Great Performances (TV Series) Macbeth (2010) User Reviews

A gripping, bitter, comfortless Macbeth inspired by recent horror motifs

[brennan-charlie · 8/10 · 28 February 2011]

This filming of Goold's production of Macbeth makes no bones (or blood, or torn entrails) about its roots in extreme violence. This is a Macbeth that is, at times, as much SAW or The Ring as it is the wordplay.

This is not, in my view, a bad thing: Stewart is one of the few actors who can stand up against this kind of visceral attack and not be overwhelmed.

I found the witches, in their surgical masks and wielding autopsy saws, to be truly nasty spectres; they're continually lurking around in the background of the play, with their scenes integrated skillfully into the rest of the action.

The sound design is enormous, as of the bombardment of Stalingrad, and at times again threatens to become over-whelming; the atmosphere is of a world already dead, already blasted into dust. Kate Fleetwood's Lady Macbeth is so frightfully evil, with her terrifying bone-structure and icy manner, that she sometimes threatens to become the centre of the play's evil.

This is a combination of Shakespeare, 1984, torture-porn and Eisenstein: a big, brutal, blasting Macbeth for a very modern audience. I cannot imagine the schoolboy who would not be enthralled, though it might repel the older audience member.

PS: regarding the earlier reviewer: Macbeth does NOT 'admonish' his wife with the phrase about 'bring forth men children only': it is the ultimate COMPLIMENT in a male dominated society as he goes on to prove with the words 'for thy UNDAUNTED mettle should compose nothing but men'.

The Macbeths are NOT young: he is a mature man: they have had children 'I have given suck' and their child is dead or gone; that is plain. If the scene has any contradictions, it's that, being past their chances of parenthood 'he has no children', he should hint that she will be fertile again.

This production solves that problem neatly by providing a significant age difference between the two leads: Macbeth the older man and the Lady nearing the end of her fertility.

Downfall of a Scot

[paul2001sw-1 · 7/10 · 28 December 2010]

The richness of Shakespeare's plays, and the vagueness of their settings, lends them to many adaptations and interpretations. This version of Macbeth, the "Scottish play", doesn't feel particularly Scottish, more Orwellian, and Patrick Stewart plays the central character less as an opportunistic chancer out of his depth, and more as a deranged psychopathic tyrant: if the film resembles any other, it's 'Downfall', the story of the last days of Hitler. As always when watching Shakespeare, one is stunned by the sheer number of brilliant phrasings that have entered general usage from his works. But Macbeth is an odd play dramatically: the main action occurs offstage, the leavening self-referential humour present in 'Hamlet' is here lacking, and there are few appealing characters. In Kenneth Brannagh's version of 'Hamlet', for example, I really enjoyed Derek Jacobi's ambiguous Claudius; but in this story, there is little other than war and death. As a film, it also falls between two stools, as it is shot neither naturalistically, nor with the brilliant invention of Baz Luhrmann's 'Romeo + Juliet'; rather, it feels like a stage play jazzed up with the occasional camera trick. So I'm not sure this is the best of Shakespeare's tragedies, nor that this is my favourite production; but it's certainly intense. Indeed, if this was once popular entertainment, one can only regret the undemanding nature of modern tastes.

Will all great Neptune's ocean wash this blood clean from my hand?

[sharky_55 · 8/10 · 8 October 2015]

I am always interested in the ways a Shakespeare adaptation can be morphed on the screen. This one, by RSC, does it well. It mirrors Stalin's rise and lust for power; there is a gigantic headshot emblazoned on a tapestry in the same vein, infamous moustache and all, of Patrick Stewart once he takes the throne in the dining hall. As they talk of sword fights, they brandish machine guns and weapons of far more lethality. This does not detract from the original play; the climatic fight between Macbeth and Macduff is done via knives, right after he thoroughly douses himself in alcohol and prepares for death.

