I haven't seen all the Macbeth film versions, but it's hard to imagine anything better than this. The costumes, staging, filmography, etc on top of the stunning acting... transporting!

I really shouldn't attempt to rate this film without having viewed other versions of "Macbeth," but I do like the settings, their crude roughness and lack of refined polish, and the cast, especially Fassbender, who carries across Macbeth's mental agony. (But then, I am a fan of his, so prejudiced.)

When I decided to find a film of "Macbeth" to purchase, I was quickly drawn to this one, since the murderous couple was played by 2 of the most talented and beautiful actors on the planet, Michael Fassbender and Marion Cotillard. And I was not disappointed. Lady Macbeth chilled me to the bone as she called upon the spirits to "unsex me here, and fill me from the crown to the toe, top-full of direst cruelty". She was revved up for action before her husband was. As for Macbeth himself, he was calm and almost matter-of-fact as he first stabbed his victim with the dagger; but his facial expression and his actions increased in savagery as he continued, as if he could tear the deed itself to shreds, to make it disappear. Another element of the film that impressed me was the starkness of the outdoor scenes, of which there were many. The bleak surroundings prepare the viewer for the evils to come. When I read the reviews of others, I noticed 3 negative things that I ignored when I made my choice. The first was that the film was generally so dark that it was hard to see what was happening. I have to agree; much of the film was dark but I did not find this to be a disadvantage. The second criticism was that the actors mumbled their lines, making it difficult to understand what was said. Again, I agree. The actors kept it extremely low-key. Even the witches were surprisingly quiet. But I take issue with the third negative, that the subtitles did not help. They absolutely did. They were easy to see and easy to read, and they made up for the low-key speech. The beauty of Shakespeare's language was not lost. All things considered, I thought this film was excellent. It helps if you already know the story, but this is true of just about every historical drama I have seen.

Michael Fassbender and Marion Cotillard are arguably the best Macbeth and Lady Macbeth I have witnessed. Everything in this movie works, from the acting and the simplistic yet stunning costumes, to the haunting music and the cinematography...its just amazing. The only things I really found flawed in this adaptation were the lines and scenes cut from the original play that I felt were important, but the director certainly made took the play and made it his own, and it was very well done. This film is a welcomed change of pace from all the predictable stagnant films that are produced every year. Very underrated film last year in my opinion, can not believe how snubbed it was during awards season

