everything you have heard about this movie is true.

An Exercise In Nonsense

It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

It was a really good film... but I HATED IT. Objectively, it was a really fantastic and apt adaptation of the play, but subjectively, I would have rather watched paint dry. Set in some desolate, almost dystopian, icy, barren landscape; the production design was brilliant and unique, perfectly capturing the desperation of the play. Unlike so many other filmic Shakespeare adaptations, it actually worked really well as a movie, and made the most of "film" as a medium; making the set and the costumes add to the feel of the play. However... It was dull, boring, tortuously long, depressing.... I couldn't stand it. I'm a Shakespeare fan, and I thought I knew this play, but the adaptation still left me thoroughly confused, primarily because I struggle with faces, and every character looked exactly the same. Overall, I'd say steer very clear unless you are a very dedicated King Lear fan, or a very dedicated Peter Brook fan.

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.

Paul Scofield is a magnificent actor and for me the definitive Lear,but his powerful performance is grievously handicapped by some savage editing of the text which renders much of the story confusing to those coming new to the play This is bad enough but the neurotic direction of Peter Brooks makes it worse It is a bleak play and the frozen watelands of the external scenes are apt and well rendered by the camera crew.I maintain however that if we are to grasp the full horror of Lears's predicament we need to see how far he has fallen and the interiors look scarcely more inviting than the moorland =In Lear text is paramount and nothing should take our attention away from the words and the actor uttering them .Brook evidently does not agree and the camera is constantly fidgeting and at times not even focussing on the actor but zooming around like an over active fly It is not an uplifting play being rather about the fragility of sanity and reason,the key line for me being" as flies to wanton boys are we to the gods/they kill us for their sport" It should be an unsettling experience because of the story and the implications for us as humans,and not because some showoff with a movie camera wants to prove he is a "Director" and in the process sabotaging a uniformly fine cast

After seeing Paul Scofield's amazing Oscar-winning performance in 'A Man For All Seasons', I was determined that one day I would see the film version of his interpretation of arguably the most challenging stage role of all, that of Shakespeare's King Lear.I was amazed at what I saw in the first half hour. This would have to be the most poorly, even carelessly, directed and edited film I have ever seen.Cuts would be made at bizarre times when the viewer would feel there was more to come from that scene. The camera often seemed unsure of where the actors were and the photography, clearly downbeat in a failed attempt to get the right mood, was frankly pathetic.This can not be down to incompetent direction as Peter Brook is a highly-respected stage director who, although he hasn't set the movie world alight, definitely has the talent to produce polished work.It is obvious that the film is deliberately amateurish but for what reason?This reminded me a great deal of an Andy Warhol film called 'My Hustler' where at one point the camera pans across a beach to focus on a young hustler but can't find him!! The camera kept searching until the subject was in view.However, Warhol was well-known even praised for his amateurish style.Although the technical quality of Lear improved later, the damage had already been done. When viewers are subjected to film-making as technically poor as this, it is very difficult to maintain concentration. Although there was nothing wrong with the acting (Scofield is excellent) the film itself is boring purely because of the way it is directed.As a result, it is difficult to sit through this film and concentrate hard enough to successfully follow it's story. I have never read the play and I know little more about the story after seeing this film version.However, I'm pleased that I've seen it simply because Paul Scofield is without doubt one of the greatest actors of all time. Unfortunately for film fans, he has appeared in very few movies and so any permanent record of his remarkable talent is well worth seeing regardless of the quality of the final product.