There are other touches that reinforce this contextual setting. Soviet documentary footage chimes in from dusty television sets and radios. Mechanical elevators creak sombrely and are later used for the metaphorical descent to hell for some of our dearly departed characters. The three witches become pale- faced nurses. Their introduction is fantastic; the horror aesthetic works well because of the seedy lighting, sound design which assaults our ears with scratches, screams and harrowing distortion and the sudden manner in which they are unveiled. Their prophecies become harrowing shrieks as they tend to lifeless patients which sudden crackle with life. The sets are few and sparsely decorated to great effect; there is nothing more illusory than a cold, expansive dining hall which the gramophone struggles to fill with dance music, nothing more grimy than the lone basin where Lady Macbeth sees gushing wounds, red gashes of blood and ruined clothes which she tries futilely to wash away. A leaky faucet sprays blood rather than pure water. The rusting claustrophobic walls close in on our characters in moments of great grief and anger and lust, and we see them for the monsters they truly are.

Both Patrick Stewart and Kate Fleetwood's mastery of the material is clear. Their stage experience and familiarity with the roles allows Goold to use long takes for the soliloquies which heightens the tension and emotion their characters are going through. Fleetwood is terrifying in that first monologue, and then we abruptly cut and she is meekly scrubbing the dirty kitchen walls as Macbeth returns. They embrace with a violent sensuality (which later becomes uneven as the power dynamics of their relationship shift). She is of course initially more motivated to commit regicide than she is, but pulls off the domestic and matronly persona well, even as her mind is scheming beneath. She interrupts that conflicted soliloquy in the kitchen by Macbeth, thrusting her agency and drive into the scene as Stewart agonises over what is a clear sin. Later, Macbeth again confronts the consequences of such a deed, and the camera slowly zooms in and plunges Stewart into pitch black as he finishes with "to hell". His brutal descent into lust and power is accentuated by Stewart; he mimes the shooting of Banquo from afar in the idyllic courtyard, and later stares Macduff's innocent family in the eyes as he brandishes a knife. This kickstarts a Godfather-esque sequence where murders are committed over a haunting hymn and Macbeth's position on the throne is solidified for a little while.

When the affluent and benevolent Duncan gathers his loyal subjects in his office, he pauses for a moment before announcing his son Malcolm as the next in line. The camera is however situated behind them, over their shoulder, and when Duncan makes that pivotal decision, Stewart is pushed into sharp focus; we see every ounce of disgust and confusion in his face after the witches promised a different outcome. I am reminded of a similar scene in RSC's Hamlet where Stewart as Claudius looks to address Hamlet first, but rebuffs him for the lesser Laertes. These little cinematic touches are great at unveiling subtext and character reactions that would be harder to spot on the stage. This adaptation is quite well done.

Very contemporary telling of the tale of Macbeth, real, compelling, creepy. Really worth the sit.

[lmfmasterton · 10/10 · 6 October 2010]

It is true what Patrick Stewart says, in the 'extras' on this film: in the last 20 years or so we have discovered that Shakespeare was a Screenwrite. Every line of verse in this production makes sense, is clearly revealed in its meaning by the use of images, and when the monologues are delivered to the camera, you get it, you follow, you never drift off from the usual 'yadda yadda' quality that the longer speeches, even beautifully pronounced by European players, can induce in all but scholars. The nuance that Goold gets from his actors on meaning and tone is terrific to watch. It is a scary environment; it is a humans-sized environment. Real human ambition & regret & resolve are actively demonstrated--no grand pronouncements. You see how perfect the play is, how dead on. That Lady Macbeth would instantly sicken when Macbeth the King becomes the real 'man' she derides him for NOT being in the first 1/5--is utterly believable.

That Macbeth would HAVE to become a testosterone ridden, bloodthirsty tyrant is clear: his only way out, as he tries to live without sleep, without 'troops of friends', without progeny.

I really enjoyed watching Patrick Stewart's maturity as an actor. Every line was a discovery, a delight of "oh, that's what he's thinking". No scenery chewing, but, damn, the dude is scary at times. (watching him make and share a sandwich had me writhing). His Macbeth is masculine, vigorous, cerebral (leading to his downfall, perhaps). His foil, Kate Fleetwood as Lady Macbeth, really holds her own against him; I can see her dashing the suckling babe all right. And then hoisted by her own petard in the end, ruined by her ambition instantly, no chance to enjoy the spoils.

