Ceticultsot Beautiful, moving film.

MoPoshy Absolutely brilliant

Chirphymium It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

Janis One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

Michael_Elliott Macbeth (1948) *** (out of 4)Macbeth (Orson Welles) is told by three witches that he will rise to become the King of Scotland. His wife Lady Macbeth (Jeanette Nolan) talks him into killing the King to gain control.It should come as no shocked that Orson Welles' MACBETH hit theaters to a loud crash meaning that it was a a flop at the box office. The film was re-edited and re-dubbed when it debuted in America but thankfully the complete 107-minute print turned up and is now available for viewing. With that said, this certainly isn't my favorite Welles film and it's certainly not one of the best Shakespeare adaptations out there but at the same time the director did very well considering what he had to work with.You can tell that there really wasn't much of a budget but that doesn't prevent Welles for turning in a beautiful looking film. There are some terrific shots to be found here but what I enjoyed the most was the atmosphere that the director created. There's some very dark scenes and some fog that really packs a nice punch throughout the picture. It also helps that you've got a great cast turning in great performances. Of course, the star is Welles and he manages to work some true magic in the role of Macbeth.I wouldn't call the film great because there really wasn't much momentum anywhere in the picture. I'd say that the film is a bit too stagy at times and I'd argue that a tad bit more energy would have helped things. Still, if you're a fan of Welles then this is certainly a must see.

gavin6942 In fog-dripping, barren and sometimes macabre settings, 11th-century Scottish nobleman Macbeth is led by an evil prophecy and his ruthless yet desirable wife to the treasonous act that makes him king. But he does not enjoy his newfound, dearly-won kingship...Macbeth marked the fourth time that a post-silent era Hollywood studio produced a film based on a Shakespeare play: United Artists had produced "The Taming of the Shrew" in 1929, Warner Brothers made "A Midsummer's Night Dream" in 1935, and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer produced "Romeo and Juliet" in 1936. None of these films were commercially successful, but the commercial and critical prestige earned by Laurence Olivier's film version of "Henry V" (which was produced in Great Britain in 1944 but not seen in the U.S. until 1946) helped to propel Welles' "Macbeth" forward.I am surprised that these films were not successful. And then comes Welles, who has such a large personality. This film is excellent, but he is a dominant part of the film -- directing, starring, and it seems he rearranged the sequences to make even the plot his own. Welles... artist or narcissistic dictator?

gizmomogwai Ever since first reading about it, I've always wished I could see Orson Welles' stage version of Macbeth, set in the 19th century Caribbean, with Voodoo priestesses as the witches and an all-black cast. I've wished that that was the vision Welles had brought to the screen, and saved "Voodoo Macbeth" for generations to see. I also would have wanted a black actor to play Macbeth rather than Welles in blackface, which is how he made his film of Othello. However, in terms of what we do have, having a Welles film of Macbeth is better than none at all, and he was a skilled actor and director, making his take on Shakespeare's masterpiece irresistible to see.Even removing the Voodoo and Caribbean and returning to Medieval Scotland, Welles creates a rich atmosphere. The first scene is arguably the best of the whole film; he has moved "Double, double, toil and trouble" to the opening and given it a lot of thunder, lightening and rain. The rest isn't as good, but still boasts costumes and sets that match the moody direction, and Welles is an able Macbeth. The way he moves around pieces of the story works in some ways but not in others. Not my favourite adaptation of The Scottish Play, but still a must-see.

Steffi_P After Laurence Olivier's epic production of Henry V in 1944, movie versions of Shakespeare plays suddenly became viable again after a dwindling of interest in the 30s. And this being the era of film noir, the Shakespeare pictures that appeared in the late 40s and 50s were almost all of the tragedies. Olivier's Hamlet was the big Oscar-winner of 1948, but just preceding it was Orson Welles's take on the overwhelmingly bleak MacBeth.This was the time in which Welles was having his infamous "troubles" with studios that would eventually make him a cause célèbre. Unable to get work with the majors MacBeth finds him working for Republic, a tiny studio yet one that produced some good stuff occasionally. While most Shakespeare adaptations from this period tried to open the plays out a bit, the low budget on offer here actually gives MacBeth a very stagey look. The castle where most of the action takes place is just a sparse couple of walls, a staircase and some scattered props, very much like a stage "building". This actually serves the play fairly well. Low-key lighting and billowing mist hide the gaps in the set and the fact that Welles only had a handful of extras for the "crowd" scenes, but they also give it that stark and stifling atmosphere that MacBeth needs.And that is not to say that this version of MacBeth is not cinematic. Welles's style as a director is, as always, one of style over substance. He is great at visual tricks and aesthetic shots, but didn't really understand the nuances of cinematic expression. But MacBeth is a Shakespeare play which can stand a bit of style over substance. It's not Shakespeare's best story, but it is a very poetic piece, with elements of myth and the supernatural. Welles's quick cuts, roving camera and baroque shot composition actually suit the material, creating some beautifully haunting and rhythmic sequences. The scene of MacDonwald's execution is a fine example, a hypnotic montage of grim faces, MacBeth running to embrace his wife before a gallows, and the drums constantly beating out an eerie tension. Later there is also the dynamic battle sequence, given impact with some rapidly-edited dolly-in shots.Now let's look at Welles the performer. His acting is not exactly world-class, but he really gets into the swing of it. I think more than any other role he played, you can actually forget that it's Welles and just see the character. And he certainly makes a better Scot than he did an Irishman in The Lady from Shanghai. His Lady MacBeth, Jeanette Nolan, was originally a radio actress and unsurprisingly her best asset here is her voice, at times coarse, at others sibilant, every consonant crystal clear, and absolutely full of the character. Despite her lack of experience she seems able to do the visual, physical acting as well. The rest of the cast are uniformly decent – theatrical yes, but never excessively hammy. No-one is trying to steal the scene here.The end result is probably the best film adaptation of MacBeth. It's also an adequate vehicle for Orson Welles's overtly stylised directorial style. The feel of a horror-tinged folk tale is all about this one, and while it doesn't breathe the same life into the bard that Olivier could manage (both as an actor and a director), it is a worthy and enjoyable effort.