First, let’s briefly outline the plot of “Macbeth”. This will provide us with context for this review of Justin Kurzel’s adaptation of the play.In “Macbeth”, Shakespeare illustrates two tendencies that are placed in the nature of man. One of these tendencies lifts man to his higher spheres of functioning. The other tendency stoops him down to a kind of low, bestial life. Man’s challenge, therefore, is to recognize and follow his attraction to the first tendency and ignore the other one. The constructive force is symbolically represented by King Edward of England. Shakespeare describes King Edward as a healer who has a miraculous power to cure a disease “called the evil”. The destructive force is represented by Hecate, the goddess of witches. The plot of the play is driven by these two forces. Macbeth is the focal point of their influences. At the beginning, Hecate is upset with the witches because they invested their charms in Macbeth, i.e., a rather weak aspect of Scotland. From Hecate’s perspective, Macbeth is not vicious enough; he is not able to serve evil efficiently enough. Macbeth can be easily corrupted. However, he is not truly a villain to the extent that, for example, Aaron was in “Titus Andronicus”. Macbeth’s “loves for his own ends, not for you” may spoil Hecate’s overall objective. Therefore, Hecate tells the witches that she will arrange for Macbeth to come back to them looking for further prophesy. And when he comes, they must summon visions and spirits whose messages will enhance Macbeth’s viciousness by filling him with a false sense of security and illusionary powers. Hecate uses the Ghost of Banquo to prompt Macbeth’s return to the witches (Hecate plays the same trick with Hamlet by bringing to Elsinore the Ghost of his father). During their second encounter with Macbeth, the witches show him a procession of crowned kings. The procession of kings serves as a visual reinforcement of their previous warning that it is not Macbeth’s but Banquo’s heirs who will be the future kings.Lady Macbeth lost her baby child from her previous marriage. Macbeth is her second husband. Macbeth suffers from some infirmity (“My Lord is often thus, and hath been from his youth, ... the fit is momentary”). Lady Macbeth implies that her husband’s infirmity affects his manliness (“you would be so much more the man”). She persuades him to kill King Duncan. Macbeth murders Duncan and seizes the throne for himself. Lady Macbeth is able to control her husband, but she is no match for Hecate. Hecate is more skillful in turning Macbeth into a true villain. Instead of playing on his weaknesses, Hecate achieves her objective by filling him with a false sense of security, because “security is mortals’ chiefest enemy”. Macbeth becomes convinced that is non-stoppable in his tyrannical rule over Scotland. He starts to ignore his wife’s counsels and begins to act on his own. When Lady Macbeth realizes that she lost control over her husband, she becomes distraught. She commits suicide. It is then that an intervention of the constructive force is needed to save Scotland from total destruction. The constructive impulse is symbolically delivered by “ten thousand English soldiers” sent to Scotland by King Edward. Macbeth is killed; Scotland is cured from its “evil” disease.The above outline of the play is not so obvious. As stated by Herald Bloom, the meanings of Shakespeare’s plays are beyond ordinary man’s comprehension (“humankind never will stop catching up to him”). Bloom openly admitted that he himself was incapable of grasping Shakespeare’s message. But Bloom’s belief is valid only as long as one approaches the plays with a set of preconceived ideas, favourite views or preferred personal opinions. Justin Kurzel’s adaptation of the play is an example of such a subjective approach. Driven by his desire to make the play relevant to our time, Mr. Kurzel imagined in Macbeth’s behaviour the symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). He rearranged and modified the original plot so it would fit into this arbitrarily chosen context. Such a rearrangement required to remove Hecate and King Edward. In this way, the story looses its inner dimension. Furthermore, Macbeth is presented as the father of Lady’s Macbeth’s lost child. This substantially affects the entire dynamics of these two characters and changes the chemistry of their relationship. Consequently, instead of referring to Duncan’s blood on her hands, Lady Macbeth’s pivotal “Out, damned spot” is addressed to the freckled ghost of her child whom she urges to go to bed. To further support his PTSD theme, Mr. Kurzel brings in and slaughters many boy soldiers in the battle scenes. Then, it is not the Birnam Wood that comes to Dunsinane Castle. Instead, Mr. Kurzel sets the Birnam Wood on fire, so the smoke and ashes blowing towards the castle serve as background for a modern-day battlefield. At the end, he adds a scene where Banquo’s son steals Macbeth’s sword and runs away with it. In this way the director implies that the witches’ prophesy comes true and Banquo’s heir will form a new line of Scottish kings. Such an interpretation of the procession of crowned kings is exactly what the witches wanted Macbeth to believe in. The procession of kings (this scene has been cut-off from the movie) bears as much truth as the witches’ other prophesies. It is at this point that Mr. Kurzel fell into the witches’ trap. Let’s remember Banquo’s warning, “the instruments of darkness … win us with honest trifles, to betray’s in deepest consequence”.Of course, the director has the right to exercise his imagination and present his vision of the play. But the question is: to what degree may a director deform the original story in order to express his own opinion about some non-related but currently pressing problems? Where is the borderline between “honest trifles” and “deepest consequence”? Such a judgment cannot be left only to the professional critics. In the case of Kurzal’s “Macbeth”, the critics came to the consensus that it was faithful to the source material. Instead, their criticism was focused on technicalities such as the cast, the actors’ enunciation, their peculiar accents, volumes and tones of their voices, etc., etc. It is up to each individual person to judge the value of this particular adaptation. But in order to make such a judgment, one would have to consider it within the context of “deepest consequence”, i.e., the original intention of the play.