Genres

Visitors Review

Gaydork 2012-05-25 16:12:06

it sucked

didnt have any thing good in it crudy crappy not kool no fun not interesting nothing funny overall crap only 1 good part.

2012-05-25 08:31:11

This is the Macbeth I have been waiting for

I have taught this play 3xs a day for 15 years. It is no exaggeration to say that I consider it perfect. It contains Shakespeare's concisest expression of his insight into ambition, greed, remorse, emasculation, inevitability,and self-deception. The title character really does know better but he cannot help himself. Unlike many of the Bard's other great plays, this one achieves much of its tremendous power through its focus and economy, which brings me to Worthington's version. Naturally I went to see it in the theater, not knowing what to expect. I was blown away. For years I had pondered writing a contemporary version of the Scottish play but this movie beat me to it. I think everything about it works really well. My only criticism is that the famous "Tomorrow" speech is relegated to the end of the movie and it is shortened. This is the only choice I did not appreciate. Otherwise, this version may attract converts to what I think is the greatest play ever written. Finally, I am clear about one thing: this is a movie of a play. I don't expect the same things on the screen that I do in the theater.

Knux 2012-05-25 18:15:48

The Centrist Party? Where are they?

If you want a horrible interpretation of "MacBeth", then this is your answer. Filled with archaic Shakespearic English language in a 21st century Australian setting, this film lives to dissapoint and leave you stratching your head. But that isn't all.Not only is there sophmoric action sequences but there are plenty of scenes where the female body is displayed. The witches, played by actresses that resemble school girls more than witches, put on a soft porn display with MacBeth in a unremarkable display of affection. Welcome to stupidity and depravity - all at the same time.Its a wonder why this project was greenlighted. So much for modern cheesy movies. "D-"

2012-05-25 00:33:52

'All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players'

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, October 07

Enchorde 2012-05-22 16:38:23

Slooow

Recap: Not entirely familiar with the Shakespeare story of Macbeth, butmy wild guess is that this is pretty close to the original, only set inpresent time. It tells the story of Macbeth, a member of a crimesyndicate in Melbourne (?). He is a valued hit-man and in the favor ofleader Duncan. But he and his lady has higher ambitions than that, andplan the murder of Duncan, and any competition of the throne. This is astory of betrayal and cold, brutal death.Comments: Very interesting idea, I must say. To use the story butchange the setting to present time, but still keep the original (?)dialog. It sets a huge contrast between the classical poetic work andthe violence. Promised to be extremely violent, it is a promise that itkeeps, but not in the notion I imagined. It is very bloody indeed, butthe violence is slow. Not just figuratively speaking that it iscalculated, which it is too, but also literally. A lot of action isactually slowed down to slow motion and that is what brings the movieto its knees.What could have been a unique strength, the contrast between thesuperfluous and poetic dialog and the extreme violence, now turns intosomething else entirely. Now both slow the move down painfully much, somuch that it actually becomes dull and boring at times.Also I can't figure out the context the three witches act within. Setto present time and reality I figure that such magical witchcraft hadno place in the movie. Apparently it does, but to me it seemscompletely out of place. Not a subplot but a complete sub-story withit's own rules, completely different than the rest of the movie. Seemscompletely out of place. Surely it must have been possible to convertthat part too to something modern. Drug-induced hallucinations perhaps(which I suspect that the director hints at but then he has left waytoo much witchcraft in it to be believable)? Now they only bringstretches of the movie that is clearly beside the story and I justwaited for the real movie to begin again.A clear disappointment, but maybe something for Shakespearean-buffs?4/10

