robojesus-1 Having been forced to watch this god awful film in English class I can now relate to torture victims. First of all, it's Shakespeare, how can you mess it up, it not like it's objective. All you have to do is take all of the dialogue that Shakespeare wrote, move around the actors like it says in the screenplay and there you have it, King fricken Lear. Having grown up in the early 90's I have seen plenty of low budget Jim Henson videos like the Frog Prince which were clearly shot on VHS cameras with terrible lighting which have never seemed to offend me. However King Lear displays a level of amateur everything that is unparrelled. On numerous occasions stage lights are in shots, no one put any filters over the lights so there is a harsh white cast down on the actors heads. For some reason there is a perpetual fog over the whole film which I realized was added to conceal the horribly fake background painting in the outdoor scenes. I'm not sure King Lear actually had a Director since everything seems spure of the moment.The biggest mystery is how they got John Hurt to be in this. He plays the fool and does okay I guess. He really should have waited another five years and been in Jean Luc Godard's adaptation. If you really have to see King Lear DON'T SEE THIS MOVIE. The production level is offensively bad. The special Effects are terrible and whatever primitive format this movie was shot on messes up fire anytime it's on the screen.Rent Jean Luc Godard's 1987 version it is much much much much much better. And while you're at it check out Band a Parte and Breathless (or A Bout de Soufflé) they rock the house and are Jean Luc Godard classics.

Jamesgordon_uk I have just finished reading Lear for AS English Literature, and our teacher showed us this production, and i was surprised at how much i liked about it.Olivier's acting portrays one of his greatest works, in his final major performance. His Lear shows both the mental instability of Shakespeare's Lear, and also at the same time the emotional struggle within him, as the story progresses. As he lifts Cordelia's lifeless body at the end, we see that he is truly a changed man from his experiences, and the fact that Olivier pulls off this EXCEEDINGLY powerful moment is only to be described by two words: Simply sublime David Threlfall's Edgar is also a very memorable part within the production. The way he portrays his Poor Tom alter-ego is incredibly well done, never letting the situation slip, even for a second, out of the insane nature he is attempting to use to mask his true identity.Diana Rigg's and John Hurt's performances were also awesome within their respective roles, with Hurt's Fool's attachment to Lear adding a new layer to the characters role within the play.I liked the change of the old tree that Edgar took Gloucester to becoming Stonehenge instead. It helped to create a very odd mood, which really added to the production. The idea of Gloucester sitting their blinded, with the flashes of the battle on screen work exceedingly well, and where in a stage version, you would just have Gloucester sitting alone for a certain amount of time, with the battle just being heard offstage, here we got to have the full experience of the battle scenes .If i have but one complaint, it would be the music! They crescendo'd at really stupid points, and then had no music, or not enough, when it was really needed.Other than the musical problems, there are not many ways in which i could fault this performance, other than perhaps that at times the sets seemed a little poorly done, but this is just to be expected of the fact that the film was made almost 24years ago, and it is for this reason to be expected that not much of the set would be computer generated, and that for this reason, only what they built would be there, so sometimes sets would look rather flat and basic I would have given it 10 Stars, but it is not a PERFECT production, as their are ways to improve, so 8 it is. Still wonderful though!!!!

grannygrunt_1924 Actually, this is a tough review to write, because the main problem is that Laurence Olivier is just too old to play this part. King Lear the character is old, but the actor playing him has to have the energy and power of a younger man. Otherwise, how can he stand a chance against the evil characters, especially when the two evil daughters join forces? Some of the best parts of this production actually are the evil daughters, Goneril and Regan. Diana Rigg is great!Overall, this one is definitely worth seeing because it's such a great play and there are some really wonderful performances like Rigg, Dorothy Tutin and John Hurt. Just don't expect it to be the best possible King Lear.

pksky1 So often you see Shakespeare done and actors just seem to go along for the ride. The cultural weight of Shakespearean drama is so great, that for too many, all that is necessary is to assume the correct postures and tones and say the lines and they awe or are awed. Not so in this performance. Olivier carefully maps out every angle in the character Lear and serves him up, alive.Not only that, but the sets are very genuine. No stark abstractions here. Like Brannagh's Henry V, we can see what Shakespeare was looking at when he wrote these works.