Anschauen National Theatre Live: Macbeth

National Theatre Live: Macbeth

National Theatre Live: Macbeth is a movie starring Nadia Albina, Michael Balogun, and Stephen Boxer. The ruined aftermath of a bloody civil war. Ruthlessly fighting to survive, the Macbeths are propelled towards the crown by forces...

Other Titles
ナショナル・シアター・ライヴ 2019 「マクベス」, National Theater Live: Macbeth, NT Live: Macbeth, National Theatre Live: Makbet
Running Time
3 hours 30 minutes
Quality
480p, 720p, 1080p, 2K, 4K
Genres
Drama
Director
Rufus Norris
Writer
William Shakespeare
Actors
Nadia Albina, Michael Balogun, Anne-Marie Duff, Stephen Boxer
Country
UK
Year
2018
Audio Languages
Deutsch, English, Français, Italiano, Español, Svenska, Gaeilge, Nederlands
Subtitles
日本語, Čeština, Tiếng Việt, Português, 한국어, Australia, Filipino, हिन्दी

The ruined aftermath of a bloody civil war. Ruthlessly fighting to survive, the Macbeths are propelled towards the crown by forces of elemental darkness.

Comments about drama «National Theatre Live: Macbeth» (13)

Frances Simpson photo
Frances Simpson

I am not a big fan of Shakespeare and really don't like to read his work. I saw the play and it didn't seem very interesting to me. But I decided to rent this movie and I am glad I did. The movie was more than good, it was good in every way. It's about a young boy and his family. The first two parts of the movie are very boring. But, the third part is very entertaining. It is a great movie about an interesting subject and this is the best part of the movie. The acting is great. I am not a big fan of the acting of Robert Carlyle, but I like his acting here and in this movie. The plot of the movie is good and the script is good. It is very well written. I recommend this movie to all people. I think the acting is much better than the first parts and the script is much better. The director has done a great job. This is a must see movie. I think it is the best movie I have ever seen. I give it a 10/10.

Henry photo
Henry

Very simple and boring. After a few lines I really began to regret waiting for this movie.

Alexander photo
Alexander

So, what do we have here? We have a production of "Macbeth", the Shakespearean play in which the devil is played by Peter Ustinov, and which would have been performed in 1979, as a prelude to the 1979 production of "Macbeth". Yet, as is usual, the new production is both more powerful and more beautiful. However, there is no Shakespearean presence here. The emphasis is on the actors. The only appearance of Shakespeare is an audience Q&A. The cast is rounded out by a small but significant part of the London audience and a small but significant part of the US audience. I believe that this production could be enjoyed by more people than the one I saw, because it is more dramatic, because it is more personal. And yet, I think that is not what this movie is about. It is more about what it is about. A man who is humiliated, who is abused, who gets shot. It is about the emotions he has been dealing with, the horrors of war, and about the damage that war can do to people. In particular, it is about an English soldier who is tortured in the mud, and it is about the way he deals with it. I think this is what the movie is about. A lot of people will probably disagree with me, but for me, it was a great movie. It is highly rated and highly recommended. Go see it. If you don't like it, don't see it.

Richard Gordon photo
Richard Gordon

Mackenzie Crook's stage work is in short supply, and this is not a great place to start. But, this work is fine. Despite the lack of a solid script, this is still very good. I found it riveting and it was a struggle to keep the interest. The performances are very strong, and the direction is superb. There is no doubt that Crook is one of the most talented actors working today, and this is a performance to be remembered.

Danielle Mills photo
Danielle Mills

It is a very good movie. It's not a masterpiece, but it is very good. The performances of the main actors are quite good. The scenes in the forest are very well-done. The music is nice. It is a very good movie.

Beverly K. photo
Beverly K.

A delightful story about a man who wants to do good, and does good with great skills. I found it very nice. And the actors were perfect! The production was quite expensive and I think it was a lot of work for little effect. But the story is very good, and it is very nice to watch. I really liked it and would recommend it to everyone who wants to see a movie that will make you want to watch more.

Frank Shaw photo
Frank Shaw

This review is for those who didn't get it or thought it was rubbish, this is the only possible way to review this film. A big note to everyone who has read this: you are wasting your time, you have been warned. The audience will be divided in their opinions. Some will be enjoying the story, others won't. Some will be a little confused and the screen will be black for half an hour. This film is trying to tell the story of Shakespeare's King Richard II, and how the roles of Richard, Macbeth and Glenda in his story have shifted throughout. This has had people asking questions, questioning what the hell is going on. Some are still wondering why the King is doing all these things. I am not a Shakespeare fan, I'm no scholar of the plays or the plays, I'm just a film-maker who decided to do a film about this great Shakespearean tragedy. I thought it was brilliant, and the ending is perfect. I recommend this film to everyone who enjoys drama. People who enjoy Shakespeare, drama or drama-lite would really like it. People who just want to watch a good film will not be too disappointed.

