In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.

Though Nicol Williamson performs outstandingly in the final scene, his overall performance is extremely uneven. At times he delivers his lines with brio or with subtle astuteness, but often he comes across as disengaged and bored. He too frequently resorts to snarling or to expressionless recitation, and only occasionally does he convincingly convey the tortured psyche of Macbeth. His delivery of the great "Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow" soliloquy is the worst rendition that I have ever beheld. On the whole, his performance drags down this production.Jane Lapotaire is excellent in her opening scene and in her final scene, but less impressive in the intervening scenes (especially in the scene with Banquo's ghost). She pretty badly misjudges a few of her lines. Still, if her overall performance had been matched by Williamson's performance, this production would have been better than it is.Tony Doyle is generally excellent as Macduff, and James Hazeldine is quite good in the difficult role of Malcolm. James Bolam is considerably less entertaining as the porter in this production than as Touchstone in "As You Like It" (though the fault may lie with Shakespeare more than with the actor).Most of the other performances are pretty good, though there are quite a few other instances of misjudged renderings of lines. The sets and lighting are fine, and the production is to be commended for omitting very little of the text (apart from the spurious III.v and the spurious bits of IV.i). In short, this production is certainly worth watching but is disappointingly short of what it could and should have been.

After a battle to repel Irish and Norwegian invaders, Scottish warrior Macbeth (Nicol Williamson) is named Thane of Cawdor. But a chance encounter with some demonic witches sets on him on a course, encouraged by his voracious wife (Jane Lapotaire), to seize the Scottish crown with bloody consequences...As a Scotsman, I always find it odd to hear the words of "Macbeth" being spoken in RP English accents. It doesn't hurt the text but it adds so much more hearing Scottish vowels enunciate Shakespeare's words.So is it here, with Nicol Williamson giving a suitably schizophrenic performance as the main character and Lapotaire evincing an electric sexual energy as his wife. The two head up a strong cast who who carry the story very well.They are helped by a great musical score and some strong direction. The stage fighting in this piece is easily among the best in the series, and the story in each fight is told with clarity and realism. The absence of gore effects for the supernatural elements of the play might have been a cost-cutting factor but it actually helps. When Macbeth sees the ghost of Banquo at his dinner table, we only see an empty chair but it's cut together and scored just right that the audience still gets Macbeth's panicked sense of guilt.A fine rendition of a still hugely-popular play.

Sometimes it's not so good to be the king. Especially if, at your wife's prompting, you've slaughtered a number of people, including a rival's wife and children, to get "the golden round." Besides, who wants to be king of Scotland, eating all that haggis, except maybe Idi Amin? I enjoyed reading the play, partly because it was short and relatively simple to follow. Then I saw this on PBS when it was first shown in the US and was impressed especially by Nicole Williamson's performance as MacBeth. Now, having just seen it again on DVD, I'm not so sure why. When MacBeth is his normal self, he's just fine. But when he gets agitated he tends to roar out his speeches and punctuate them with a hoarse, feral, indrawn breath. After a while you begin almost to disregard the speech and concentrate on the ragged, half-hysterical inspirations. This may prove to be the case especially if your state of consciousness has been, in certain respects, subject to chemical alteration. A word to the wise.The responsibility may not lie entirely with Williamson's performance though. On this DVD, everyone seemed to take loud breaths, whether the situation demanded it or not. And I had more trouble than I remembered, just following the dialog, so the problem may have to do with technical aspects of the sound recording rather than with the acting. In any case, Williamson's performance may be overwrought on film but fine for a stage. He does everything but explode.And when he sneers at fate, he really sneers. His reading of "tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow...." is slow and "important." But it's a heck of a way to react to the death of your wife, your "poor chuck." That's as much Shakespeare's fault as Williamson's. The script has its clumsy moments. As I recall, the play wasn't even clear about whether MacBeth was killed and had his head lopped off on-stage or off-stage. (Maybe both.) But with all that, how can you torpedo a play with such impact? You can't. Or -- well, I guess you could, but that doesn't happen here. What a play! Lady MacBeth with her sleep disorder -- a combination of REM sleep ideation without the usual accompanying paralysis. And I must say, all the ham aside, Williamson's reading of "Is this a dagger which I see before me?", the first of his hallucinatory episodes, is powerfully done. I don't fault MacBeth for fouling the feast at which Banquo's ghost appears. Oh, sure, it looks freaky enough. But I've known ordinary people who would be eager to spoil a big dinner through some imagined temporary infirmity -- and enjoy every minute of it.This particular rendition of the play evidently isn't everyone's favorite but I'd recommend it. You have to get through any problems with the audio.

Although this is a rather dark film, Macbeth was written as a dark play and therefore is very fitting.The way that this film was done reflects the difficulties of converting a successful and ageless stage production into a filmic production. It is filmed and acted in a way that expresses the actors' stage presence and ability while exercising the many capacities that cameras have.It is worth watching. I have had to view many different versions of Macbeth for many classes in the general ed and collegiate levels and this version does justice to the original text and to the stage origins of the play.