User reviews

Really did want to like this version of 'King Lear' more. The play itself is wonderful, very haunting and moving even if the titular character frustrates you at first (but one does grow to sympathise with him). Richard Eyre has done a fair share of interesting and well done theatre, film and television productions and is no stranger to Shakespeare, being director of the brilliant 'The Hollow Crown' adaptations of both 'Henry IV' parts. And of course the cast is a dream one.

'King Lear' (2018) has a lot of great things about it, but in my mind it didn't completely come together. It does laudably with a difficult play, but is rather uneven. As the cast are great and all give great performances in their own way, the atmosphere is strong and there are many memorable scenes and interactions. The truncations do hurt the pacing and storytelling sadly and quite badly and this is not one of Eyre's better overall directing efforts.

Lets start with the good things. The best thing about this 'King Lear' is the acting, which is very good to superb throughout in all the roles. Antony Hopkins mesmerises as Lear, showing poignant tragedy and titanic, near-histrionic fury in equal measure in a way that is intense, noble and affecting. Emma Thompson is a suitably venomous Goneril and Emily Watson was never this blood-thirsty, manipulative or deceptively caring. Jim Broadbent is tremendously powerful as Gloucester. Florence Pugh is very touching without being passive as Cordelia and John MacMillan is effectively creepy as Edmund. Very interesting portrayal of the Fool, not overplayed or annoying thankfully. The character interaction is also strongly handled, especially between Lear and Cordelia.

Enough of the production values are fine, the austerity of the setting and costumes suits the atmosphere of the story perfectly as it is an austere play without going too over the top in it. Steven Warbeck's score is haunting. Shakespeare's text is still complex emotionally and sheer poetry, it is a shame though that it is so heavily abridged. The story is compelling enough and has some great moments, the big scene between Lear and Cordelia brought tears to my eyes and the film has one of the most unsettling renditions of the gouging of the eyes scene.

However, there are quite a number of glaring flaws. The text is heavily abridged and with so much cut out the pacing and story suffer. As does some of the character writing. The pacing feels very rushed frequently and the story feels choppy and regularly confuses, even for somebody who is familiar with the play so goodness knows how those that are not would feel. A shame as there are scenes that are done very well, especially those aforementioned.

Furthermore, not all the characters are done justice. Lear, Cordelia and Gloucester are. Less successful in particular are Edmund and Regan, though as indicated they are both played excellently. Edmund is very sketchily written with underdeveloped motivations and Regan is not enough of the seemingly sympathetic and "we can trust her" character one thinks she is at first but comes over as manipulative and all round evil from the start. Eyre's direction has enough flashes of brilliance, but tends to be too heavy-handed. Some of the camerawork veers on gimmicky.

In conclusion, a lot to like but some big drawbacks too. Frustratingly uneven. 6/10.

This is a gripping rendition of Lear with fantastic performances by all. Nearly all the famous and inspiring lines are here. I say "nearly".

There were several cuts to Shakespeare's text that surprised and disappointed me. A couple examples: 1) When Kent (Jim Carter) berates Oswald (Christopher Eccleston) I couldn't wait for Kent's long insulting harangue of Oswald: "A knave, a rascal, an eater of broken meats, etc." Alas, it was cut. 2) The most shocking scene in the play, the blinding of Gloucester (Jim Broadbent) by Cornwall (Tobias Menzies), contains the line: "Out, vile jelly! Where is your luster now?" Sadly, the second sentence was cut. I saw a performance where Cornwall not only gouges out Gloucester's eye, but when it pops onto the floor, he stomps on it. That still gives me chills, but it is not in this version.

Many other of the famous lines are kept in: "How sharper than a serpent's tooth it is to have a thankless child", "Every inch a king", And my favorite speech, Edmund's (John MacMillan) "This is the excellent foppery of the world..."

The cuts from scene to scene were a little jarring, and if one is unfamiliar with the text it is difficult to understand the conversations. The gist of the story can be discerned, but at the end I felt slightly disappointed despite the bravura performances. Emma Thompson as Goneril was cold blooded malice; Emily Watson as Regan was a convincing conniver. Andrew Scott was fine as Edgar but the film does not explain how no one could recognize him despite having nothing more than a dirty face and a woman's frock on. The same goes for Jim Carter's Kent, although he did at least shave off his hair and moustache, and wore shabby clothes.

