User Reviews

This is a reasonably watchable and technically proficient exercise in the old life-imitating-art premiss. The writing and acting leave more to be desired. It features a host of all-too-familiar theatrical stereotypes, some of which have been around since 42nd Street. Thus we get the blustery, exasperated director, the egotistical leading man, the I-sacrificed-everything-for-my-art martyr, the swishy gays and the mother-hen stage manager. Watching actors play actors is often an excruciating experience and the revelation that their real lives often inform/ transform their performances is a very obvious platitude. The seeking of emotional parallels between the majesty of Macbeth and the trite little love triangle at the heart of this film is quite a dramatic stretch.Those with more than the writer/director's Cliff Notes understanding of the play will guess the ending well before it arrives. Given this troupe's dreadful delivery of Shakespeare's words in their rehearsals, their production of the play would have been uniquely lousy.

Macbeth in Manhattan

Matinee with snacks

What is more fun than a Hollywood adaptation of a Shakespeare play? A Hollywood interpretation of the process of a stage production of a Shakespeare play! In the spirit of the extremely entertaining A Midwinter's Tale comes Macbeth in Manhattan. I myself, despite my high movie-going quotient, actually do manage to work in theatre now and again, and I am often highly critical of the depictions of such goings-on. My love for Waiting for Guffman is only quelled by what an utterly unrealistic production Red, White, and Blaine is, particularly in the center of such a clever mockumentary. A Midwinter's Tale is shot filmically, i.e. not pretending to be a documentary, and such it is with Macbeth in Manhattan. A New York theatre group is doing the famous 400 year old tragedy, and naturally, mayhem ensues. As Philip Henslowe so wisely says in Shakespeare in Love, theatre is a lot of "insurmountable obstacles" all heading toward "imminent disaster." Macbeth does both Henslowe and its own infamous legacy proud. A surprising ignorance of the stigma attached to Macbeth prevails among the characters cast in it - they speak the dreaded name of the Scottish play with reckless abandon. For those unfamiliar with the cursed name, it is covered well for you "real people." The best and cleverest part about the screenplay is how the production storyline ultimately mirrors the classic storyline of the play. A brilliant (and sexy) character known only as the Chorus fills in the Bard's plot for us in a prosaic "meanwhile back at the ranch" sort of delivery, while serving as the backstage crew and wise eye that sees all (like all good crew should be doing anyway). He runs the character gamut subtly as his various backstage tasks require him to be different designers and workers. The leads are all excellent - ER's Gloria Reuben is the girlfriend of David Lansbury, and they are up for the Macbeths - but a terrible, awful soap actor intervenes in the form of Nick Gregory - Gregory's performance as William is as brilliant as William's performance of Macbeth is awful. It's really very excellent. Anyone (especially us ladies) who have worked on a play have known a William like him, probably even fallen for his line once or twice - but it's a clever intertwining of inspired theatrical acting and witty screenwriting that makes Macbeth in Manhattan an utter hoot. Bringing all these folks together is the perfect incarnation of a director who is...not very good, John Glover. Let me just say that the moment he turns away from the rehearsal of the sword fight between Macduff and Macbeth is pure genius. My brief literature which I am consulting to make sure I have everyone's names right mentions that this movie was shot on a "shockingly small budget - " I don't know what it was but it has got to have been less than a million dollars (cheaper than an episode of ER and a full 97 minutes too). If a major studio didn't catch this at SXSW and see this as a clever way to ride the Shakespeare craze (10 Things I Hate About You, O, A Midsummer Night's Dream, and oh, yeah, what's that movie that won Best Picture?) for zero down and zero payments for 6 months, well, they are stupid. It's smart and funny and of course, funnier if you know the source material but I didn't really and I still had a great time.

Well, being a collector of Shakespeare movies, I'm not sorry I bought the DVD (it was cheap), but this is not a good movie. Gloria Reuben is fine, and so is John Glover (his part is very small), but most of the rest of the cast (incl. Harold Perrineau) offer nothing but bad acting and over-acting, and the dialogue is almost universally inane - so much so that it hurts. Shakespeare's original words always excepted, of course. Someone like Perrineau is usually good, but he is pretty awful here, and I suspect the director is to blame.

The overall idea of having a love triangle drama between the actors playing Macbeth, Lady Macbeth and Macduff is in itself not bad at all, but this is sadly another example of someone trying to do Shakespeare (or something Shakespeare-ish) without having neither a good understanding of Shakespeare nor a particularly competent technical and directorial ability, and as a result the movie just doesn't work.

3 out of 10.

This was a hit in the South By Southwest (SXSW) Film festival in Austin last year, and features a fine cast headed up by E.R.'s Gloria Reuben, and a scenery-chewing John Glover. Though shot on a small budget in NYC, the film looks and sounds fabulous, and takes us on a behind the scenes whirl through the rehearsal and mounting of what actors call "The Scottish Play," as a reference to the word "Macbeth" is thought to bring on the play's ancient curse. The acting company exhibits all the emotions of the play itself, lust, jealousy, rage, suspicion, and a bit of fun as well. The games begin when an accomplished actor is replaced (in the lead role) by a well-known "pretty face" from the TV soap opera scene in order to draw bigger crowds. The green-eyed monster takes over from there, and the drama unfolds nicely. Fine soundtrack, and good performances all around. The DVD includes director's commentary and some deleted scenes as well.