The scene where Thane of Fife goes to England to beseech the Prince of Cumberland to come home and save Scotland really thrilled me. The actor Scot Handy gives a reading that had me utterly flummoxed ("I don't' remember this scene? Why is he talking like that? Did they re-write this? Oh, I get it!! Well done!") And to be given the enjoyment of Shakespeare all over again because an actor inhabits it newly – delicious! Later, his physical revulsion and bravery in the final speech of the play was a great note to go out on. Likewise, Fife's breathing when he gets horrifying news, these are great actors and a great director. Not to mention the playwright.

I am going to buy this film.

The sound track is particularly masterful. Unnatural creepy perfect sounds. And it never lets up. I'll say no more. Go listen for yourself.

Nor does it ever appear as a staged film. The claustrophobic environment makes you long for fresh air. That the only outdoor scene has Banquo & Fleance in jeopardy, you are holding your breath for them, is additionally chilling.

The porter as a decrepit, drunken, save-your-arse kind of Irishman was an unexpected treat. Also, the feeling of a real company was very evident. Small roles like the Queen's maid and the Doctor, the milquetoast Steward who gets his spine in the end, and the porter who delivers the great line: "The Queen, my Lord, is dead.", all fit in beautifully.

There is not a clunker in the group; nor is a false note ever struck; and you cheer for the good guys and the relief of Light & the Good returning in the end.

If you don't really like or 'get' Shakespeare, see this. Not ONCE does it smack of obligatory literature. It is real, tough, in your face, compelling, and the witches will Rock you! Their presentation is terrific, unexpected and utterly perfect for this version of the play. The use of the horrors of conventional medicine is a hoot. They are Macbeth's own inner demons, made patently evident when he says "Enough.", as they disappear for the last time.

Much like Peter Jackson nailed the 'better & lesser angels of our nature' with the scene of Gollum talking to himself as both Smeagal & Gollum--this production holds a glass up to our ambition, recklessness & the inebriating quality of getting what you want. See it. It may save your soul. A tale of our times, written 418 years ago.

Masterful gripping production of Shakespeare's Macbeth

[grant-ellsworth-864-889985 · 10/10 · 6 October 2010]

This is the best film performance of Macbeth which I have seen. It ranks with Ian McKellen's Richard III (1994/5) as a definitive production in an "updated" setting. Like McKellen's Richard III, Goold's Macbeth uses a staging suggestive of late 1930's - and does not seem out of place any more the McKellen's Richard III did. Patrick Stewart's interpretation and presentation of the Macbeth character is dynamic and cover's a wide range of expression. His Macbeth has a hesitant and sometimes seeming incomplete descent into pure evil. It was a masterful and dynamic performance. However, in my opinion, Stewart's co-star, Kate Fleetwood, just about steals the show. Her Lady Macbeth is pure evil from the start - she comes across as the cold pit viper lacking only visible fangs. Her performance here is truly the best I have seen since I saw Judith Anderson give a TV performance a long time ago. The integration of the 3 witches into the action throughout as 3 triage nurses was an imaginative element. This is a "hold on to your seat" production - grabbing your attention right at the start and moving at a steady pace to the last syllable of (its) recorded time - you will not leave your chair.

Dark, brooding production led by great performances from Stewart and Fleetwood

[bob the moo · 23 October 2015]

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.

Good, but not THAT good

[sarastro7 · 7/10 · 17 February 2011]

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.

Sir Patrick Stewart's performance is riveting

[sidecar · 10/10 · 12 October 2010]

This is the best thing I've seen on television since the Sopranos. Sharp, compelling performances by every actor surely must mark this version of Macbeth as the must see drama of the year, if not the decade. It is an extraordinarily delicious feast for the eyes and ears.

Sir Patrick Stewart gives us a shining, mad, diabolical egomaniac. He delivers every one of Shakespeare's words with exquisite timing and vibrant life. Kate Fleetwood's gripping portrayal of Lady Macbeth left me breathless.

The modern setting in that creepy, suffocating old building that breathes a sinister life of its own, just turns the trick to make this a true masterpiece at PBS.

