Back in the days when Hollywood understood that good actors can make or break a film. The film is the telling of the classic Shakespeare play of the same name. It stars Orson Welles and it is also directed by him. Orson is known as one of the greatest actors of all time for good reason, the man can chew scenery like nobody's business, and because this film is a word for word adaptation of the original play, it acts to limit Welles from overacting; which in this case is a good thing because there are some pretty cool closeup of Welles' face as he is delivering a Shakespearean line and you can tell he is hamming up his facial expressions to make up for the fact he could not add lip on top of his lines. But yeah, this version of MacBeth is known for being dark and creepy which is strange because I didn't get that impression. Maybe because future versions of Macbeth borrow heavily from this film's tone? Who knows? I certainly wouldn't. It isn't like I go around watching Macbeth films all day long. I'm half sure that this is my first time ever watching a cinematic version of the classic tale. But yeah, if you are a fan of good cinema and don't mind Shakespeare then you should enjoy this film.

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.

"My purpose in making Macbeth was not to make a great film." - Orson WellesShot on a meagre budget over just 23 days, plagued by pre and post production problems and mutilated by Republic Pictures before being restored many years later, Orson Welles' "Macbeth" is nevertheless a fine take on William Shakespeare's now well-known tragedy. Welles keeps things interesting by passing the material through a noir filter, with devious femme fatales, expressionistic sets, chiaroscuro lighting, poor saps, much existential brooding, fated demises and an onslaught of clever compositions, long takes and camera tricks. One gets the impression that Welles, because he was plagued by financial and production difficulties, was always desperate to pack as much razzle dazzle into his films as possible. He might, after all, never get another chance to direct.Welles famously shot "Macbeth" only as a means of gathering funds for future projects. The film is nevertheless very good, and echoes a number of his other pictures (particularly "Citizen Kane"), with its characters who lust for power and whose aspirations for control, stature and "greatness" result in their own downfalls. This, of course, all echoes Welles' own tragic career. Welles the legend seems to himself be some great, fallen Shakespearean King, dethroned and left to wander alone in exile.Welles would direct three films based on Shakespeare's works (and many theatre productions, one of which was "Voodoo Macbeth", which featured an all African American cast), his best being perhaps "Chimes at Midnight". Welles' "Macbeth" doesn't quite touch Akira Kurosawa's and to a lesser extent Roman Polanski's take on the same Shakespeare play – Kurosawa's is more tense, subtle, restrained ("Throne of Blood"), Polanski's is gloomier, more corporeal – but there are stretches here that surpass anything Kurosawa and Polanski do. Welles' landscapes, bathed in shadow and ominous thunder, suggest some mad mind-space, where power's pursuit turns everyone into fanged barbarians, and every now and then he'll zap your eyeballs with some off-beat image or composition. Welles, who also stars in the film, also includes several sad passages which echo his' own off-screen wounds; the recent collapse of his marriage, the studio mutilations of "Shanghai" and "Ambersons", the collapse of several film projects...there's a strong autobiographical quality to Welles' films; Welles, the doomed and the damned.For those familiar with the "Macbeth" play, there isn't much new here; lots of talking heads, soliloquies and monologues. But a nightmarish, deliberately primitive aesthetic helps keeps the dialogue fresh, and the film should play well to younger audiences who've never read Shakespeare, sat through a stage-play, or are unfamiliar with "Macbeth's" plot.8/10 - Destroyed by critics and producers upon release, "Macbeth" would be reappraised with the release of a special "restored cut" in 1980. Worth two viewings. See Kurosawa's "Ran", one of the finest Shakespeare adaptations.

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.