Anthony Hopkins was excellent as Lear, with the full range of emotions Shakespeare gives him: loving, raging, angry, mad and grief stricken.

Most Shakespeare plays have been set in modern times by now, so the idea is far from revolutionary, but it is done well. The cast is stellar, and the production is focused on them and the original text, instead of the setting, which gives this adaptation a theater feel, which will appeal to most Shakespeare fans.

The thing about seeing a performance of a part in a play or literary adaptation (or really any acting role) that one comes to regard as "definitive", is that such a performance will have a detrimental effect on one's ability to objectively judge any subsequent performance of that part, as any such performance will necessarily be found wanting. Antony Sher as Richard III in Bill Alexander's 1984 RSC production, Kenneth Branagh as Henry V in his own 1989 film adaptation (Henry V (1989)), Harris Yulin as Willy Loman in David Esbjornson's 2010 Gate Theatre production of Death of a Salesman, Gillian Anderson as Blanche duBois in Benedict Andrews's 2014 Young Vic production of A Streetcar Named Desire, even something like Christopher Lee as Dracula or Marlon Brando as Kurtz in Apocalypse Now (1979). All definitive.

For me, the definitive Lear is a no brainer - Owen Roe in Selina Cartmell's magisterial 2013 Abbey Theatre production. Roe was very much helped by the extraordinarily ambitious direction of Cartmell. However, irrespective of directorial assistance, the scenes on the heath (the so-called "unactable" portion of King Lear), were unlike anything I've ever seen, as Roe alternates, sentence by sentence (!) between a fairly standard (if brilliantly staged) raging at the heavens, and turning directly to the audience and speaking quietly and calmly, almost emotionlessly. Sentence. By. Sentence. Without breaking the metre of the iambic pentameter verse!! Of course, Cartmell's choice here is obvious; the use of two different styles of delivery serve as a succinct visual/aural metaphor for the inner turmoil of the character, but although it's a thematically simple enough device, it requires a performance of immense control to bring it off.

And then we have Anthony Hopkins in writer/director Richard Eyre's TV adaptation for the BBC. Oh dear.

His performance was never going to touch Roe's masterclass for me, but what's especially disappointing is how little interested he seems in doing anything beyond giving the barest essentials in his interpretation of the part.

Having said that, that Hopkins would appear in any filmic adaptation of Lear at all is unexpected. He has played the part before - over one-hundred performances in David Hare's 1986 National Theatre production; a run which was almost immediately followed by over one-hundred performances in Peter Hall's 1987 production of Antony and Cleopatra. Hopkins had been growing disillusioned with theatre acting for some time, and his success in films such as The Elephant Man (1980) and The Bounty (1984) served only to expedite his growing dissatisfaction. Disliking the experience of performing Shakespeare over two-hundred times in the course of two years, and feeling burnt out (who can blame him), after Antony finished its run, Hopkins moved to the US to pursue film acting full time. He has often spoken since about just how much he hated those two years, and how much he grew to loathe Shakespeare, particularly Lear. On his commentary track for Julie Taymor's Titus (1999), he points out that as far as he was concerned, he was done with Shakespeare, until Taymor convinced him to appear in the film adaptation of her own 1994 Theatre for a New Audience production. He also stresses that Titus will most likely be the last time in his life he plays Shakespeare (calling the performance his "swan song"). Obviously, he changed his mind (or Eyre changed it for him), but that he would do so with Lear, of all plays, is decidedly unexpected.