Solid enough, originally mounted but Age Inappropriate

[kayaker36 · 7/10 · 7 October 2010]

Macbeth is supposed to be ambitious, murderous but first of all YOUNG with a whole lifetime in front of him as the play begins. After all, he and Lady Macbeth have as yet no children as revealed in the first act when Macbeth admonishes her to have only male offspring as she lacks feminine softness.

I could not get past the incongruity of seventy year old Patrick Stewart in the part, though he is a fine actor, always physically fit and with a superb speaking voice. But that face and that bald skull...

Ms. Fleetwood his co-star is herself no débutante at 38 but her "husband" is nearly twice her age! Some of the other parts, such as the comrade betrayed Banquo, had to be aged just to maintain credibility in the casting of the central role.

This production achieves high marks for originality, with Macbeth portrayed as a Scottish Stalin, cult of personality and all, with 1930's costumes and weaponry much in evidence.

Catch the 1971 Polanski directed film version starring young, handsome Jon Finch. Authentic to the last rawhide lacing, this still is the gold standard.

A Macbeth like no other

[plamya-1 · 9/10 · 6 October 2010]

A visually brutal adaptation of a theatrical production that combines the experience of stylized European director's theater with the documentary-film imagery of war, Stalinist totalitarianism, dystopian landscapes. The result is not as much a drama (although the acting itself is riveting) as a series of rapidly-changing tableaux that bring a striking newness to Shakespeare's language. Sir Patrick Stewart performs the role of a lifetime. As a Shakespearian actor, he manipulates Shakespeare's words so that they ring authentically, as if we are hearing them for the first time.

This Macbeth channels the early Polish Roman Polanski, the imaginings of a Stanley Kubrick, the gritty grayness of 1984. It HAD to be shown as a PBS "Great Performances," for I cannot imagine it attracting a commercial audience, or even a film festival one, since it seems more like an brilliant artistic experiment that might have its most successful showing in the context of a museum. It is complex, worthy of endless dissection of words and images. My experience of it had less emotion involvement than fascination with creative process behind the filmmaking.

The Best Macbeth You'll Ever See

[joshlhitchens · 10/10 · 8 October 2010]

I just finished watching Rupert Goold's film of Macbeth, starring Patrick Stewart and Kate Fleetwood. As mentioned in the last post, I saw this production on Broadway and was eagerly awaiting the film version. Now I've seen a lot of great film Macbeths, including the Ian McKellen/Judi Dench version, the RSC film with Antony Sher, and Roman Polanski's. This film is the best Macbeth that you will ever see. In fact, scenes that I didn't find very effective on stage (Lady Macbeth's mad scene and and the long scene between Malcolm and Macduff) were very powerful in the movie. Patrick Stewart's performance is definitive. You can see every thought that passes through his mind. Kate Fleetwood's Lady Macbeth charted her fall into insanity with such clarity that when Macbeth is told that she has died, it's no surprise to him or the audience. You see that there was no other end to her story. The Weird Sisters, here played as Nurses who have gone over to the dark side, are truly frightening. There is no weak link in this cast, the directing is thrillingly original, and the production design is stunning. It easily could have been shown in movie theaters. This Macbeth is set during the Cold War of the 1950's, and doesn't shy away from the shocking violence of a dictatorship. Characters are brutally executed, and the murder of Lady Macduff and her children is greatly disturbing, even though you see almost nothing happen. And to top it all off, Rupert Goold has the film end with the camera panning from location to location throughout the castle (the dining room, the kitchen, the Weird Sisters' morgue) and then closes with a shot of Macbeth and his Lady in the elevator, hand in hand. So we end with the idea that Macbeth's castle isn't just drenched in blood. It's haunted.

Mannered--and not in the good sense

[steven_torrey · 5/10 · 8 January 2015]

What seemed to work in Richard III, placing Richard as a Totalitarian Dictator of the modern era, for this production of Macbeth placing Macbeth as European Dictator, just ends up being a mannered play. The pyrotechnics of the performers ends up drowning out the simplicity and directness of Shakespeare's message: the guilt of conscience placing limits on blind ambition. The Shakespeare script was memorable but something was lost in the over-dramatization. This is one of my favorite of Shakespeare's plays--one of the first I studied in high school. This performance will not stand the test of time in the same way that Ian McClellan's Richard III will.