Sharon photo
Sharon

Okay, this is a good example of the problems faced by the production of Shakespeare's plays and stage versions of his plays. The production itself is quite good. The dialogues are mostly believable, especially the one between Hamlet and the Fool, the most amusing and the most unforgettable of Shakespeare's plays. I really like the whole Hamlet character, and the Fool is very funny. In the last few scenes, however, the movie loses its touch and becomes too dated. The opera version of Hamlet, which was more amusing and often quite original, was the one used for the theatrical productions and is also very much memorable. So, in the end, I would recommend this movie, although it is far from good, and it really shows that some productions of Shakespeare's plays are not made by Shakespeare.

Thomas photo
Thomas

This movie is a bit hard to see. The director chose a few actors to play parts of different characters. However, the results are very mixed. Robert Pattison is very good, as is Frances McDormand. But, Jeremy Irons, as the villain, is almost forgettable. Probably the most enjoyable thing about this movie is that you never know what is going to happen next. This is especially true in the end, which is rather anticlimactic, but you know the end is coming and the movie is over. You just have to sit back and let the film do its thing. I guess you should keep an open mind to this movie, and let it develop. It is a bit slow going in the beginning, but by the end you will have a pretty good idea of what is going to happen.

Diane S. photo
Diane S.

This movie is definitely a step down from the first two. This movie was lacking a good balance of drama and horror. The movie starts off with Macbeth. His mom tells him he's dead. He begs his father to give him some direction in life. He then learns from his father how to play the harp. He then goes to war. He also learns about the death of his father, and then his dad comes back to him. This movie does have some good scenes, but the plot is too disjointed. Some of the best scenes are when Macbeth is acting out his anger and frustration. But for the most part, the movie is disjointed. There are two strong performances. One is Macbeth's mother. She's so convincing and makes you forget you are watching a movie. And the other is Geoffrey Rush as the king. He was great in this film. The only problem I had with this movie is I wanted to see more of Geoffrey Rush. But I guess it was a big spoiler. But the movie was good.

Jeffrey W. photo
Jeffrey W.

In recent years Shakespeare has not been heard in his native England as much as before. This production is a welcome return to our Bard. As is usual, there is a wealth of talent on display and the music is splendid. It's not Shakespeare's best but certainly one of his finest. It would be interesting to see how we would judge it today in terms of its achievements and achievements of other productions that are around, or to compare it with others in terms of its strengths and weaknesses. But even that can't detract from its great acting, plot, cinematography, score, lighting, costumes and production values. All that's missing is a little more realism. It's worth seeing. See it.

Theresa Kim photo
Theresa Kim

I caught this movie as it was in the theater. The set, the scenery, the acting, and the direction was amazing. What I didn't understand, however, was the special effects. As a movie-goer who appreciates special effects, I was disappointed. I thought they looked pretty fake. The special effects, however, were done very well. In my opinion, it was a good movie. It was different from the usual "blond-haired teenager walks into a haunted mansion, kills everyone, and robs a bank." It was a good story and not overly cliched. And the acting was good, too. I recommend this movie to anyone who enjoys a good film.

Keith G. photo
Keith G.

I was disappointed with the "movie" I saw on late-night television last night. I felt cheated at having wasted my time. "Camelot" is a wonderful play. You could not make a movie out of this story. It would not have worked. The casting, the editing, the scenery, and the acting are all wonderful. However, the director has succeeded in turning a Shakespeare play into a movie. The play is set in the 1660s, during the Restoration. This is when the English began to realize that the art of the British monarch was incompatible with the rule of the nobility in the House of Stuart. The play was originally based on Geoffrey Chaucer's English translation of the entire work. The play is far from the same as the original text. The actors do a wonderful job. Not one of the actors in the movie has the ability to show the emotion of Macbeth. The scene in which Macbeth is crucified is a key scene in the play. This scene is in the original play and is almost impossible to make into a movie. However, the movie does the best it can with what it has. Macbeth's life is tragic, and at times, dull. He is a tragic hero. He is a bad man. I found this movie to be very confusing. I will say that I did enjoy the movie. I don't think it is bad, and it is certainly not good. It is simply a movie that has been adapted from a great play. The director and the actors have done a wonderful job with what they had, but it seems that the director did not understand the subtleties of the play. The film is an engrossing story, but the director needs to understand Shakespeare's works better. I will say, however, that this film is certainly worth seeing.