The major fault in this film is that it is impossible to believe any of these people would ever be cast in a professional production of Macbeth. Hearing David Lansbury's soft voice struggling laboriously with the famous "Tomorrow, Tomorrow, and Tomorrow" speech made it impossible to believe anyone would ever consider him for the role. I kept believing therefore that he didn't get the part because he was a lousy actor; not because a bigger name was available. Then when we see portions of the play in rehearsal it is difficult to believe the director is not parodying things with a hopelessly miscast, misdirected travesty of actors who are unable to articulate or even understand the verse and directors who see the play through their own screwball interpretations. Sometimes directors are so anxious to have their films done (and writers think they have the ability to direct their own works)that they settle for less. This appears to be such an example.

Though it had the misfortune to hit the festival circuit here in Austin (SXSW Film) just as we were getting tired of things like Shakespeare in Love, and Elizabeth, this movie deserves an audience. An inside look at the staging of "The Scottish Play" as actors call "Macbeth" when producing it to avoid the curse, this is a crisp, efficient and stylish treatment of the treachery which befalls the troupe. With a wonderfully evocative score, and looking and sounding far better than its small budget would suggest, this is a quiet gem, not world-class, but totally satisfying.

Nice, pleasant, and funny, but not earth-shattering. It does a good job of showing the "behind the scenes" world of theater groups and the lives of the actors. The three witches are great- both on- and off-stage. I would assume the movie works wonderfully (lots of apparent inside jokes) if one was involved in theater (which I'm not).

Having seen and loved Greg Lombardo's most recent film "Knots" (he co-wrote and directed that feature as well), I decided to check out his earlier work, and this movie was well worth the effort and rental. Macbeth in Manhattan is a tongue in cheek, excellent take on the Shakespeare favorite, updated and moved to NYC. I was impressed by the underlying wit and intelligence of the script and was wowed by the way the storyline of the production in the movie mirrors the storyline of the play itself - and very cleverly at that. The trials and tribulations of life in Manhattan parallel many a Shakespeare play, and Central Park was rarely put to better use than as the woods around Macbeth's castle. Mr. Lombardo obviously has a fond place in his heart for New York and New York stories (Knots is a funny and warm sex comedy about six thirty-something New Yorkers set primarily in a charming Brooklyn neighborhood, with Manhattan offices and a downtown loft thrown in for good measure) and has spent considerable time around the plays of Shakespeare. The movie is well-paced and the story reflects a deep understanding of the essential drama at the core of Macbeth. It reminded me of Al Pacino's "Looking for Richard" - another wonderful Shakespeare "play within a movie." I highly recommend checking out Macbeth in Manhattan.

This is a very entertaining film which follows the rehearsal process of a NY production of Macbeth. Although it has a lot to say about power, jealousy and ambition (the themes of Macbeth) in our modern world, the film works best when it is not taking itself too seriously. Recognizable actors such as John Glover, Gloria Reubens and David Lansbury do nice jobs in the main roles, but the highlight for me was the hilarious scene where the "murder" of Banquo (John Elsen) is rehearsed. Probably a more entertaining film for those involved in theatre, but anyone who enjoys Shakespeare should enjoy this film.

I really enjoyed this charming twist on MacBeth. Using the actors lives to reflect the actions and desires of the characters (however imperfectly), was refreshing and amusing for one who is familiar with the play MacBeth. Certainly not to be taken too seriously. I recommend it to anyone who enjoys Shakespeare or independent films.

I really enjoyed this movie. It took a pretty dark story-that of Shakespeare's Macbeth- and wrapped it in a quirky, often funny and poignant modern yarn.

Kudos to the way the filmmaker brought the very different worlds of modern NYC and Macbeth's Scotland together under one roof. The opposing worlds act to

really bring out the intrigue and comedy of the play and you have to love Harold Perrineau as the Chorus, a part which doesn't exist in the play but really helps to jazz things up. The ending stands out among little indies I've seen for it's closure and originality.

It is definitely not the scholar's version. Good thing, because the text is virtually unplayable in the last century. The plot is delicious but for the text you definitely had to be there - 1606.

This takes the narrative and runs with it. No cries of foul unless you want to take on Kurasawa, Welles or Verdi. This just takes a straight narrative of the play; excises the boring parts and provides the motivation by parallel plot developments of the players within the play. Does Macbeth have a narcissistic personality disorder? Is Lady Macbeth unhinged by lust? Does Macduff have a clue? Could you get it on with a witch in a vermin infested apartment? All this and more will be answered here.

The end? Well, we all must have our little secrets, just say it is eminently Shakespearean.

This is a quiet film that is not so bad, actually kind of enjoyable look at a small production and the baggage of bad luck that performing Macbeth can bring. The good stuff comes in the form of the relationships that can form and break while doing a theatrical production. Good acting. Tertia Lynch is a doll!