shatteredbluedreams 2012-05-22 05:28:00

Melbourne Macbeth

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 fronthalf of the theatre was empty; sitting in the first occupied row in thecentre of the theatre, the view of the dark emptiness blended with themood of the film.Rather than the cloud world of kings and queens and nobles, thisMacbeth is set in the glamorously untouchable underworld. Guns anddrugs and lots of unhappy good-looking people. That kind of stuff. Amodern day tyrant king and his world could have been paralleled with arepresentation of some of the most powerful and wealthy people in themodern world, rather than a petty crime lord. Oh well.Initially the movie is violent nasty crime. As it goes on it becomesmore and more surreal. The hit men and thugs that play for modern lordsand nobles seem to more and more live in an enchanted mediaeval worldalbeit decorated with guns and motorcycles and televisions and securitycameras and mobile phones. The strange Shakespeare speech seems lessand less ridiculous, more fitting and real. This is true for the weakeractors and stronger actors both.Macbeth is played by Sam Worthington. He struggles with the Shakespearedialogue sometimes but he is charismatic, enticing; he does seem like abrave champion with a dark side. Victoria Hill does a similar job ashis wife, the Lady Macbeth. She splutters the dialogue sometimes yetalways seems to actually be the Lady Macbeth. She's unhappy and coldand charming and manipulative. Gary Sweet is very good as Duncan. SteveBastoni, Lachy Hulme and Kat Stewart all are very convincing. MickMolloy drew unintentional laughs of recognition even though he is verygood. A famous Australian comedian, he is just right as one of themenacing cutthroats. Bob Franklin and Kym Gyngell are two other famousAustralian comedians with small roles well performed.The film looks very polished and professional from a productionstandpoint. The film is actually a bit too flashy and aestheticallyoriented. The famous psychological struggles of Macbeth and the LadyMacbeth are skimped over and caricatured. Ambiguous things are madeunequivocal and one of the most memorable parts of the entire play,involving Lady Macbeth and her hands, is rushed by so quickly that it'salmost skipped by entirely.Overall this production has the same depth of a poor adaptation of afamous book, comic or TV show. Most everything famous about the play isincluded in some form but not in an emotionally involving or mentallyengrossing way. At all. This film is worth seeing once.

2012-05-20 12:39:56

night-clubs instead of castles

This review is from: Macbeth (DVD) The red-light district of Melbourne replaces the Scottish castles - a lively, action-filled transformation of Macbeth into the 21st century - keeping language and plot more or less unchanged. Not a bad try.

2012-05-20 01:15:47

Entertaining, Macbeth told as a story of gang violence

I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. The characters use the actual lines from the play, which takes a little getting used to while they're racing around in range rovers and wielding automatic machine guns. The acting was really well played. I think to really appreciate this movie you have to like the story of Macbeth, like violent movies, and think that it's fun to tell the story in the context of modern day gang warfare. If you are unwilling to give the director the artistic freedom required to explore this setting in *re-telling* Macbeth, I recommend passing on it, or risk being frustrated.I think it's a terrific movie, all the action scenes are well shot, the dream/hallucinating scenes are sexy yet strange, and the blending between modern day and Shakespeare's era is believable (after a while).

2012-05-16 09:32:12

Brotha Mac

Robbed of all it's innate majesty and poetic vision,set in contemporary times among the Melbourne underworld and boiled down by writer Victoria Hill (who also plays Lady Macbeth) into a series of "Kill Bill" like bloody scenes, Sam Wright's "Macbeth" manages to turn Shakespeare's play into an Iambic Pentameter spoken episode of the "Night Stalker."Sam Worthington gives us 100 ways to glower as Macbeth and the scene with the three witches (in this case not old, wizened hags but three bodacious young women) is laughable and audacious in its sheer lunacy."Macbeth" is shot like a BMW commercial: all bright and shiny with glistening surfaces and most of the players are saddled with dyed black hair and tight leather clothing.All of this would not matter one whit if director Wright had infused the mise en scene with some humor or more importantly some insight into what Shakespeare was after in his play.By all means check this version out if only to compare it to the gorgeous Welles version or even the straightforward though poetic Polanski one. Just be forewarned: a huge amount of Scotch is required to get you through this particularly difficult experience.

2012-05-15 19:05:04

Good news, bad news . . .