There are really two different and distinct ideas Shakespeare presented. In Richard III--the play was about ruthless ambition, and ambition realized with ruthless, cold, calculating murder. Macbeth is about ruthless ambition AND conscience made palpable.

A truly compelling watch, Patrick Stewart is brilliant

[TheLittleSongbird · 10/10 · 9 March 2011]

I love Shakespeare, and have seen various adaptations of his plays. Macbeth was one of my first Shakespeares, and is a really powerful play in its own right not just in the language and some of the imagery but also in the characters and especially the story.

This Macbeth is more contemporary in its setting, but it is every bit as compelling as the play as it should be. In fact, this Macbeth is one of the most compelling adaptations of the play I've seen. Although contemporary(which didn't bother me at all by the way), the setting is still very well done. Some of it is truly beautiful to watch, but some of it is also appropriately bleak, and we have the skillful camera work and lighting to thank for that.

The story is still the compelling, gripping story I remember Macbeth by, and keeps the crucial elements in. Not only that, those crucial elements are very well done in their atmosphere, not just the encounters with the witches which are the epitome of creepiness but the mad scene which I don't always find effective but very much did here and the scene with Thane of Fife and Cumberland is also riveting. The dialogue is still wonderful and timed impeccably.

Rupert Goold's direction is very fine, and the soundtrack is also impressive with some really intentionally unsettling bits to it. Even some of the sound effects gave me shivers. The acting from Macbeth down to the smallest part is uniformly fantastic. Kate Fleetwood is absolutely transfixing being very beautiful, suitably evil and cold. Plus she really holds her own against Patrick Stewart, who is simply mesmerising as Macbeth. Not only in the charisma, but also the delivery of the lines, gestures and voice.

Overall, truly compelling and I was holding on to my seat for the entire duration. 10/10 Bethany Cox

Thrillingly Brilliant

[Hurricane_Theresa · 10/10 · 9 October 2010]

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.

Gloriously horrifying

[will-861-527405 · 9/10 · 15 May 2014]

The "Out, damned spot" bit was killer.

The "Out, out, brief candle" bit was worth the wait.

Stewart's performance overall was stunning. Captain Picard was fun to watch and you could detect Stewart's gravitas in it; Dr. Xavier didn't stretch Stewart in the least and it was just a sweet paycheck for him, which I fully applaud him collecting. But this here is what Stewart was built for. The man is a beautiful monster in this performance.

The whole cast was nearly pitch perfect.

The witches were gloriously horrifying. The "Double, bubble, toil and trouble" bit was innovative and fun.

Watch Lady Macbeth transform from a supremely manipulative banshee from Hell into a guilt-wracked suicidal lunatic.

If you don't understand what's going on all the time, you're not alone, and take heart: this film's visuals help you along much of the way, without treating you like a moron.

As for the script itself -- it's Shakespeare: raw, economical, polyrhythmic, full of slyly naughty jokes to try and catch, and full of linguistic innovation. Few writers have displayed such freedom with the language. If you're a writer, I advise you to take a cue from Shakespeare and just start breaking rules and making up new ones. This version of Macbeth should inspire you to do that.

Immediately riveting; inescapably enchanting

[I_Ailurophile · 10/10 · 6 June 2021]

Let no one doubt for a single moment: One may call this a great performance, but it is ever more an essential watch, for all. This rendition of 'Macbeth' is outstanding among even the most outstanding that cinema has to offer.

I tend to have a hard time engaging with contemporary re-imaginings of classic theater. The anachronism of language, if not also behavior, is glaring, and for the relative rarity that one has opportunity to engage with a work, I'd broadly rather view a period piece. So those instances which can break through that barrier I've erected are the more welcome for it - and this most of all may be a turning point.

