Macbeth (1948)

Powerful

hyped garbage

It's funny watching the elements come together in this complicated scam. On one hand, the set-up isn't quite as complex as it seems, but there's an easy sense of fun in every exchange.

The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

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.

Looking back, I realize that Orson Welles received immense fame in movies like "Citizen Kane" and...that's about it. It's a pity the only other thing he did that was remembered was star in commercials about peas. "Citizen Kane" was so good every movie he made afterwards was compared to it. While that is of course his best work, I think it's important we look at all the other wonderful films he made as he truly was in a wide variety of classics. A lot of people probably haven't even heard of this version.This is a great movie because of all the wonderful costumes and set designs. Everything just has great atmosphere here. It's weird how the most recognizable elements from the story are the three witches, who appear relatively little in the play at all. I still regard "Throne Of Blood" as the best adaptation of this play and for that matter, probably any Shakespearean work. The acting is very good in this movie and they know how to create good atmosphere. It was interesting watching this and being reminded of the plot elements of the classic tale. It seems silly to put a synopsis as most people know it already. If not, this movie will refresh your memory as it is a wonderfully faithful adaptation. Orson Welles wanted to be remembered for all of his great movies. ***1/2

I personally found this movie quite dull. The commentator at the beginning of this movie described it as being lax it the emotional department and that it did not capture the true essence of the play Macbeth. I am inclined to believe in him. He said at the end that while making this film, Welles said that he would not go over time or over budget. He succeeded in that, but this film was the result.I will not go into the depths of an analysis of the play Macbeth because I really do not think that it is needed here. I would rather wait until I watch the Roman Polanski version, which is far superior to this. What I though made this movie stand out was the sets. Basically the twisted trees and the ruined palace created the scene of a cursed and desolate land. It was a land that was under the curse of an oppressor and it came out well in the end.The most memorable scene here is when McDuff's daughter is talking with her mother about the nature of traitors. She, I think, is by far the best actor in the film, and that was one of the best scenes in the film. Other than that, I found the film to be quite lacking and I was waiting for it to end. The reason that it received such a low score was that it was a complete bastardisation of a classical Shakespearian play. Even though the style of the sets were good, the sets themselves appeared rushed and thrown together, giving no real thought or desire to create a good movie.

Very frankly speaking, it's a horrible adaption of Macbeth, which might not be Shakespeare's best masterpiece, but still holds his gold-lettered signboard, I constantly keep myself from any possible idolization even if this time the object is Orson Welles. I am disqualified to evaluate Orson's works as I have not watch enough amount of them, I just articulate my feelings as far as this film is concerned. I guess the only person whom the film satisfies is Orson himself, as he seems to be quite intoxicated with his over-the-top performance while Shakespeare's brilliant lines could intermittently jump out of his mouth. For me it looks like even his co-star Jeanette Nolan (Ms. Macbeth) would like to finish her role (by jumping from the cliff) earlier. The film is merely a second-class Shakespeare's play with a bigger but undeservedly shabby set, actually a burlesque may be more accurate. Of course, no matter what it is still the original Macbeth, so it does has its own charm in spite of its potboiler quality, which could not be attributed to Orson himself (maybe the horror surrealistic background he creates is an exception). So clearly I'm not a B-movie fan, in my opinion the controversy of the film is largely due to the fact that it is made by Orson Welles, a prematurely senile genius, other than the film itself. The performance is un-even, Orson is not Laurence Olivier (in 1948 Laurence's Hamlet was a huge success), on the contrary, Jeanette Nolan became my sole guilty pleasure in this film (the truth is that there is sheerly no other choice for me, perhaps the three witches also stand a chance), I am not familiar with theatrical work, so if someone tells me Orson actually has done a great job in the film, I will be very disappointed by the intrinsic characteristic of an actor.