NekoHomey Purely Joyful Movie!

HeadlinesExotic Boring

Ketrivie It isn't all that great, actually. Really cheesy and very predicable of how certain scenes are gonna turn play out. However, I guess that's the charm of it all, because I would consider this one of my guilty pleasures.

Brendon Jones It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

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!!!!

TheNextTarentino Me and my English Lit class watched this as part of our course and everyone thought it was fantastic, but me. It was an enjoyable film to watch, Sir Olivier gives a stunning performance as King Lear as does Dinana Rigg as Regan. But the whole programme seemed too much like a stage production for my liking. The storm in the middle of the programme is supposed to be the most dramatic sequences in the story, however when you are expected to believe that he is in the middle of a storm when not even a leaf moves, the sequence becomes almost laughable. On the other hand, there are some very powerful sequences such as the one where Glouester is blinded. If you take away all the bad scenery, you are left with great performances from everyone. This really made the programme worth watching, well that and the presents of Diana Rigg who is a legend!

Dan1863Sickles An all-star cast takes on Shakespeare's greatest tragedy. Laurence Olivier is Lear -- once a mighty king, now a weak, jealous old man. Tired and in need of rest, he divides his kingdom among his three daughters. Cordelia, the youngest, is good and kind, while Regan and Goneril are wicked schemers who soon turn against the king and try to murder him! Lear has loyal friends, like Kent the noble, and his jester, the Fool. Colin Blakely makes Kent into the perfect, rugged sidekick, as brave and reliable as Sam in LORD OF THE RINGS. And John Hurt makes the haunting, half-crazed fool as helpless and pitiable as Gollum, without all the creepy sliminess.But the real stars of the play are actually the villains. Diana Rigg is delicious as Regan, the younger of the two "wicked sisters." Even when she is shiveringly evil, (joking about Gloucester's pain as she pokes out his eyes!) she remains a stunningly desirable woman. And the twisted affair between Regan and the studly but wicked Edmund is much more erotic and involving than in most productions. Robert Lindsay captures the gigolo side of Edmund perfectly, always teasing and tempting and making poor love-struck Regan literally pucker up to kiss the empty air. Diana Rigg really plays all sides of the character -- watching her pout and sulk in her tent would be sweetly endearing if she weren't so truly and completely cruel. As a result the viewer is spellbound, unable to resist the evil but horrified by the inevitable tragedy.With an all-star cast, original scenery and a haunting musical score, this bold production is Shakespeare at the summit!

jurzua This version of Lear was made for television, and it shows. The scale is small, the sets cheap, the action cramped. However, Olivier's acting is something to be remembered. Lear comes across very convincingly as a pathetic, deteriorating, crumbling old man, weak and defenseless in spite of an unseen past of terrible power and - presumably - ferocious cruelty. Kurosawa's Japanese adaptation plays much more on the terrible past of Lear as counterpoint to the present weakness and madness, this English version leaves the lost power and cruelty only as a hazy background. If this is a defect of Olivier's acting, or whether it faithfully reflects his views on the character, I do not know. But I think Olivier did exactly what he wanted to do, focus on the old Lear, his weakness and his fading away, as a symbol of human nature in general, and of his own advanced age in particular. In the final scenes Lear appears shaven off his beard, showing the naked face of a very ancient man, not the face of an actor at all. There must be a reflection of Olivier's own becoming old and brittle and approaching death, on the deterioration and dying of Lear. And there is the weakest glimmer of hope, both for the character and for the actor, as dying Lear recovers lost love in the midst of destruction.Of the rest of the cast, the best characters in my opinion are Goneril and Regan, perhaps a little overplayed but very convincingly so, as the hard hearted, scheming sisters. The fool and poor Tom somehow are not quite convincing. Gloucester is moving but a little dumb. Kent is handsome and masculine. Cordelia is pretty. But no question, this is Lord Olivier's show.The score has justly been criticized as noisy and intrusive. Staging is not always clear enough for comprehension of the plot.All in all, this movie is well worth seeing. Perhaps there are better interpretations of Lear, perhaps more adjusted to Shakespeare's vision; however, this version has enough merit so as to stand by itself. And Olivier remains the quintessential Shakespearean actor of all times.