There is only one name in the cast that I'm familiar with, but everyone here puts forth a masterful performance to which I can draw no comparison. Yet more so: Kate Fleetwood, as Lady Macbeth, parades a gripping presence of beauty and stature that belies terrible ambition and dread intention, an unrestrained intensity that spirals further into madness with the progression of the narrative. She is matched in that excellence, note for note, only by Sir Patrick Stewart, demonstrating vividly that for every role on film or television that he has embodied with unparalleled ability and charisma, the stage and the Bard is where we best witness the entirety of his intelligence. No one who has ever seen Stewart play a part beyond this 'Macbeth' has ever seen in full the skill he commands, lest they have had privilege to see him in person, in a theater. I'm simply in awe.

Shifting the tale from a Scotland of centuries' past to an Eastern Europe of decades not so long gone is jarring, surely, but ultimately an exquisite and well-conceived choice. The barbarity of Lord and Lady Macbeth is painted with a crimson more rich for being of a time and place more pointedly familiar, where political purges shucked many loose of their mortal coil. The sets, lighting, costumes, props, makeup, and effects are exceptional, as is the keen eye of director Rupert Goold whose precise vision captures these extraordinary achievements of acting, every fine nuance in person and detail in place, and every best shot and method of depiction.

The thrills conveyed in this re-imagined, timeless story of thirst for power, blood, and madness are too given new life when examined in such a manner. They are joined by no small sense of horror at the great tyranny of Macbeth, and more directly so at the visitation of the Three Witches of Shakespeare's verses. Seen here as nurses or servant, the cauldrons they stir are the seeming bodies of the deceased; the stews they prepare, the organs within. The violence of this classic is sensational in the writing, yet not so indecently visceral in its cinematic realization as to excite us to recoil - though certainly grotesque nonetheless.

And through it all, the unaltered language of some 400 years ago is not an obstacle, but a reverie. More plainspoken words would draw forth some ease of interpretation for modern ears, yet I judge would also be needlessly tawdry in their presentation. There is an invaluable, ageless poetry conferred upon the bloodiest of deeds when dressed in verbiage so flowery, so far removed from our daily experience. However one thinks of William Shakespeare, to attend to his works with vocal expression as it is written is to journey outside of ourselves, even as we sit in comfort in our homes, or in a theater, or even beholding a production more closely resembling our acquaintance.

This production holds a grandness and a gravity in its nature that runs counter to the bloodbath of its content. Where once I would have balked, I now admire: Goold's 'Macbeth' is as worthy of an audience as any version on film of a play from previous eras. Save for the youngest of possible viewers, for whom the violence is perhaps too much to bear, this earns a hearty recommendation not just for fans of theater generally, of Shakespeare specifically, or of Patrick Stewart, but for all comers.

Truly magnificent. Bravo, bravo, bravo!

Patrick Stewart's Macbeth

[Red-125 · 9/10 · 19 March 2014]

Macbeth (2010) was shown on TV as part of the "Great Performances" series. Director Rupert Goold has given us a very unusual Macbeth. It's primarily a war story, set in what I judge to be about 1955. There are battle scenes, and almost all of the characters are in military uniform. Goold has inserted stock footage of planes and tanks into several scenes.

The film was shot in Welbeck Abbey. I looked it up, and the abbey has underground rooms and tunnels, where a great deal of the action takes place. (The abbey was used as a military facility and training grounds, so, presumably, the tunnels and the elevators really exist.) Not exactly what Shakespeare may have had in mind, but effective enough once you get used to it.

Patrick Stewart makes a great Macbeth. You can believe that he's a tough, ruthless, and ambitious officer, who wants to be king.

Kate Fleetwood (Goold's wife) is an excellent Lady Macbeth. This Lady Macbeth is no longer young, and not as beautiful as she once was, but she has a royal presence that demands respect.

Believe it or not, a highlight of the film for me were the three witches. These are not supernatural hags. They are three women who look as if they belong where they are. However, where they are is everywhere. First we see them as nurses. (It turns out that you'd rather not have any of them as your nurse.) Then they're cooks, brandishing knives in the kitchen. Then they're serving at the banquet. No one pays them any special attention, but they deserve attention. The concept of the witches, representing evil, being everywhere really worked for me. Utilizing them in this way was a brilliant directorial touch.

We saw this Macbeth on DVD, and it worked very well on the small screen. Most of the scenes are inside the abbey, where the light is dim and space is limited. I don't think seeing on the movie on a large screen would change matters much.

