Michael Elliott's adaptation of "King Lear" is not simply a bad movie, but a lousy pictorial of William Shakespeare's original play. This film version of William Shakespeare's "King Lear" looks as if it was shot on three horribly designed sets: an "outdoor" field, an indoor set with poorly designed pillars that are suppose to resemble rocks, and the interior of a garage. You would think that having Michael Elliott's creative mind combined with producer, Laurence Olivier's Shakespearean knowledge, would create a great edition of Shakespeare's "King Lear", but instead you get a low budget/ under acted version.
In the opening scene of the film, we are introduced to King Lear. Lear is stating that he is becoming old now, and must hand over the Kingdom to one of his three daughters. When you first hear Lear speak, you think to yourself, "Maybe Mr.
"King Lear and the Fool in the Storm" by William D...
Goneril and Regan from King Lear
18th-century depiction of King Lear mourning over ...Olivier can pull this character off," but once Cordelia has stated that she cannot explain how much she loves her father in words, and Lear reacts with great disappointment, you realize right away that this film cannot be taken seriously. Laurence Olivier turns this film into a bore just to sit through. It seems as if Mr. Olivier just took the time to rehearse all of his lines, but forgot to add emotion to his character. Even though, throughout the entire film, you are trying to ignore the fact the Laurence Olivier cannot act, and are trying to take the film semi-seriously when Mr. Olivier is not in certain scenes, when he returns into the film, you moan in suffering and realize you have another hour and a half to sit through. Out of all the people they could have got to play King Lear, they chose someone who...