THE GOOD NEWS: If you have been wanting to see a modern-dress Macbeth or you're a rabid fan of Sam Worthington, then this is the version for you!THE BAD NEWS: Those are the ONLY reasons for buying this particular version of one of Shakespeare's greatest tragedies. Here's why I think so:1) Shakespeare's plays are one of the glories of the English language. While it's logical that, having taken a "modernizing" approach, this production has the actor's deliver their lines naturalistically -- that is, as prose -- most of them (in my view, Worthington included) do so badly. They rush through the speeches. (If you want to see how effective this can be when done well, check out the Broadway Theatre Archive version of MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING.) Making matters worse, this production's Duncan (Gary Sweet) delivers his lines as verse, destroying the illusion the production is attempting to create. 2)What helped Shakespeare's work survive during those first decades when they were no longer being performed is that he created great characters; thus his plays stayed alive in the study, if not on the stage. If your only knowledge of Lord and Lady Macbeth were from this production, you would be left with the impression that they were empty of much in the way of character and sank into their bloody ways because they were stoned all the time. Furthermore, if either actor here had any idea of creating an arc for their character, I can't detect it. Worthington seemed to be playing Macbeth as a simple-minded lunkhead and Victoria Hill seemed to view his Lady as a hysteric on coke. Their downward course came across as not only meaningless but utterly random.3)On top of these problems, the whole production seems (to me) inconsistent and poorly worked out. Okay, having the three wierd sisters playes by girls in school uniforms is a nice touch; but then Macbeth addressing three nude and nubile women as "hags" seems just silly -- on the level of an SNL skit. And bringing Duncan's murder on-screen and turning it into a prolonged (literally) bloodbath puts the whole scene on the level of a grade Z slasher flick. Yes, I know Macbeth is steeped in horrors. But if you want to see this approach done well, try the supremely better DVD put out by the Folger Shakespeare Library. (And -- previous reviewers take note! -- you can even show it to your English classes.)

2012-05-09 17:24:58

A nice modern view

This version of Macbeth provides a modern take on the Shakespearean tragedy while maintaining a majority of the original script. While I would still prefer the Polanski version, I found that this version works well at introducing newcomers to Shakespeare. With the proper juggling of permission slips and/or editing (a few scenes containing nudity), this modern Macbeth can become a useful tool in a senior English classes.

Alex Bolam 2012-05-08 20:55:08

Play or Porno?

Geoffrey Wright's modern rendition of Shakespeare's Macbeth does littlecredit to the Jacobean genius. From start to finish the film distractsfrom the plot line, the language is confusing, and the screenplay ispointlessly violent. Sam Worthington plays the drug lord of MelbourneMacbeth and Victoria Hill plays his, perse, open minded wife, but itdoes seem that Miss Hill has an obsession with her anatomy that divertsour attention from the poor acting. Duncan (pre-death) is the drug lordslaughtered by Macbeth, sparking the non-stop bloodbath reminiscent ofthe SAW franchise. Macbeth then begins an unnecessarily brutal killingspree claiming friends, women and children alike. The film culminatesto feeble shootout between Macduff's (Lachy Halme) henchmen andMacbeth's cronies. All thanks to Macbeth's psychotic need to kill womenand children of course. Note the disturbingly perverse pleasure thatthe assassins take in their deaths. One appears to climax as he killsMrs Macduff. Nice.The film, amazingly, is a total disaster, Shakespeares tragedy concernslove and ambition, and the characters are strangely moving. Thisrendition is moving-to the bathroom. Wright sees fit to play upontiresome clichés such as; amorous school-girl-witches, who seduce mentwice their age on foggy dance floors; angry gun toting Australians;andblood splattering at the screen at every second turn. If only it werein 3-D.Macbeth is instead shown with a 'Jack Sparrow' attitude-a swagger, andan affiliation for "rum and salty WITCHES" (At World's End). OnlyMacbeth isn't funny and yes, he solves problems by shooting them, hedoes so with none of the grace or finesse of our Captain. All Macbethdoes that IS canon to an ambitious, violent, superstitious tyrant-kingis that he IS violent. He makes up for the lack of the other attributeswith that. Which isn't helped by the confusing and pointless Jacobeandialogue. Had Miss Hill decided against using "Ye Olde English" thefilm may have been a minor success, meriting perhaps and extra star ortwo.Alas, it was not to be, Hill clearly of the opinion thatgun-toting, drugged up Aussies are of a cultured sort.Take the penultimate and final scenes for example, where thatunconvincing showdown concerning Macbeth and Macduff begins. Note howits the only scene where the killings are sort of justified. Well thelast of Macduff's is anyway. This would be fine, however the MissHill's final scene demanded once again she get her kit off-only thistime shes dead in a bath of her own blood. One last pathetically(albeit not unexpected) pointless display of both Wright's and Hill'sperversion to sexual violence. Even Cap'n Jack would be bored of her bynow.In short, if sex, brutality, drugs and promiscuous teenage witches isyour bag-go see it. If not-don't. Just don't bring the wife and kids!

