Smartorhypo Highly Overrated But Still Good

Livestonth I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

StyleSk8r At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

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

Syl What makes Shakespeare such a classic production is the talented actors like Paul Scofield C.B.E., C.H. and Irene Worth Honorary C.B.E. in their roles as King Lear and Goneril. I saw Irene Worth on Broadway in Lost in Yonkers but that was nothing compared to her role as Goneril. You forget the other actresses who play Cordelia and Regan. Her role of Goneril is chilling, complicated, icy, yet divine to watch. She really packs punches into this supporting role. Why Paul Scofield and Irene Worth were not nominated for Academy Awards is a shame because this film really works with the both of them in these roles. I can't imagine a better Goneril or a King Lear. The film was edited for the obvious reasons that all of Shakespeare's language cannot be used effectively but Peter Brook is a genius in knowing what Shakespeare would have wanted in this film. Peter Book C.B.E., C.H. is a Shakespeare expert and well-respected and beloved British director. He has done a remarkable job in bringing King Lear to life with a master such as Paul Scofield and Irene Worth's Goneril is absolutely divine! You can't take your eyes off her in this role.

ElysiumGoddess Despite all the comments i have read on this film, i see that i seem to be the only one who sees a wave to the genius of Bergman. Not only is this film shot in Scandanavian country of Denmark, but the cinemagraphic style with the quick cut close-ups and the wide angle sweeps of the sea scream the Bergman touch. So if you think this is a shotty film then you need to become more aware of film styles and artistic expressions. Try watching The Seventh Seal and Persona.

rufasff Much reviled at the time of it's release, this heavily cut, Danishco-production horrified critics with it's bleak as possible take on whatsome consider the world's greatest play. Obviously influenced by nortic flicks from Dryer to Bergman,Peter Brook shot this as a midevil horror show; and Pauline Kael calledit his "Night Of The Living Dead." While certainly unfair to the scope of the Bard's vision, thefilm is undeniably facinating; though sometimes tedious too. In the bestparts it comes alive with a vivid wickedness, you can certainly see howLear's daughter's came to hate his guts! So, even if it does mutilate a classic, this film is prettyamazing and highly recommendable. A dark product of it's own time, youwill scarcely see a Lear like this again.

Shakespeare Bond It takes a lot for me to not like a Shakespeare production. The Bard is so good that most shortcomings of Shakespearean films fade from view. Not so with this one. It is the second most boring Shakespeare movie I've seen, and I've seen quite a few. (The most boring is the usually competent BBC's version of Richard III). Scofield sounds drugged as he says his lines. I never felt anything for him or any of the characters.Before I tear this film to shreds, though, I must commend the storm scene. For once, all the attempts at being "artsy" actually work. At first you see a view of Lear from below (Fool's-eye-view?), he towers above the camera, power personified. The next moment, we see a bird's eye view. Lear is just a spec on this huge mountain. Suddenly, we see that, for all his grandeur, Lear is just a human being. He can't influence the world. A truly powerful scene.If only the rest of the film wasn't so boring... I'd be willing to watch that one scene 20 times, but I don't want to have to go through the whole film to do it. I'll take the Olivier version (for all its overdone melodrama) over this.