King of Texas

Rating:
Summary: King Lear Transformed to Rancher
Review: "King of Texas" was based upon the play King Lear written by one of the world's best-known playwrights, Shakespeare. This movie was at it's best placed within a more "modern" setting compared to plays, pre-Christianity days. Taking place in Texas, the movie begins by the Lear family celebrating one of the few years Texas claimed its independence from the US. The story continues with introducing such familiar characters parallel to their counterparts such as the three sisters, Claudia (Cordelia), Rebecca (Regan), and Susanna (Goneril). The rancher Lear asks his daughters, as in the play, which one loves him the best, and as a reward each daughter is to receive a portion of his ranch. Needless to say, Rebecca and Susanna, the two daughters who least love their father, exaggerate their feelings toward him, where as Claudia, who truly loves her father, will not participate in their "games." She is turned out for this, leaving the two evil daughters to manipulate the situation even further for their own success. Of course, as in every Shakespearean play, everyone gets punished in the end for their wrong doings.
Over all, I believed the movie to be very well written and performed and followed Shakespeare's play, King Lear almost exactly.

Rating:
Summary: "King of Texas"
Review: "Shakespeare" and "western" are words not often used in the same sentence, but Shakespear's "King Lear" actually makes a pretty good western. "King of Texas" is a freash retelling of the old play. John Lear is a wealthy and very powerful cattle rancher who, at the time of his retirment, divides his land between his dughters. Just as in the play, two of his daughters turn on him and trow him out into the wilderness accompanied by his slave. All characters of the play seemed acounted for except Kent. Lear's slave had qualities of both Kent and the Fool. He represents the comic relief of the move as the Fool did in the play. The movie follows the play very faithfully; there were only a few disputes toward the end. After reading the play I was somewhat confused about how everything took place. Watching the movie helped make clear the chacters and events of the play. It gave more background and depth to the characters, especially the daughters. The transition to a western setting was done very well. I could relate more with caracters placed in a setting more familure than old Britain. The acting and directing was good, and even though its a TNT made-for-T.V. movie, it's very polished. Because this isn't your normal western, I'd recomend this to everyone. (Even those who don't like westerns)

Rating:
Summary: "King of Texas"
Review: "Shakespeare" and "western" are words not often used in the same sentence, but Shakespear's "King Lear" actually makes a pretty good western. "King of Texas" is a freash retelling of the old play. John Lear is a wealthy and very powerful cattle rancher who, at the time of his retirment, divides his land between his dughters. Just as in the play, two of his daughters turn on him and trow him out into the wilderness accompanied by his slave. All characters of the play seemed acounted for except Kent. Lear's slave had qualities of both Kent and the Fool. He represents the comic relief of the move as the Fool did in the play. The movie follows the play very faithfully; there were only a few disputes toward the end. After reading the play I was somewhat confused about how everything took place. Watching the movie helped make clear the chacters and events of the play. It gave more background and depth to the characters, especially the daughters. The transition to a western setting was done very well. I could relate more with caracters placed in a setting more familure than old Britain. The acting and directing was good, and even though its a TNT made-for-T.V. movie, it's very polished. Because this isn't your normal western, I'd recomend this to everyone. (Even those who don't like westerns)

Rating:
Summary: "King of Texas"
Review: "Shakespeare" and "western" are words not often used in the same sentence, but Shakespear's "King Lear" actually makes a pretty good western. "King of Texas" is a freash retelling of the old play. John Lear is a wealthy and very powerful cattle rancher who, at the time of his retirment, divides his land between his dughters. Just as in the play, two of his daughters turn on him and trow him out into the wilderness accompanied by his slave. All characters of the play seemed acounted for except Kent. Lear's slave had qualities of both Kent and the Fool. He represents the comic relief of the move as the Fool did in the play. The movie follows the play very faithfully; there were only a few disputes toward the end. After reading the play I was somewhat confused about how everything took place. Watching the movie helped make clear the chacters and events of the play. It gave more background and depth to the characters, especially the daughters. The transition to a western setting was done very well. I could relate more with caracters placed in a setting more familure than old Britain. The acting and directing was good, and even though its a TNT made-for-T.V. movie, it's very polished. Because this isn't your normal western, I'd recomend this to everyone. (Even those who don't like westerns)

Rating:
Summary: Shakespeare - The King of Human Truths
Review: Although the story may be hundreds of years old, another timeless Shakespearian tale finds its way to the silver screen in "King of Texas." Patrick Stewart plays the leading role as John Lear, a cattle baron who built his empire in south Texas on years of hard work... and blood. His on-going battle with Manchaca, a Mexican ranch owner just south of Lear's ranch, parallels King Lear's feud with the French. Keeping with the story, Claudia, who represents Cordelia from the Shakespearian work, runs off with the enemy after she is turned out by her father. Her two sisters, Susanne and Rebecca, representing Goneril and Reagan, inherit their father's land through deceitful speeches of how great their love is for him. Lear goes mad after both these daughters send him away, while Rip (Davis Alen Grier), representing the fool, provides some comedy relief. This movie is quite accurate to the original work, and the western setting and dialogue create a more tangible atmosphere for some than "King Lear" might offer. Even Henry Westover (Roy Scheider), representing the Earl of Gloucester, meets the same horrific torture as in the original work. I would recommend this movie to everyone, even if westerns or Shakespeare aren't your favorite choice of entertainment. 4 stars for "King of Texas."