2012-05-08 00:38:13

A stunning re-telling without the Hollywood involvement

This review is from: Macbeth (DVD) As someone who has read the play of Macbeth several times over the years, I appreciated it for it's work of art, but I must admit I always found it a little difficult to follow. Even though Macbeth is by far the easiest of the bard's plays to understand. But, after stumbling across this Geoffrey Wright gem, I finally get it! Now, I always knew the premise of the story, but I always found myself confused by the dialect, a 21st century girl lost in 17th century linguistics. Even with this film using Shakespeare's words (Aussie accents included), I completely understood everything being said and what Shakespeare meant by saying it. Set in the underbelly of gangland Melbourne, you are introduced to Macbeth, played superbly by Sam Worthington, a cold-hearted sociopath on a quest for power and leadership among the cartel led by Duncan (Gary Sweet). By the enticing hallucinations of the three witches (no longer hags, but schoolgirls) and the encouragement of his drug addled Lady Macbeth (Victoria Hill), Macbeth's quest for control within the family is a violent path of destruction that ultimately spirals into madness, revenge and death.By far, this is the best modernization of a Shakesperian play. I was not a fan of Baz Luhrmann's Romeo & Juliet, nor Hamlet. The Hollywood, big budget spectacle never really did it for me. This film, however, left me thunderstruck. The acting was stellar, the cinematography was gritty, and the score was first rate. My only wish, was that it was longer. But I will stress that this is definitely not something to be viewed in a high school setting because of the drug use, explicit sexuality and extreme violence. But, for anyone who appreciates the foreign, independent film genre, this is definitely something worth adding to your collection.

Silent_Bob_ 2012-05-07 14:48:03

Worth Seeing

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 exceededmy expectations. It's true that the dialog comes off as a little oddwhen the movie first starts but it was easy to adjust to and by theend, as another reviewer said, it really seems to fit with the movie.Sam Worthington does an excellent job at playing the haunted characterof Macbeth. For the most part the other actors do extremely well withtheir role as well. The action scenes seem to have songs that areactually appropriate as opposed to ones focusing on what big star theycan throw in.All in all, I think it certainly deserves a higher rating than it hasbeen receiving. It may not be the movie of the year but it wasextremely enjoyable.

gradyharp 2012-05-05 18:16:21

'All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players'

It is refreshing to rest assured that Shakespeare remains a viablewriter and no matter how his plays are manipulated or 'updated' oraltered or interpreted, his majesty of the English language remainsintact and the impact of his ideas and words sustain even the mostbizarre reconsiderations. Such, for this viewer, is the case of MACBETHas condensed for the screen by writer/actress Victoria Hill anddirected with intensity and sensitivity of communication by GeoffreyWright. The result may seem to be a bloody mad feud suggesting amajority of the teen driven films of today, but consider the source:imagining Shakespeare's MACBETH without the gore would mean the meathad been removed.Transferred from Scotland to Melbourne, Australia, the well-known fightfor kingship among the Scots is transposed to be the turf struggle forsupremacy in the underworld gangland of Melbourne. The script and thedirection make this transposition work, using the original dialog fromthe play, placing it in the voices and bodies of an all-Australiancast, to the point that the allegiance of the actors as to place is farless important than the telling of a powerful tale of ambition. SamWorthington makes an enigmatic yet strong Macbeth, well paired byVictoria Hill as his conniving and ultimately mad wife Lady Macbeth:the two form a chemistry that serves the original intent of the authorwell. The many characters who rise and fall in the wake of the ambitionof Macbeth tend to blend a bit because of the condensation of thescript, but Gary Sweet as the doomed Duncan, Steve Batoni as Banquo,and Lachy Hulme as Macduff are particularly fine. The three witcheswhose predictions drive the play here become nude seductresses and arewell interpreted by Miranda Nation, Chloe Armstrong, and Kate Bell.The battle scenes are appropriately gruesome and the musical score thataccompanies this film is an odd mixture of rock and pianotranscriptions of Beethoven symphony movements. With the bracingcinematography by Will Gibson it all works well. Unfortunately theShakespearean language can become lost with the heavy Aussie accentsand subtitles would have been helpful. But if your television set hasthat subtitle option available, this small defect can be overcome. Yes,it helps to know the original play well in order to fully appreciatethe transposition, but the script and cast and director make a finecase for involving even the uninitiated into the power of MACBETH.Worth your time, this. Grady Harp

2012-05-05 03:28:59

Something Ho-Hum This Way Comes.....

