The difference between both movies were that the first one was a little boring than the second.
well to me because the first movie had a simple setting and was just like a play
on stage it was really hard to understand what they
were talking about and what was going on. when in the second
movie i understood more of what was going on because it was more
like movies today and had a lot of violence. they used guns instead of
guns to kill each other and they used drugs.
the similarities were that there was a lot of killings and anger.both
movies did not show when lady Macbeth dies
and both of the movies have really dark settings.
i didn't like the first movie because it was boring and i was lost
and did not understand what
was going on and who was who. The second movie was
more interesting and more exciting to watch.
well to me because the first movie had a simple setting and was just like a play
on stage it was really hard to understand what they
were talking about and what was going on. when in the second
movie i understood more of what was going on because it was more
like movies today and had a lot of violence. they used guns instead of
guns to kill each other and they used drugs.
the similarities were that there was a lot of killings and anger.both
movies did not show when lady Macbeth dies
and both of the movies have really dark settings.
i didn't like the first movie because it was boring and i was lost
and did not understand what
was going on and who was who. The second movie was
more interesting and more exciting to watch.
The first one was a lot more tedious than the second one. Their communication was much harder to understand as they used a more complex set of lines. The second one was lighter on their speeches and had less pauses and soliloquies than the first because it included more action sets. This created a small blur effect between speeches because of the scenery input, and caused the characters to interact more with their environment. This led to the second movie's more direct/shorter speech.
ReplyDeleteThe director might have thought that this would allow the connection between the old story and the present-making it easier for the audience to understand the plot in a sense. If the second movie had modernized words, then the connection to the original story might have been lost, even if the plot remained the same.
The first movie sticked itself more to the original story(with the time, diction, etc.) and added more dialogue, and ardent close-ups on the characters' expressions as well as a small portion of comic relief to cope with the lack of budget funding-or scenery/characters and missing stage objects that the second movie had.
In a sense, both remained with a plot (chronologically) alike to one another and used the same characters (not actors) to glue themselves to the plot. There were minor differences in the character's behavior and changes in the scenes. Both ended with the same conclusion-the MacBeths die and didn't enjoy the little time they had as leaders/rulers as they were too "preoccupied" fixing and remembering their own kills and needs. They got what they wanted because of their ambition, but..did they want what they got afterward?
wow that comment is intense. ^^^^^
ReplyDeletei too liked how they changed the conflict over the kingdom to drugs and fought with guns. It makes more sense for i dont think anyone fights for kingdoms with swords anymore.