Let's be realistic.

hyped garbage

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

My favourite Macbeth cinema adaptation, Akira Kurosawa takes an already spooky play and places it in a haunted feudal period Japan, complete with evil spirits and forests of death. Not to mention the most foreboding and eerie-looking mist you'll ever see on screen.The old Japanese obsessions of fate and evil spirits result in a more convincing story than witches and kings could have in this environment, yet it still feels very loyal to the original story.'Throne of Blood' is a minimalist and bleak film: all extraneous characters from the main plot in the play are excised, creating a tight and focused work; the film seems shorter than its 110 minutes.The brilliant Toshiro Mifune's ultimate demise to a rainfall of arrows is a wonderfully insane performance, worthy of Klaus Kinski at his peak.

Akira Kurosawa's "Kumonosu-jō" ("Throne of Blood" in English) opens with a chorus recounting the story of a man who rose to power, sung over the shot of an abandoned castle. An eerie introduction, definitely, but it's no match for what the movie portrays. This adaptation of "Macbeth" seamlessly infuses western literature with Noh theater. I should admit that I have never seen a production of "Macbeth" and am not familiar with Noh, but I understand that a key feature of the latter is stylized conventional gestures to express emotions, and the use of masks. Instead of masks, the characters wear stylized makeup.In transposing Shakespeare's play to feudal Japan, Kurosawa makes war the focus. The final scene - which should be one of the most famous in cinema history - poses the question: does war truly end, or does it persist beyond the actual fighting? All in all, this is probably one of the greatest movies ever made. It's only the fourth Kurosawa movie that I've seen, but I do hope to see the rest of his work, as well as a production of "Macbeth".

Viewed on DVD. Restoration = ten (10) stars. Ultimately over time a film stands or falls on its own merits, and not by high jacking the acclaim of its source material(s). This movie is yet another case study of the dangers associated with parasitic piggy backing. The script is co-written by the director, and is confusing and lacks polish (script traits usually exhibited when the director is one of two authors or the sole author). Acting by the lead male actor is mostly confined to grimaces (he looks like he needs a root canal operation due to all the scenery he has chewed on). The lead female actress employs an acting style consisting of monotonic line readings and a mask-like, unchanging facial expression. The real co-stars are the costumes which are spectacular (too bad the film was not shot in color), and in-camera special effects (especially the arrow showers at the film's end). Sets are OK, but exterior long shots of "castles" show structures that are far removed from restored/rebuilt castles of the period on view in Japan today. (Perhaps impoverished exterior sets are a result of budgetary constraints?) Subtitles are a bit long and often abrupt. Film score is fine. A highly not recommended film experience. WILLIAM FLANIGAN, PhD.

This is based on the classic play Macbeth. It changed so that in takes place at the same time Macbeth was supposed to save taken place. But instead of being about Scotland it is about Japan. This is a classic horror story. It has a great story line. It also has great acting. It also has great special effects. It is very scary. It got an 8.1 which is good rating. But it is such a great film that 8.1 is underrating it. I give it 10 out of 10 because it is a awesome movie. It is one of the best horror movies ever. This about an evil emperor of Japan who gets supernatural powers from spirits. The is a great movie see it. Macbeth (1948) is better. But still this a great movie. It is a must see.