WARNING******************* THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS ****************I like "Macbeth" the best of Shakespeare's plays, partially because at least I can understand it. I'm college educated but not an academic, and unfortunately, with Shakespeare I usually only get about half of what's being said. (I'm sorry; I'm not so up on my 17th Century allusions.) But the play "Macbeth" is swift, clear, comparatively short, and the piece's themes are within grasp. Also, if properly done, its scary...which is involving.I like when Shakespeare's plays are transported into non-traditional settings...THAT WORK. Moving this particular play to a modern-day, drug cartel environment -- as this version does -- doesn't quite snap into place, however. The main problem with this adaptation is its actors, all of who, I am sure, have been or will be effective in other roles. But if this play is about Macbeth, then it seems to me you should have a very strong personality playing that role. Sam Worthington is handsome-ish, which is always nice, but seems too placid and withdrawn. Even if this king needs prodding from his wife to seize the day, he's still supposed to be a hungry and driven type. Worthington is neither of those things. The characterization of Lady M laid out here doesn't serve Victoria Hill any better. First she's shown weeping at her dead son's grave, which is an interesting touch...but then how does that merge with her later (famous) claim that she's sooner dash that baby's brains out than break a promise to her husband? There is simply no dynamic between this couple that conveys a deep partnership or shared destiny. Or even a mutual, morbid greed.Just about the only addition to this version I liked was that King Duncan is put up in a separate guest house on the Macbeth's property when he visits, which allows for some sneaking around in the dark, and explains why the other guests don't hear anything. But in an example of how this setting doesn't serve the text, since everyone else is killed with guns, why would Macbeth and his wife choose to stab their guest to death??? It just seems awkward. (And why does everyone think it's natural for Banquo's sons to turn into a long line of drug "kings"; aren't most cartels wiped out before they become multi-generational?) Similarly, how can Macbeth repeatedly call the three witches "hags" when they're nubile centerfolds rolling around in bed with him? And how did all the gross ingredients get into Macbeth's kitchen for the "Double double / Toil and trouble" scene? It makes more sense if Macbeth travels to meet them on their own turf for that, as originally written. (There's also something more sinister and isolated about his having to travel into an otherworldly wasteland to see them.)The final problem (which also crops up in Roman Polanski's FAR FAR superior version) is that many of the monologues are superimposed in voice-over while we watch closeups of the actors. There's something transporting and glorious about watching really well-trained actors dive into these speeches...but to watch a solemn face as the lines are recited on a separate track? Why bother?

Matthew Murphy 2012-04-28 21:23:08

Interesting concept turned into a tragic, deluded and awful nightmare

An interesting concept turned into carnage...My first seeing feature from Geoffrey Wright (Romper Stomper), When ifirst took interest in it, it seemed at the time an interestingconcept...Shakespere + Aussie Film + Gothic setting + Melbourne GanglandA very odd mixed that turned into a disastrous piece of Aussie cinemathat gives my country a bad name...Pros: -Interesting conceptCons: -Waste of a good cast -Stuffed and stupid plot -Crooked cameraangles -Not much variety of locations -Crap use of ShakespeariandiologueOverall: Australia's worst attempt of a Shakespere film, Stick to BazLurhman...or Romper Stomper (WARNING: That film is dangerous)

phlsphr42 2012-04-28 09:34:18

eh

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 Ireally think it's time we move beyond the two extremes here (periodpiece vs. edgy film).Just because this is a "modern" retelling, doesn't mean the movie hasto 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 bea far more powerful film. As it is, read your Shakespeare. Read it outloud. Ask your Oxford dictionary some questions. Skip the film. Ordon't, but you've been warned.Sorry for the super-long review. IMDb made me do it.

shazam_665 2012-04-28 06:31:34

Macbeth for a modern audience.