So, with that in mind, what exactly is wrong with his performance? How can someone who played the part over one-hundred times possibly give an under par performance? Well, probably because he played the role over one-hundred times. The performance is lethargic, jaded, lazy, as if it's routine, become so familiar that all meaning has evaporated from the text (similar to when you say a word over and over and it starts to sound strange). Hopkins plays Lear as an easy-to-anger man, used to getting his own way, with little time for sentiment, whose grip on reality is becoming increasingly tenuous. Nothing wrong with that - it's a very basic reading of the character, but still nothing inherently wrong with it. The problem is, we've seen Hopkins play this character before, or a variation thereof, in everything from Legends of the Fall (1994) to Nixon (1995) to The Wolfman (2010). Indeed, his performances in Eyre's Lear is, beat for beat, a virtual carbon copy of his performance in Taymor's Titus. There are many similarities between the characters, to be sure, but not so many that the parts should be played in exactly the same way (as a contrast, look at Brian Cox's performance in the two roles; Titus in Deborah Warner's ground-breaking 1987 RSC production, and Lear in Warner's 1990 National Theatre production - three years, and an ocean of interpretive difference separate the performances).

Hopkins's performance has two gears - scenery chewing and shouty scenery chewing. That's it. Compare the lack of pathos, emotion, or nuance in his performance to, for example, Cox, Paul Scofield (in Peter Brook's 1971 film - King Lear (1970)), Jüri Järvet (in Grigoriy Kozintsev's 1971 film - King Lear (1970)), Laurence Olivier (in Michael Elliott's 1983 TV movie for ITV - King Lear (1983)), or Anthony Sher (in Gregory Doran's 2018 RSC production). All of them show more range, and a wider and more complete understanding of the text than Hopkins's one note performance. Also, his tendency to pause in the middle of verse lines is extremely distracting, and completely disrupts the meter. Such pauses serve to create artificial caesuras in the iambic pentameter lines, turning the verse into a bizarre amalgamation of anapaestic and dactylic hexameters, and even heptameters. A stronger director would have stamped this out, or had the actor speak in prose (as a few of the other actors do), but to have the actor speak in verse, but show no respect for the verse is...strange.

Thankfully the rest of the cast are universally strong. And what a cast! Emma Thompson as an especially nasty Goneril; Jim Broadbent as a deeply sympathetic Gloucester; John Macmillan as a soft-spoken Edmund; Andrew Scott as a highly emotional Edgar; Jim Carter as a gruff Kent; soon-to-be-superstar Florence Pugh as a very young and wide-eyed Cordelia; Karl Johnson as a decidedly serious Fool; Christopher Eccleston as a suitably ridiculous Oswald; Anthony Calf as a take-charge Albany; and Chukwudi Iwuji as a considerate France. However, the film is stolen by the work of Emily Watson and Tobias Menzies as an insanely bloodthirsty Regan and Cornwall. Watson's Regan oozes raw sexuality, and the (very graphic) blinding scene clearly turns both of them on. Two terrific performances which left me wishing there was more of them together in the play.

Also impressive is Eyre's direction, although the lack of editing rhythm in the opening scene is a little strange, and the shot composition in places tends to flatten the image, making it seem a little like a filmed play. His decision to set the play in modern London, however, with Lear as a retiring pseudo-dictator, works very well (Edgar is an astrophysicist, Edmund is in the armed forces). In this context, the shopping mall scene is especially well conceived and executed, as a now quite mad Lear wanders around a near-derelict shopping mall in a bad part of town, dressed like a vagrant, pushing a shopping trolley, and talking to a doll. It's a deeply unsettling image that encapsulates perfectly just how far he has fallen. Also well conceived is the scene set in an asylum seekers' refugee camp. The political commentary is a little on the nose, as Lear looks around the camp at the faces of the refugees, forcing him to consider issues of which he's never before conceived, but it's effective, timely and non-intrusive.

So, all-in-all, a strong adaptation with an excellent cast brought down only by a weak central performance. Unfortunately, the part of Lear is so completely central, pivotal, and dominating, that if it doesn't work, there's a problem. Hopkins's performance isn't so bad as to distract too much from the excellent work done elsewhere in the piece, but what's annoying about it is it could easily have been so much better. Mind you, members of the cast have been active on Twitter and the interview circuit for the last couple of weeks talking about how much they loved working with Hopkins, and how tremendous they think he is in the role (oftentimes, going to the set even when they weren't working, just to watch him filming). So, what do I know?

