Cubussoli Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Tockinit not horrible nor great

KnotStronger This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.

Keira Brennan The movie is made so realistic it has a lot of that WoW feeling at the right moments and never tooo over the top. the suspense is done so well and the emotion is felt. Very well put together with the music and all.

Hitchcoc I keep reading about the shoestring that this movie was made on. Orson Welles is a cryptic figure and director. We all know the story of the Thane of Cawdor who listens to some witches, who predict he will be king. Of course, his decisions after that direct his life and affect the lives of others. Lady Macbeth is instrumental in his decision making (she introduces peer pressure into Shakespeare), and when he kills the current King, there is no going back. Welles, himself, has that dark quality about him. His piercing eyes glare at his opponents. Of course, after the death of Banquo, he begins to exhibit some odd, suspicious behavior. There are so many Macbeth's to choose from (I've always liked the Polanski), but as a curiosity, this is worth the effort, even though it drags at times and there's the brogue.

mark.waltz My love of theater has taken me to genres and eras of the stage where I would not have dared gone back in my 20's and 30's. I spent the 2013/14 season and beyond seeing more Shakespeare on the New York stage than I had seen in my entire life. This included two different Broadway productions of "the Scottish play", one a solo performance by Alan Cumming, the other a Lincoln Center production on Halloween night that had me go home and take a shower for having partaken in a production that reeked of dark forces from the underground. For my first film or video version of this classic play so notorious that nobody mentions its name within the confines of any theater the 1948 Orson Welles version, and if other versions of it on screen are far better, they must be outstanding, for I could find no fault with this version.Welles, the boy wonder of RKO in the early 1940's, had to go to lowly Republic Studios to get this made. He's commanding, both in front and behind the screen, both as actor and director. Looking like the wicked queen from "Snow White", Jeanette Nolan looks the part of sinister manipulation, but speaks with such girlish longing, it is easy to see why Welles' MacBeth could fall for it. The sets and costumes, along with the moody photography, really make you feel like you are living 1000 years ago. Supporting cast members like Roddy McDowall and Dan O'Herlihy fill out the other important roles. The sequences with the witches are rather eerie, adding to the atmospheric structure. While not a great film, this is still an artistic triumph, with many visuals providing outstanding detail.

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?

lasttimeisaw 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.