King Lear (1999) User Reviews

Worthy if flawed

[TheLittleSongbird · 6/10 · 7 June 2023]

'King Lear' is not for everyone but it is a moving and powerful play to me, and Shakespeare's text is poetic and haunting with many emotions. It is not one of my favourites of Shakespeare's plays and it took a while for me to get behind Lear (which is dependent on how the role is performed), those being introduced to the play may be put off by him in the first act. That still doesn't stop 'King Lear' from being a powerful experience when done right, and likewise with Lear as a character.

There have been many fine productions of 'King Lear' and many fine interpreters of the challenging title role. Have always gotten a lot of enjoyment out of Brian Blessed (who is very experienced in Shakespeare and very, very good at it) and was interested to see how he would fare as Lear. He actually fares extremely well, surprisingly so considering Lear is the opposite of the larger than life persona of Blessed. And despite its flaws, the production has a lot to recommend.

Am going to get the not so good things out of the way. The production values are cheap, with the sets having too much of a Stoneage look and the costumes being very shoestring budget. Not to mention the hair and make-up, a bit disconcerting seeing Lear made up looking like a mix of an aged Cher and an 80s fantasy film hermit.

Wasn't crazy about some of the camera work, which was gimmicky at times, and how the sound never synced with the mouth movements were disconcerting and will confuse anybody watching 'King Lear' for the first time. The production itself is at its weakest with the final scene, which did feel rather dragged out.

However, there is as said a lot to recommend, as this all seems to indicate that this reviewer thought the production bad (it isn't). First and foremost it is wonderfully acted (which makes up half the rating), with Blessed giving his absolute all as Lear in a boisterous but also moving performance. Especially shining in his touching chemistry with Phillippa Peak's incandescent Cordelia. Robert Whelan is powerful as Gloucester, especially in the eye gouging scene which is as harrowing as one would expect without going for shock value.

Jason Riddington's Edmund is chilling, Hildegarde Neil's Fool is commanding and not overplayed and Iain Stuart Robertson's Kent has plenty of authority. Mark Burgess plays a more restrained than usual Edgar, but plays the role with finesse and brio all the same. Caroline Lennon and Claire Laurie are suitably unnerving.

Furthermore, the production is directed with total understanding of the text and also in good taste, nothing felt static, overblown, incoherent or gratuitous. The character interactions are spot on, especially Lear and Cordelia, and the production seldom feels dull excepting the final scene. Even with cuts, it doesn't come over as choppy either.

Overall, worthy and above average if inconsistent. 6/10.

Cheap but competent

[DutchECK · 6/10 · 17 December 2005]

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.

Nobody seems to have the patience and guts to sit out a 3 hour long movie.

[Monk61 · 7/10 · 3 November 2004]

Nobody seems to have the patience and guts to sit out a 3 hour long film questioning eternal human behaviour as greed, jealousy, hatred and false-heartedness. These themes are at the heart of a lot of Shakespeare's works. Set in the early middle-ages with a fair deal of suspense and superstition and witchery this film should appeal to fantasy lovers. The acting in this film is great and the story is of a kind that scenario-writers seldom match. It is a shame only 10 people of IMDb took notice of this film. All is in it;tenderness, unconditional love,terrible remorse, and all for us to see and entertain us.

Disappointing.

[kaljic · 4/10 · 14 March 2020]

An overly pretentious production, the talents of Brian Blessed were wasted. He is the director of this version of King Lear, and he has chosen to clutter the production with cheesy special effects and out-of-the ordinary camera angles. These unnecessary tricks only distract the viewer away from a complex interplay of characters and dialogue. Brian Blessed plays larger-than-life characters with ease and skill, and he was born to portray the title character. Sadly, this is a less-than-acceptable version of this classic. It is no overstatement to say that this production of King Lear was not Blessed, but cursed!

Brian Blessed shines.

[Calibanhagseed · 8/10 · 21 March 2008]

Like many of Bill Shakespeare's play King Lear is open to many interpretations. Should the old sire of Pagan Britain be played as a once great man now crippled by senility or a powerful King though stripped from his regency still powerfully defiant against his treasonous children and unbending mind?

Personally I don't give a hoot in what way they portray Lear as long as the performance impresses me and Brian Blessed did strike a cord.

His booming voice and his ample frame, even more present by the thick robes he wears create a Lear of great power.(watch how the the clothing changes to more delicate gowns when Lear is in his weaker moments, even to a white thin robe when he has come to terms with his insanity and is reunited with Cordelia, but that could all be a coincidence, hahaha) Although some my find Blessed's gibes and quaint gestures and intonations overacting, I liked them. (I love a good ham by the way.) Brian Blessed really carries the film and his boisterous Lear is just as impressive as the powerful performance by James Earl Jones. (Both drool at some point of the piece, but one thing I learned Shakespeare is better with a lot of Alien-like salivating.)

The supporting roles are good. Iain Stuart Robertson plays Kent and handles his role nicely and Philipa Peak is a serene Cordelia, albeit she seems a little uncomfortable with role.

Hildegarde Neill is a strange choice for the fool, but it works. If you really want to see her shine watch MacBeth with Jason Connery, she is excellent there as one of the Weird Sisters. Jason Riddington gives a fine portrayal of the villainous Edmund, though not as impressive as when Raoul Julia played the bastard(pun intended, hahaha, Shakespeare humor. Funny? Well, actually No)

The role that really impressed me besides Brian Blessed was Mark Burgess as Edgar, although Edgar's part doesn't feature any real shining moment besides when he feigns madness as "Poor Tom", Burgess handles these madness scenes with finesse. Playing the role more calmly and reserved letting his eyes speak the madness rather than a more physical performance with a lot of shouting and jumping, like many others play Poor Tom. (for instance René Auberjonois)

All in all; a nice production of Bill's majestic drama despite the probably tight budget, but hey, you watch Bill's plays for the acting not the dressing.