Fair warning: the first scene of the film--the interview with the wounded sergeant--is very bloody and disturbing. If blood and violence aren't your thing, fast forward through that part.

This Macbeth is a very creative, edgy rendering of Shakespeare's play. It's worth seeking out and seeing this movie.

Disappointed

[lukealrogers-57451 · 1/10 · 28 January 2020]

They missed the egg part, this is a huge oversight as it was the best line in the play!

MACBETH is sadly neither film nor play

[YohjiArmstrong · 25 April 2011]

Plot: A nobleman murders and usurps his King before being destroyed by his enemies and himself

This is the film adaptation of a highly successful stage performance which changed the setting of the play to a post-Soviet Eastern European country. The actors are, as you'd expect, excellent, with Kate Fleetwood as Lady Macbeth deserving special mention for her performance, in which she looks like a vampire squid with killer cheekbones. Unfortunately over-similar costuming, dim lighting and a surfeit of beefy white actors render many of the supporting characters somewhat indistinguishable. The setting is interesting and gives rise to some of the neater touches (the woods of Dunsinane are soldiers in ghillie suits) but is insufficiently explored - especially the ideological dimension. The main problem however is that the director is a novice. Too often there is a clear diving line between stagey, actorly scenes full of dialogue and ineptly shot but cinematic action scenes. The whole thing never quite gels together, never managing to be satisfactory as a recorded play or adapted film.

Worth one viewing.

The best version

[laredj81 · 10/10 · 12 April 2020]

I really liked this version of Macbeth, not only for the genius performance of Patrick Stewart and Kate Fleetwood, but for modernizing the work as a whole. The film maintained the theatrical layout within the film, and this was sufficient reason to make it unique.

Watch it tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow

[hte-trasme · 10/10 · 5 September 2011]

This BBC production is upsetting, unnerving, often horrifying, unforgettable, and very difficult with which to find flaw. It's set it Soviet Russia, with Macbeth as a Stalin-like figure, engendering imagery that is both horrifying and picture-perfectly realized.

One of the great advantages of this film is that is it a (very cinematic) recorded version of a stage production after a long and successful run -- so each member of the ensemble cast in intimately familiar with his or her role and its nuances. Rupert Goold proves himself both a "visionary" director and an actor's one, as every performance is shudderingly truthful and inventive -- and both performances and settings are rife with small interpolations that only add substance and effectiveness to the production -- Macbeth talking to the two overwhelmed murderers while making a sandwich, Banquo killed on a train, the porter bitter and delivering his speech while drinking and watch Soviet parades.

Chief among the cast, of course, is Sir Patrick Stewart, who immediately cements himself as a great Macbeth. He displays extraordinary dynamism, range, understanding, clarity, and emotional truth in the role. His Macbeth is forceful and powerful but at the same time vulnerable and uncertain. We feel first his struggle, then his guilt and of all his pervading mania for certainty. The moment just before his death when he finally dismissed his grasping at the vision of the (unnervingly nurse- attired witches) for that certainty with a still "Enough" is astounding. I have difficulty imagining a more affecting rendition of the "tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow" speech than Sir Patrick's absolute nihilism here.

Suzanne Burden is also a horrifying Lady Macbeth; her honest hunger for power through her husband, her recoil at his disruption of dinner with his vision of Banquo making her not sympathetic but comprehensible as a real human and thus the more uncanny. Michael Feast also deserves special mention as an excellent Macduff, carrying off an amazing silence after he learns the death of his sons.

The Soviet trove of imagery is rich, enhancing the play with suggestions of history that we may know (Siward happens to remind me a lot of Shostokovich here) lending it a well-realized look of decay and hopelessness. Devices such as the Stalinist-style portrait of Macbeth, the rolling tape, the bugs, &c are recreated with precision, fall into that "uncanny valley" with their level of familiarity and hint parallels with the events of the play without intruding on them.

In all, great production and direction as well as performances from a tight ensemble cast -- all brimming with creativity from all edges -- create a great production of the play that is a searing, nightmarish vision, complimented by a performance in the lead role that seems to me to be for the ages, and is now my favorite of those I've had the chance to see. There have been and will be many performances of Macbeth that are _different_ than this one, but I doubt I'll see one that is _better_.

really fabulous macbeth.

