There are many adaptations of King Lear for the silver screen or the TV screen. So a question one has to ask is: what makes this version so special? The answer is: nothing at all.
Even in the first scene, it is made clear that this was a very low-budget production. The entire look-and-feel of the film is cheap. The costumes look like they were rented from the local fun shop, the sets are slightly better than high school quality and the exteriors are too clearly computer-drawn. Luckily, the acting is not of that quality. I especially liked Neil (the Fool), Robertson (Kent) and Riddington (Edmund). For me, these three made the film work, despite its shortcomings in terms of setting and props.
King Lear is an incredibly powerful story. No wonder it has been adapted for mass-viewing numerous times. This version does not depend on expensive costumes and amazing special effects. Instead, the actors made sure there is enough to look at for three hours, which is the right amount of time for any of Shakespeare's plays.
Even in the first scene, it is made clear that this was a very low-budget production. The entire look-and-feel of the film is cheap. The costumes look like they were rented from the local fun shop, the sets are slightly better than high school quality and the exteriors are too clearly computer-drawn. Luckily, the acting is not of that quality. I especially liked Neil (the Fool), Robertson (Kent) and Riddington (Edmund). For me, these three made the film work, despite its shortcomings in terms of setting and props.
King Lear is an incredibly powerful story. No wonder it has been adapted for mass-viewing numerous times. This version does not depend on expensive costumes and amazing special effects. Instead, the actors made sure there is enough to look at for three hours, which is the right amount of time for any of Shakespeare's plays.