First of all, I LOVE Sir Anthony Hopkins. He is unquestionably one of the greatest actors working today. However, I am not entirely sure that a TV adaptation of King Lear suited him. His scenes of quietly controlled fury were utterly devastating and mesmerising. Unfortunately, his portrayal of madness contained too little light and shade and was mainly an unending tirade of poorly enunciated shouting which made the text extremely hard to follow.

I didn't care for the uneven, choppy direction and the gloomy cinematography, nor the wearying desire of Richard Eyre to push his personal, clumsily executed political points about immigrants and war.

On the plus side, Emma Thompson and Emily Watson are on majestic form as Goneril and Regan and show why they are, without question, two of our finest actresses. Thompson even manages to elicit some sympathy as a woman competely at the end of her tether with her increasingly belligerent and uncaring father.

Other notable performances are Tobias Menzies as the Duke of Cornwall who seems to have developed something of a niche for playing sexy, sadistic psychopaths. Christopher Eccleston, not usually associated with comedy, is also eye-catching as a very amusing and camp Oswald.

Finally, THAT scene with the Earl of Gloucester (Jim Broadbent) will have you reaching for a cushion to hid behind. Doctor Who was never this graphic!

Anthony Hopkins deserves his King Lear. The film is a good proof. And only problem about the new version of play could be only the expectation of the viewer. Maybe, too high. Because it is a beautiful film and it is not a real surprise . Impecable performances, seductive use of modern ingredients, political correctness. And the feeling to discover a sort of version of Titus Andronicus. Something is missing in the performance of Sir Hopkins. It is a correct Lear but nothing more. Like a well known lesson presented front to the class. A sort of sketch using familiar, for public, skills. After its end, not exactly The King Lear remains in memory but an admirable Regan, a precise Earl of Kent, a fine Goneril, an inspired Cordelia. King Lear is more a reflection of the other characters. So, a beautiful version. But one in the shadow of the others.

Lear, an elderly king, has decided to divide his kingdom between his three daughters but first he asks each how much they love him to decide who should get the largest share. The elder two, Goneril and Regan, profess their love in false, obsequious tones but Cordelia, the youngest and most beloved, says she has no words to say how much she loves him... and is immediately disowned. The Earl of Kent speaks up for her but he too is banished. Tensions soon rise as various parties try to position themselves for power and the king's grip on reality slips further; tragedy is inevitable.

One wouldn't really say this BBC production was enjoyably... 'King Lear' is one of Shakespeare's more tragic plays; it is however a gripping production. Anthony Hopkins does a fine job as Lear, really capturing the anger and confusion of the character as he slips into senility. Emma Thompson, Emily Watson and Florence Pugh impress as Goneril, Regan and Cordelia although we see far more of the former two and they get more to work with. The rest of the cast is solid and includes plenty of familiar faces. There are some disturbing moments... the sight of a character having his eyes gouged out certainly had me wincing. Director Richard Eyre did a fine job capturing the bleakness of the story; the colour draining from the picture as the story progresses to such an extent that the final scenes was almost black and white. Overall I'd certainly recommend this to fans of Shakespeare on film.

Thought the concept of a modern day (fictional location) for a Shakespeare was a great thing. Been wanting to find some time to watch this as I have always been interested in Shakespeare and never seem to have the time to sit down and dig thru one of his plays and learn to grasp that style of language. So as you can guess this movie was a bit hard for me to follow as a result of a lack of emersion in old English as a language. I was able to follow along fairly well I think and fully understand the tragedy of this work. I quite enjoyed it and thought it well done.

The plot was too difficult to follow, given all of the cuts to the text, maybe it needed some narration. Actors were just playing Can You Top This and went way over the line of credibility. Some of the Sets and war footage were good, others were just filler. Too bad, should have been much better.

The film is heavily abridged. It's a real tragedy. If they had filmed the whole play this might have been the best Lear ever televised. Nevertheless there's much to like in this telling of Lear.

Casting the Fool as an old man was a stroke of minor genius - his rapport with Lear is the best I've ever seen it on film OR stage; The modern setting (not often my preference) works well here and lends the whole a seriousness for modern viewers that too many ruffled shirts might've threatened; The photography and cinematography are honestly world-class; The cast has no weak links and many excellent performances. Andrew Scott as Edgar, Karl Johnson as the Fool, and Jim Carter as Kent were the stand-outs for me.

