Rating: 
Summary: Best of the Best of the King Lears on Tape
Review: Laurence Olivier turns in an incredible performance as King Lear in this 1970s made-for-British-televison version. He can be watched again and again to savor both his acting and the beauty of Shakespeare's poetry (I've watched it dozens of times). An extremely strong supporting cast only helps - Diana Rigg as Reagan, Dorothy Tutin as Goneril, David Threlfall as Edgar (he played Leslie Titmous in the BBC/PBS *Paradise Postponed*), John Hurt as The Fool, Leo McKern as Gloster (better known as Rumpole, but Mckern was a stage actor in Britain for years). The roles of Edmund, Cornwall, Cordelia, and others are also very fine - Edmund especially. This version is particularly suited for savoring the performances and poetry as it is not really a "film" so much as a brilliant recording of a stage performance - the sets are minimal, and this only helps the acting. As in almost all Shakespeare films, some lines are cut, but no matter. When Lear, after all his hardships and disillusionments, gets to the lines "When we are born, we cry that we have come to this great stage of fools," the viewer might just be ready to cry, too. Fantastic performance.
Rating:
Summary: Laurence Olivier plays Shakespeare's "King Lear"
Review: Laurence Olivier's performance as "King Lear" received the same sort of critical acclaim that the actor received three decades earlier for doing "Hamlet," "Richard III" and "Othello." Certainly Olivier was of the right age to play Shakespeare's embittered monarch and it is not surprising that a first-rate supporting cast signed on for the 1984 production, directed by Michael Elliot. Leo McKern as Gloucester, John Hurt as the Fool, Brian Cox as Burgundy, Dorothy Tutin as Goneril and Diana Rigg as Regan particularly stand out. The BBC was taping productions of all of Shakespeare's plays and "King Lear" was the crown jewel in this collection (although I always liked John Cleese doing "The Taming of the Shrew"). "King Lear" is not a play/film to begin your appreciation of Shakespeare, but it is good to know that when you get around to it Olivier's performance is preserved for your enjoyment.
Rating:
Summary: Laurence Olivier plays Shakespeare's "King Lear"
Review: Laurence Olivier's performance as "King Lear" received the same sort of critical acclaim that the actor received three decades earlier for doing "Hamlet," "Richard III" and "Othello." Certainly Olivier was of the right age to play Shakespeare's embittered monarch and it is not surprising that a first-rate supporting cast signed on for the 1984 production, directed by Michael Elliot. Leo McKern as Gloucester, John Hurt as the Fool, Brian Cox as Burgundy, Dorothy Tutin as Goneril and Diana Rigg as Regan particularly stand out. The BBC was taping productions of all of Shakespeare's plays and "King Lear" was the crown jewel in this collection (although I always liked John Cleese doing "The Taming of the Shrew"). "King Lear" is not a play/film to begin your appreciation of Shakespeare, but it is good to know that when you get around to it Olivier's performance is preserved for your enjoyment.
Rating: 
Summary: Lear
Review: Olivier was always a rather mannered actor, but very smart, and his intelligence shows in the first scenes of this version which are the best I've seen. This Lear is an unpredictable, powerful old man staging a self-congratulatory ceremonial of retirement that goes badly wrong when his favorite daughter refuses to play, causing him to deliver his divided kingdom into the hands of the two ruthlessly selfish older girls. Unfortunately, Olivier's performance in the storm is upstaged by too much wind and water (often the case). The mad scenes and the climax, though, are superb.
John Hurt as the fool, Diana Rigg as Goneril, Robert Lang as Albany, and Robert Lindsay as Edmund turn in fine performances, though Leo McKern's Cloucester apeaks indistinctly, and Donald Turnbull's Edgar is too fidgety--even his performance as a possessed beggar needs to be controlled. Anna Calder Marshall's Cordelia is a little on the neurotic side to my taste.
A good deal of the play makes it to the screen (though I'd have willingly exchanged much of Edgar's unnecessarily long fight scenes for some of the cut words, which include Albany's and Gloucester's best lines). The Olivier performance, though, is the chief reason for watching this version.
Rating:
Summary: best Lear
Review: Olivier's Lear is the better of the two I've seen, the other being Ian Holm's Lear. Olivier is consistently believable and not strained. Especially in the 3rd act in the rainstorm, which can seem artificial and stagy if not done right. Holm doesn't quite get it right. Olivier does. Olivier is also more successful at portraying the fragile old man that Lear is. Holm comes across as far too angry and headstrong. A strong supporting cast puts the finishing touches on the film. An excellent production of one of Shakespeare's best plays.
Rating: 
Summary: Couldn't look away
Review: One rarely gets to see Lear played by an actor who is the age that the character is supposed to be. Lear is an extremely demanding role, physically and emotionally: a man that old could hardly make it through a stage production. Olivier's Lear gives us an arresting combination of physical frailty and emotional intensity.I saw this video on a tiny black-and-white TV set, so I have very little to say about set or costume. But I was riveted by Olivier's performance; his madness and eventual death from emotional exhaustion seemed not only plausible but inevitable, and the cruelty of his daughters much more evident given his condition.
Rating: 
Summary: ideal holm
Review: people who say Olivier's Lear is superior to Holm's are morons. Are ye stones? By Common consent, Olivier's Lear, played as a senile man, was deeply flawed, great actor tho' he might have been he got it wildy wrong at times. Gilgeud thought Holm's Lear wonderful as `did Pinter. Ignore the rubbish on this site. Holm is terrific; Olivier is not
Rating:
Summary: I like Olivier and Shakespeare, but not this film version.
Review: Shakespeare wrote the ultimate tragedy with this play. Olivier's performance is sound. I liked seeing Diana Rigg as a nasty person(she plays one of Lear's daughters). The overall quality of the film is good, however, the viewer will be left feeling terrible.
Rating:
Summary: Olivier is stupendous!
Review: Sir Laurence Olivier waited till old age to this play, in part to play the role at the authentic age of the aging monarch. He is stupenous in his portrayal of the ailing monarch and he should have recieved an academy award for his performance. The story is tragic beyond compare and must be considered one of Shakespeares best plays written (next to that of Hamlet). Highly Recommended.
Rating:
Summary: Masterful
Review: So soon before his death, Olivier here simply towers over
the material. I don't think I have ever heard Shakepearian
verse spoken so clearly, with such immediacy and with such
insight and humanity. Acting is such a strange, fickle and quite unnatural profession,
after all most of us in our lives strive to be ourselves, not
someone else. It is hard to believe that Lord Olivier made the
movie ( the truly excreable movie ), "The Betsey" and he could
then turn around and be this King Lear. This is the greatest Lear you will ever see on DVD.
|
