Jo Nesbø rewrites Shakespeare's Macbeth in modern language but sticks too close to the original plot. The first 120 pages drag, and the reviewer wanted something more like Baz Luhrmann's Romeo + Juliet: visually bold and noir. They rate it three-quarter bollock and say it's not worth six hours of slow setup.
All right, Macbeth by Nesbo. Brilliant to bollock, Mater. Yeah, I'm gonna give it probably a 3/4 bollock. No, so here's why. So Nesbo wanted to rewrite Macbeth. Well, he probably should have, he probably should have retold the story as opposed to rewrote the story. Now this thing's not small. You know, it's, um, it's come 450 pages. It takes 120-something pages for the story to pick up. The first 100, I'm lost with Nesbø retelling the old Shakespearean story and plot in modern language, even using the old names. I want, I, if I'm gonna read Shakespeare, I wanna see it re-envisioned. I, I want— Baz Luhrmann's Romeo and Juliet, you know, with DiCaprio and that man, I forget her name. It was bloody brilliant. Now it stuck to the script of the thing, but it was a total reimagining of what it could have been, you know, cinematically. I want someone to do that with Macbeth. Oh, I, if I'm gonna read Macbeth, I want it to be set in a noir setting and I don't wanna be, I don't wanna have to pick the book up and know Macbeth and the characters of Macbeth. In order to like the story, so I didn't like it at all. Not my cup of tea. The thing is, I love Nesbo as a writer. Who the hell am I? He's great. Who the hell am I? I am a reader. He is who I am. So if you want to spend, you know, the first 20%, which is like not unimportant, it's like six hours reading it and still not liking it, then go, oh wow, that was worth the read. Then do it. But if you don't, then like pick up something else. So three-quarter bollock.