As for Anthony Hopkins's Lear I have only good things to say. His Lear stands with the very best, I honestly believe. He's all the madness and all the pity, and he plays it so easily that it somehow never once sounds theatrical, pompous or silly - quite a feat for any Shakespearean role in the 21st century, but dubly so for Lear.

With Shakespeare there's no substitute for a live performance, but this film is a real accomplishment regardless. Bravo all. Highly recommended!

For Anthony Hopkins legendary characterised and lived his role again from the begining to the end of the film and the scenes colorfull convert from white to black scenes also darkness scenes at the end...As also the phsycological feelings convert from life to death.I think this is the main success of director.

What a waste of excellent actors. I could only take a half hour of this dribble. This despite the fact that I usually like Shakespearean films.

My word not many laughs in King Lear. My son who fancied a bit of Shakespeare got put off by the eye gouging scene of Gloucester. He went off to watch a James Bond movie, Spectre I think!

Richard Eyre who worked with Anthony Hopkins in the film version of The Dresser, reunited with him again as Eyre adapts and directs the film version of King Lear.

The setting is modern day Britain as a military dictatorship.

The ageing Lear has gathered his family to divide up his kingdom in what proves to be unwise. One part to his daughter Goneril (Emma Thompson), the other to Regan (Emily Watson) and the remainder would had gone to Cordelia (Florence Pugh) until she fails to show her father enough devotion and flattery. She is disinherited and banished.

The declaration of love and devotion from Goneril and Regan are false. The autocrat is usurped from his power by two of his offspring with Cordelia who was the only daughter true to him. Lear descends into madness.

Eyre has wisely cut the text down so the running length is less than two hours but I still found the play dense and also at times choppy. I liked some of the updates. Edgar and Edmund's battle is a mixed martial arts contest. Lear walks around the shopping precinct, homeless and pathetically pushing a shopping trolley with rubbish.

Hopkins, maybe due to his Celtic temperament delivers a shouty performance. A man in rage and also pathetic as he is played like a puppet on a string by Goneril and Regan.

This Lear is wonderfully filmed, the picture gets desaturated as the story gets bleaker by the end.

Greatly cast adaptation of one of William Shakespeare's greatest works. As most modern Shakespeare adaptation also this one takes place during contemporary days with the original language (or most of it). You can either love it or hate it. The cast is tremendous. The ensemble is lead by Anthony Hopkins who is of course born to play that role and it feels like he waited his whole career to take advantage of that role. A great performance by a wonderful character actor. Emma Thompson was fine, but she can do better. She was often on the edge of overacting. Still a nice coup to have her playing one of Lear's daughters. Emily Watson was good, also on the edge of overacting but it suited her role much better. I really liked Florence Pugh who was perfectly cast in the role of Cordellia. And another fantastic and memorable turn by Jim Broadbent. The look was great. A very good cinematography and moving score added to the experience. It did have some lengths but overall it was a good adaptation mostly thanks to Sir Hopkins and a solid direction by Richard Eyre.

Late in my life I have been working through reading all of Shakespeare's plays. Having recorded King Lear with Anthony Hopkins, I waited until I had read the play before watching it. Probably just as well as Lear is one of the plays that is difficult to digest in one reading. It certainly helped in following this filmed version, particularly as I felt Hopkin's Welsh accent was so difficult to understand when his temper is up. It is the only weak point however in this striking production. Other reviewers are complaining that much of the text has been cut but as this is basically a movie, that's par for the course. You cannot hold an audience's attention in film if it's too long in talkative scenes. As I understood the basic story from having read the play I was particularly enthralled with the second half which I found gripping.

The supporting cast are all good with outstanding performances I thought from Jim Broadbent as Gloucester, Emily Watson as Regan and Jim Carter as Kent. Florence Pugh, Tobias Menzies, Andrew Scott & Emma Thompson are all excellent too.

Some scenes are quite shocking in their brutality so not for the faint hearted viewer.