Rating:
Summary: Shakespeare - The King of Human Truths
Review: Although the story may be hundreds of years old, another timeless Shakespearian tale finds its way to the silver screen in "King of Texas." Patrick Stewart plays the leading role as John Lear, a cattle baron who built his empire in south Texas on years of hard work... and blood. His on-going battle with Manchaca, a Mexican ranch owner just south of Lear's ranch, parallels King Lear's feud with the French. Keeping with the story, Claudia, who represents Cordelia from the Shakespearian work, runs off with the enemy after she is turned out by her father. Her two sisters, Susanne and Rebecca, representing Goneril and Reagan, inherit their father's land through deceitful speeches of how great their love is for him. Lear goes mad after both these daughters send him away, while Rip (Davis Alen Grier), representing the fool, provides some comedy relief. This movie is quite accurate to the original work, and the western setting and dialogue create a more tangible atmosphere for some than "King Lear" might offer. Even Henry Westover (Roy Scheider), representing the Earl of Gloucester, meets the same horrific torture as in the original work. I would recommend this movie to everyone, even if westerns or Shakespeare aren't your favorite choice of entertainment. 4 stars for "King of Texas."

Rating:
Summary: Stellar Performances, Stellar Adaptation
Review: Based on Shakespeare's King Lear, this story of greed and sibling rivalry over Texas territory is astounding and an attention grabber from beginning to end ! There is plenty of treachery and deceit as well for good measure. Performance by Patrick Stewart of television's Star Trek Next Generation fame is a marvel in itself as the powerful and proud John Lear, land and cattle owner of Texas. Lear bestows upon his daughters the entire Texas empire.However, the land distributed amongst them is not enough;more is never enough ! The daughters' true plan of treacherous scheming begins to unfold to the very end with a gut wrenching climax !Honorable mention to actress Marcia Gay Harden for cruel, cold, and just downright nasty performance as the cattle baron's eldest and possibly most evil daughter ! Comedian/actor David Alan Grier turns in a fine and sarcastically witty portrayal as Lear's sort of "court jester" who counterbalances the dramatic nature of the movie.Though based on Shakespeare's King Lear the story itself feels like an authentic part of early American history on how the West was won...King of Texas was originally a TNT made for t.v. movie. However, it is definitely worthy of owning on dvd format.

Rating:
Summary: Lear moves to Texas
Review: I enjoyed most of the movie King of Texas.It was a good representation of William Shakespeare's King Lear. It gives the reader of the Shakespearian play a first hand look at a very similar setting, with words that are a lot easier to follow. It followed the play very well for the most part. The director did a very good job of keeping the original plot throughout the entire movie, with few exceptions. The movie's setting of Texas was the most believable and similar place for the movie to unfold. The characters all did a great job of portraying the originals with not only their words but their actions also. The main character Lear is the most similar character in the movie to the original play. The movie started out following the original play almost exactly but drifted away the farther the movie progressed. This was inevitable though and did not take away from the movie at all. The only complaint had about the movie was some of the scenes at the end that seemed to try to do too much, and the movie wrapped up a lot faster than the book, leaving more questions for the reader. The king of Texas is a good representation of the play King Lear and gives the common reader a good and different look at what is going on in the play.

Rating:
Summary: Accurate Representation
Review: I feel that "The King of Texas" was true to the story of Shakespeare's play, "King Lear." Many of the scenes were the same. The portrayal of Lear with his three daughters was true to the play. John Lear divvied up the land between Susanna and Rebecca, just as King Lear gave the land to Goneril and Regan. Both Lears also banished Cordelia (Shakespeare) and Claudia ("King of Texas") from their land. The affair between Goneril, Regan, and Edmund was portrayed well with the characters of Thomas, Rebecca, and Susanna. I also felt that the pity of King Lear after tearing off his clothes after the rain storm was well portrayed. When John Lear stood on the rock screaming at the storm, and later playing with the flowers shirtless, I felt that same pity. I enjoyed Ran's fool-like comments towards Lear. He was the comic relief to the over-all serious nature of the movie. The only thing I really didn't like about the movie was Lear's entrance into the hacienda courtyard in a robe. He's portraying a Moses-like character. I felt that part of the movie was melodramatic and unnecessary. All in all, I feel that the directors of "The King of Texas" did an accurate representation of Shakespeare's "King Lear."

Rating:
Summary: Good King Lear
Review: I thought that the move great, it was close to the play King Lear. Watching the characters was a lot of help in understanding them in the play. It was hard to understand the characters while reading the play. The movie helped me see them and put them all together. The characters in the movie King of Texas were a lot like how I pictured them in the play King Lear. The movie goes along with the play, but I think they summed up the movie way to fast. They should have explained things more toward the end. Some of the things the characters in the movie do don't make sense. The things they do in the movie are fine except a couple of things that they do. For example, when they leave the room during the battle. The characters were good and I thought they played their parts well. So in the end I thought the movie was good and that it was a good remix on King Lear. The fact that they were on a cattle ranch was interesting because they used the different ranches for the different kingdoms. I thought the play and movie went together really well. The characters played the parts, had the same ideas, and ended up the same as in King Lear.