Macbeth

Beautiful and haunting, a fantastic adaptation of one of Shakespeare's best plays. The changes Welles makes do not hurt the material; they sharpen its focus and make it more concise for a feature film. Again, the photography is stunning, and the minimalist sets give it a dreamlike impression.

The visual bravura captures the play nicely and the photography deserves much praise. Very thoughtfully composed realization that still feels like an interesting mess. The essence is here, but perhaps the execution is too rushed and too reliant on atmosphere. Welles is a fine Macbeth but Jeannette Nolan is somewhere between brilliant and a disaster as the Lady.

Despite being obviously studio-bound and budgetarily hamstrung, Welles's approach to the material is still that of a masterful filmmaker who wants to ask what Shakespeare could be in the century of cinema. He seems, too, to have a strong interest in the historical aspects of the play (despite his Statue of Liberty costume towards the end). Some parts could undoubtedly have been much better though (the scenes of Macduff learning his family's fate and Lady Macbeth sleepwalking in particular).

Welles' vivid expressionist take on Shakespeare's classic tragedy is impressive, especially given its obvious budgetary limitations, which impacted both positively and negatively on the end result.The lack of funds forced Welles to create an intense, minimalist, almost abstract interpretation that is stark, claustrophobic and gloomy, projecting the psychological torment of the protagonist onto the physical environment (i.e. cheap sets). The acting is hit and miss, but it's intensely atmospheric.

A towering performance from Welles as both director and actor as he masterfully deploys his full arsenal of film making techniques (exquisite lighting, long takes, vertiginous angles etc.) to realise his reading of Shakespeare's 'Macbeth' in cinematic form. The supporting cast is not so good and somewhat dulls Welles' cinematic vision, but the widespread criticism of the Scottish accents seems misplaced. Rating may very well increase on further viewings.

A wonderfully grim and haunting vision. It succeeds in spite of some clear budget deficiencies (obvious dubbing, cheap sets), with Welles experimenting with both the text and the camera. Lots of unique shots, and I dig the gloomy atmosphere. Welles is a memorably unhinged Macbeth (awful Scottish accent and all), but the rest of the cast disappoints.

Welles the actor and Welles the cinematographer overwhelm Welles the director. Striking visuals, intense, but feels too trapped in its own artifice.

Shakespeare is one of my roadblocks, I have too much difficulty processing the dense language. But I'll try to comment as best I can. Welles' version is quite visually arresting, but too often relies on low angles, perhaps to hide the inadequacy of the sets. Made on the cheap for Republic Pictures, the film strives for abstraction when it can't attain realism. Orson himself is not bad, but Jeanette Nolan makes a lousy Lady. I dunno, I've got nothing more to say. Again, not a big Shakespeare guy.

Hard to gauge because its limitations were all out of Welle's control; budget. Even the Scottish accents are mostly muddled by poor recording levels. Yet still it is an amazing and note worthy film.

I love the look, and Welles's performance is good. Jeanette Nolan's performance as Lady Macbeth was terrible. The version I saw has the on again off again Scottish accents, and is the worse for it.

Orson Welles delivers a Shakespeare play like it was a Soviet movie! Alarmingly alluring and definitely high art as far as 40s cinema goes. Not surprising it did better in Europe. Spooky Shakespeare decorated in mud and filthy atmosphere. What's there not to love?

Viewed January 2, 2020.

Welles reciting Shakespeare has such an outrageously massive screen presence that every scene without him feels comparatively small. The set design is also unreal.

82.00

The first and final act are fuckin' awesome but the rest is bleh. Orson Welles got done dirty by the production, because if he made this film at an even $1 million he would've done a little bit better

Difficult. This film is just not meant for me. I tuned out pretty quickly and turned it off after an hour. English not being my native language makes it hard to appreciate everything that's said and furthermore the sets were dull.

I'm not sure Orson Welles ever made another film so well informed by his pedigree in theater. The low budget and limited means in fact serve this film's strengths. A fog machine and careful lighting go a long way, the cinematography is close and narrow, and the takes are extremely long. It's an intimacy which highlights performance, of which this film has a few very tremendous examples, questionable accents and all.

I love Orson Welles' direction. I really do. None of his films that I have seen thus far have disappointed me. I even enjoy Shakespeare's work to what extent I can understand it. Herein lies the issue. When the dialogue is being given at a faster pace than I read, and when I'm reading it takes me a bit to understand what I've read - there is a bit of a comprehension problem. Here's the thing though: that's totally on me. Welles does an absolutely wonderful job adapting Macbeth.

80.500

Jeanette Nolan was awful as Lady Macbeth! The first murderer, Macduff's son, Malcolm and Seyton were all badly acted and Edgar Barrier as Banquo was a non-presence. It is overblown with the music needing to quiet down and with choices to make the film feel large scale taking away from potential for claustrophobia, horror or psychological intrigue found in the original script. I also thought the pace of the film is far too fast at the beginning. And that final crown - Statue of Liberty much?

79.000

I haven't read many Shakespeare plays, but Macbeth has always been my favourite. It's a really great and dark story. I thought this film was great. The atmosphere and mood that he presented especially was fantastic. It's hard for me not to sort of tune out Shakespearean language sometimes, but it was all delivered beautifully. It's the only adaptation of Macbeth I've really seen, but I'm prepared to declare it a brilliant one.

Disappointing.

Like 'The Departed,' I just couldn't get over the accents.

Great version of the play, however I am just not a fan of Shakespeare's tragedies to begin with.

Some of the scenes are absolutely amazing, but the low-budget and sporadic shooting (;poor sound poorly synchronized, doubles shot from the back of the head, etc) detract from the artistic vision. Also . . . all the Christian versus pagan symbolism becomes a bit much after awhile.

Absolutely Beautiful.

Macbeth Reinado de Sangue tinha sua première há 75 anos. Ai que coisa difícil, quando vejo o do Polanski acho que é o melhor, quando vejo o do Kurosawa acho que é o melhor, quando vejo o do Welles acho que é o melhor. A solução é tirar um dia para ver os três em rol e ver qual eu gosto mais (esqueci de ver o do Coen). Box Versátil Shakespeare por Welles.