Set in modern times, I thought it worked quite well although being at war with France seemed odd in today's age. I suggest you familiarise yourself with the basic story first before watching this, as Hopkins' accent is difficult to hear when he takes off.

I don't know what it's about. I don't understand the story or the dialog. The constant anachronisms bug me too. What a waste of a superb cast.

I love Shakespeare. I am extremely grateful to Amazon for investing their money in Shakespeare rather than spending it on an obscure comic book character and/or some random pop culture IP that should not be rebooted. Anthony Hopkins is incredible as King Lear. The production values are fantastic. The only thing I have a problem with are the misguided idiots in the review section who feel like slapping the hand of their patron. Shakespeare, above all, knew the importance of patrons.

Couldn't tolerate watching the snooze fest. Lines poorly delivered and carried off even worse. Big time actors. Sad it isn't a much better film.

I only wish more of Shakespeare's work would be interpreted in this creative way .. the production partnership in here by BBC and Amazon and directing by the talented "king Lear" expert Richard Eyre did one spectacular job .. yet .. i still have no idea who came up by this "modernizing" of the Shakespearean work like this .. it shins with originality and thrill.

The madness, tension and stress presented by Anthony Hopkins is indescribable ,, felt like he's on the stage of a theater of his imagination he owned each and every line ... i mean even though i needed English subtitles for the movie just to keep up .. still he was amazing .. the whole cast were .. and what a cast ... The kingdom's finest ... Emma Thompson, Jim Carter, Tobias Menzies and Andrew Scott (Moriarty from Sherlock :D) ..just wow.

The movie might be a hard work ,, but it's worth it if you love classical tragedies of Shakespeare and you're prepared to see it in a new style.

In this movie one of the most famous tragedies written by Shakespeare is settled in the contemporary age, although the text is basicly faithful to the original. I don't like when an historical opera is completely modified in its context, costumes, location and time, so this is the main reason why I didn't love this movie. Anthony Hopkins' interpretation is great and also the other actors are good, however so much is missed if Shakespeare is played in a totally different era. Men are always men, but all the rest have changed and the best part of the tragedy - the historical setting - is lost. Furthermore, "King Lear" is not my favourite opera written by Shakespeare.

"King Lear" is a Drama - History movie in which we watch a king making some bad choices after inviting his daughters to divide and distribute his kingdom to them. He keeps the wrong ones close to them while he rejects the ones who loves him and care the most for him.

I liked this adaptation of William Shakespeare's play and I found very interesting the way Richard Eyre used it. He succeeded on creating a nice result, creating the correct environment and atmosphere in order for the audience to feel and understand better the concept of the movie. The interpretations of Anthony Hopkins who played as King Lear, Emma Thompson who played as Goneril, Florence Pugh who played as Cordelia and Jim Broadbent who played as Earl of Gloucester helped the movie to become greater than what already was. To sum up, I have to say that "King Lear" is a different and sure not for everyone so, I recommend anyone who is really interested to watch it.

Lear is one of those roles (the other is Prospero) that looms in the destiny of notable Shakespearian actors. Olivier tackled it. Gielgud (whose advice to a younger Ian McKellan, we are told, was "get a small Cordelia"), Scofield, Stewart, when an actor with in the classical repertory reaches a certain age, the challenge he faces is whether or not do Lear.

Hopkins takes this on with all his considerable skill and force, and for my taste delivers beautifully. Ably supported by a very good cast drawn from the almost bottomless pool of English talent, he portrays the spiteful, short-sighted old king who banishes Cordelia and Kent at the beginning of the piece, the king who finds his power deserting him in the face of opposition from Goneril and Regan in the next arc of the plot, the bereft old man descending into the madness he so fears, and the shattered man at the end, with range and power.

Lear is not a one-man show, but without a tremendously strong Lear you don't have a play (same goes for so many of Shakespeare's best pieces - Hamlet, Macbeth. Richard III). Hopkins hits the essential peak at the last scene, with those two famous lines of one word repeated. "Howl. Howl. Howl." and. utterly broken at last: "Never. Never. Never." These are language as music, almost in the abstracl, like sacred chant in their power, and he delivers them spot on.

I was very pleased with this film and these performances.