Great show for those who enjoy the Gang/Drug Lord/ shoot it out Genre.This portrayal of Will's dark Play will appeal to a younger audienceand hopefully create interest in the classics again. Sombre, grisly andmorbid just the way it was supposed to be. If you are squeamish Do Notwatch. Too many head shots to count. Watch for the Trojan Horse.Another wonderful bow to the classics. Big ups to the Australian Filmcommunity for a walk on the wild side. Risking bringing Macbeth to theTwenty First Century. Always been a fan of Australian/ Maori/ NewZealand Productions since I read and watched Once Were Warriors , manyyears ago. You may also enjoy the version of Hamlet starring DavidTennant and Patrick Stewart. Directed by Gregory Doran. Here we have abarefoot, jean and t shirt clad Hamlet bewailing his lot. Great madefor TV movie.

DarthVoorhees 2012-04-27 11:49:28

A boring and largely uninspired adaptation of Shakepeare's Macbeth

Bored isn't what I was expecting to be while watching this film. I loveMacbeth. I've both read the play and have been in a production of it.It's a beautiful play with some of Shakepeare's finest soliloquies. Ican sit through a production of Macbeth and still appreciate thelanguage, this adaptation from Geoffrey Wright even butchers thelanguage of the play. What we have is a relatively slim adaptation ofMacbeth with much of its substance left out and grim scenes added in.I didn't expect a film adaptation to include everything. Wright howeverhas taken the original text and edited it with a meat cleaver. So manyscenes are barely there. The characters of Ross and Lennox are almostnon existent and the Witches are mere props rather than characters.Wright takes the lines of the play and adds his own little changes tothem. Well, he didn't realize that once he has done this that it ceasesto be Shakespeare. I don't think any character in the film speaks iniambic pentameters for any length of time. What we get is an awkwardtransition from some lines lifted directly from the play and Wright'screations which include big words. Shakespeare isn't about big wordsit's about the language. The music of the play is completely gone inthis Macbeth and it is painfully noticeable.What really got me though is Wright's inclusion of two scenes thatShakespeare wisely put off stage. We aren't supposed to see Macbethmurder Duncan or see Macbeth look over Lady Macbeth's corpse.Shakespeare could be violent,grimly violent, but these scenes are moreeffective in building the character of Macbeth if we don't see them.Implied violence is so much more effective than seeing the daggerpierce the skin. Shakespeare could have easily have written a scenewhere Macbeth murders Duncan, he doesn't and it's brilliant. We onlysee Macbeth drenched in blood obviously already regretting his sins andhaunted by the world's eyes. Not only do we see Macbeth kill Duncan inthis version but it is a grim scene. Macbeth stabs Duncan multipletimes with a vicious fury. Does Macbeth want to be there? The scenedoesn't let us see the turmoil in Macbeth's head. He was a good manturned evil by his ambition. That mental transition is the key toMacbeth and we simply don't get the full effect if we see Macbeth killDuncan.Macbeth looking over his wife's corpse is detrimental to theirrelationship in the play. I've read Macbeth many times and I can'tanswer this question, "Do Macbeth and Lady Macbeth love each other?" Itend to think that maybe they don't but I come to a differentconclusion every time. Lady Macbeth is obviously flirting with Duncanduring their brief interaction together. Their relationship is complex.All Macbeth says when he hears of Lady Macbeth's death is "She shouldhave died hereafter, there would have been time for such a word." Thebest soliloquy of the play is delivered immediately after but I thinkMacbeth's "tomorrow" speech is largely about himself. There isn't timefor such a word and it seems almost detrimental to the pacing of thefinal act to see Macbeth lament over his wife. By this time in thestory Macbeth has lost his sanity, love is one of the last things onhis mind. Maybe he loved her once but by that moment of the play he isincapable of love.The mob setting is really the only new thing about this adaptation andI think it is kind of clever in terms of staging. In terms ofstorytelling though it hurts Macbeth. Macbeth is about a mans fall fromgood to evil, does this work in a gangland setting? Macbeth and Duncanare supposed to be moral men at the beginning. You lose that seeingthem as criminals. Is it really so far fetched to expect a gang memberto kill to advance himself? It really isn't all that shocking. Thethought of a kinsman killing a king he loved to advance himself hasmuch more dramatic tension. While I admit there are some cool staging,the gangland setting isn't original enough to cut down the actualShakespeare for overlong gun battles.