I prefer more classic motives with historic dramas. (06/01/2016)

The best adaptation of Shakespeare for a really long time. Visually captivating, gloomy Scottish hills and verses interlaced with madness and fears. Fassbender as Macbeth and Marion Cotillard as his wife give their very best. Ambition, power, women. The age-old danger of temptation of a good man. If he succumbs, he will be damned. (02/02/2016)