[fuflans · 10/10 · 9 May 2011]

i saw this production on stage. i saw it on film. i have seen macbeth probably 20 times over the last couple decades (it's one of my favs). i am also an actor and have been in it twice.

i have seen nothing even close to this production. it was without a doubt the most exciting performance of 'macbeth' i have ever experienced. and scared the living daylights out of me. which is, in fact, the point.

and paul2001 (you showing up as the everyman critic for IMDb): have you read the great tragedies? cause seriously dude, NONE of them comes close to the stagecraft of 'macbeth'. yes there is poetry (hamlet, r&j, Other Things), tragedy (hamlet, lear, othello, r&j), drama (hamlet, lear, othello, r&j), characters (everything he ever wrote), existential ruminations (lear).

but for sheer two hour and 15 minute stagecraft? he never wrote anything like 'macbeth'.

MacCeaucescu, the Scottish Soviet Play

[handy314 · 9/10 · 23 June 2023]

The Ceaucescu-era Romanian setting is genius for this play. Patrick Stewart and Kate Fleetwood are perfection. And the choice to make the Weird Sisters Nurse/Servants so that they linger around MacBeth in various locations to torment him is brilliantly effective: they make perfect sense silently moving about the banquet table pouring wine and serving blood red soup, or chopping up animals in the kitchen.

The post-industrial Soviet-era settings and de-natured color make the whole production give it a chaustrophobic doom. For my money, no one can manage the jump from haunted murderer better than Stewart. Macbeth is easy to bellow or chop up to make each gorgeous line more dramatic, but his simplicity and gravitas make it entirely believable he can be both the murderer and the haunted man.

An entire cast & crew of Masters At Work!

[lilithphoenix-63524 · 10/10 · 16 June 2022]

IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN IT, YET! YOU'RE DOING YOURSELF A DISSERVICE! HANDS DOWN THE BEST MACBETH FILM TO DATE!

MACBETH'S SOLILOQUY "TOMORROW AND TOMORROW" IN ACT V SC V this is the crescendo (chef's kiss) when Macbeth realises he's zero forks & knives left to give. Now, Sir Patrick Stewart started his career in the Royal Shakespeare Company, and is a master of Shakespeare by any means but I was still blown away by this performance. He delivered this role immaculately!

But, the true star of the show was Kate Fleetwood as Lady Macbeth, (yes...I know, imagine upstaging Sir Patrick Stewart!) Her deliverance of the sleepwalking scene literally sent chills down my spine!!!

I would give a notable mention to, ACT IV SCENE III (Speech by Macduff) Michael Feast's emotion - okay I bawled and cried! That was masterful!

And excuse me but the three sisters with their modern version of "songs of the witches" Did I catch a hint of Dubstep? Who knew Shakespeare would remix well with Dubstep? You Do You! That was a stroke of Sheer dumb luck and it was genius how it just worked!

The scenery being entirely filmed inside Welbeck Abbey and in the underground labyrinth. Added a chilling ambience to the whole contemporary take.

I cannot fault this! 10/10.

Embarrassing Mess

[Macbeth2010isTrash · 2/10 · 21 November 2019]

This made-for-TV "film" is a joke of a product. This film would live in total irrelevance if it weren't for the lead role Macbeth, played by Patrick Stewart, who does a mediocre-at-best, phone-it-in job. Some of the decisions made by the director are cringeworthy and completely pull you out of the film. If you are unfamiliar with the plot of Macbeth, you will be completely lost watching this film.

The lighting and cinematography are worse than a home-movie, and the costume design is just strange. Patrick Stewart's clothing goes from a character from The Expendables, to Vladimir Putin, to James Bond, and it is completely distracting. I can't tell where this is meant to take place, as the first half of the movie takes place in an underground bunker, supported with likely stock footage of an elevator.

The long, drawn out monologues, combined with the lack of music and poor cinematography are laughable.

Any "creative" decisions fall flat and are embarrassing. Whoever gave this movie a good review has likely been manipulated by the Witches.