jacobjohntaylor1 This is one of the scariest movies of all time. It is one of the best witch horror movie I have ever seen. The 1948 version is a little bite better. This it is a great movie. 7.5 is underrating. William Shakespeare was one of the best writers of this time. And this is his one of his best. See this movie it is a great movie. Jon Finch was a great actor. Francesa Annis is a great actresses Roman Polanski is a great film maker. This movie has a great story line. It also has great acting. This a great movie. It is a must see. Great movie great movie great movie. I give it 10 out of 10. See it see it see it see it see it see it see it.

LeonLouisRicci This may very well be the most accessible Shakespeare for Young Moderns who Scoff at the impenetrable Dialog and Antiquated Language and setting of a World so Long Ago, of the most well Known and most often Quoted Writer in History.It combines Cinema with Theatre and the Hip Ultra-Violence that was beginning to become the Standard in Movies with a Style and Technique that was Filmmaking at its Best in 1971. Roman Polanski's Vision of the Author's Darkest Work never for a minute seems Dated and the Director manages to make a 1970's Movie where the Color looks Lush and Not Muted and the Sound well Rounded and Not Tinny. The Acting and the Soundtrack are also surprisingly Palatable and bring an Aura of Historical Authenticity through the Lense of the Twentieth Century. This is an excellent Achievement in Cross Purposes. Never Relinquishing any of the Plays Legacy Polanski manages this Impeccably.Shakespeare's Work is a Violent and Mystical Tragedy, Downbeat and an unflinching unfolding of its contemporary Court Intrigue. Polanski Captures the Essence and roots of the Films Inspiration with Authentic Artistry and at the same time Delivers a 400 Year Old Work via a Hollywood Time Machine that along the way somehow developed a Patina of its Destination.Overlooked, Ignored, Dismissed, and sometimes Maligned on the Initial Release, it has Weathered the Storm of controversy and indifference to become, arguably, the Best Cinematic Unleashing of William Shakespeare's Work.

Neil Welch Witches deliver a prophesy to Scottish warlord Macbeth that he will be King. Macbeth's wife pushes him towards the notion that the only way to ensure this is by killing the current King himself. And so he embarks on a fateful course of events.Roman Polanski's 1971 adaptation of Macbeth, one of Shakespeare's darkest plays, makes full use of cinema to place the words of the play into a grim, grey, grimy reality. As you watch Macbeth work his way further along a road to tragedy, the visuals which accompany Shakespeare's words place those words into a brutally real world.The performances are great, but this is an excellent adaptation, and makes you think that this is perhaps the sort of presentation which Shakespeare might have been involved in making had he still been alive.

submarine-green7 I wrote this review as a writing assignment for my English class, and questions were asked before so if it seems like I'm jumping from topic to topic I'm sorry. The Questions basically asked were what did you think, what scenes where effective and not effective and why, also was the violence overdone, and compared to todays violence and how did Polanski add his own interpretation to the play. I really liked by review so I thought I'd post it.I really enjoyed Roman Polanski's version of Macbeth. I think it was an excellent depiction of the play and very historically accurate. I believe the most effective scene was the one at the very beginning. There were many great scenes in this movie but this scene starts the story, in what I believe, the best possible way to show you how the rest of the movie will be themed like. You watch as a medieval warrior saunters on screen, tired from battle, onto a muddy and dank used battle field covered in dead bodies. Then he marches over to one of the bodies, maybe one that isn't fully dead, and bludgeons it with a mace. I think this show's how violent and unmerciful the time was and how the movie will be.There are no scenes in the movie that weren't effective. All of them conveyed the message of the play and the reality of the time when it was set. I do think some continuity was spared to keep it accurate to the play and the time, but that might have just been the 1971 film making. Which is surprisingly good considering the movie was made by Playboy Productions over 40 years ago.I think the violence in the movie was not overdone. I think peoples ideas of what the play is like have been jaded because any other way the play has been done, read aloud or made by a low-budget high school drama club, wasn't the way it was meant to be seen. This is the closest representations of what Shakespeare wanted yet, in my opinion. Compared to the violence of today's film I think there is no comparison. Today's violence in film is all special effects and exploitation. It's all about the shock value. This movie's violence is realistic and shows how much violence is in the play and how much is implied but not seen. It's a violent play, so anything less than I violent movie would be unacceptable.I think Roman Polanski put his interpretation on the play first by making it a film. Some of the shots are comparable to Alfred Hitchcock. It is truly cinematic. The expressions on the actors faces. The composition of the Scottish countryside. The dark and musty castle. The choreography on the fights alone was simply beautiful. Even the way the Shakespearean language is spoken so naturally and conversational. This kind of excellence could not be accomplished on the stage or any other medium. Roman Polanski did an amazing job and this is one of the best reproductions of Shakespeare I have ever seen.