فيلم National Theatre Live: King Lear

National Theatre Live: King Lear

National Theatre Live: King Lear is a movie starring Ian McKellen, Sinéad Cusack, and Danny Webb. Two aging fathers - one a King, one his courtier - reject the children who truly love them. Their blindness unleashes a tornado of...

Other Titles
ナショナル・シアター・ライヴ 2019 「リア王」, National Theatre Live: Król Lear
Running Time
3 hours 47 minutes
Quality
480p, 720p, 1080p, 2K, 4K
Genres
Drama
Director
Jonathan Munby
Writer
William Shakespeare
Actors
Ian McKellen, Sinéad Cusack, Danny Webb, Kirsty Bushell
Country
UK
Year
2018
Audio Languages
اللغة_العربية, English, Deutsch, Français, Italiano, Español, Svenska, Gaeilge, Nederlands
Subtitles
اللغة_العربية, 日本語, Čeština, Tiếng Việt, Português, 한국어, Australia, Filipino, हिन्दी

Two aging fathers - one a King, one his courtier - reject the children who truly love them. Their blindness unleashes a tornado of pitiless ambition and treachery, and their worlds crumble. Tender, violent, moving, and shocking, King Lear is considered by many to be the greatest tragedy ever written. This will be an explosive, charged and contemporary retelling of Shakespeare's epic masterpiece in the intimate setting of the Minerva Theatre.

Comments about drama «National Theatre Live: King Lear» (23)

Joseph G. photo
Joseph G.

This is a film of a very high standard, and I'm glad that it won the Oscars it did. It was a great film, but it's not quite as good as the original Shakespeare. The new film makes some other changes, the biggest of which is that you don't need to see a lot of previous Shakespeare plays to know what is going on. The acting in this film is very good, it doesn't deserve the reviews it's getting. I think it's a lot better than Hamlet, although I don't think it's as good as Othello. It's more of a traditional play, but it's better than Twelfth Night. There are also some minor changes to the plot. If you're a fan of the original play, I recommend it. I'd give it a 7/10.

Ethan M. photo
Ethan M.

After the stunning success of Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream, Lear is one of the best known plays in the English language. It has been filmed, several times, and has even been put on stage several times. To be fair, this version is a remake, so don't expect anything as good. This is, however, better than the 1962 version, which has received rave reviews for its interpretation of the play, but is still a bit of a mess. Some of the actors give some brilliant performances, but a lot of the material here is heavy handed and not worth the trouble of sitting through. I don't mind Shakespeare's plays, but I do think that his plays need some variation, so here we have a play about the French Revolution that is very detailed, but very few words. It's not a film that will stick with me, but I think it's worth seeing once. This is not a bad version, but it is a little uneven.

Michael K. photo
Michael K.

I'm going to be honest. I was very skeptical about seeing this movie. The first few minutes of the trailer seemed very promising, but the movie took a left turn in the middle of the movie, that made me almost not want to see it. I like Sean Connery, but he has to work a little harder to bring out the true emotions of the character. With every other character, he really seems to be "in the zone" all the time. Robert DeNiro, although has done some great performances in the past, he can be very boring at times. I just didn't feel the same emotion that he was going through. All of the supporting actors did an excellent job with the character they were portraying. To sum it all up, I thought the movie was quite good. I felt the story was moving and I felt the emotions were really moving. I think I would give it a 7 out of 10.

Timothy photo
Timothy

I found the film to be entertaining enough, and the acting very good, but i just didn't think the ending was that good. If you enjoyed the film, this may help you understand why i found the ending disappointing. I thought they did a good job with King Lear, but I thought they did a better job with King Lear II. I think it would have been more realistic and interesting if they had just ended the film with the King in a similar situation, where he is wandering the countryside with a bunch of refugees. This could have been a much better film than King Lear, if they had ended it in this way. But i think King Lear II is still a good film.

Nathan C. photo
Nathan C.

The theatre production is excellent. The performances are all very good, and the quality of the costumes, sets, scenery, sets, etc. is just beautiful. The score is superb, and it is just the right touch to bring to life what is being portrayed on stage. However, I have a couple of issues with the production. The first is the King Lear scene. I didn't think it was possible to do something like this with the King Lear script. There is a scene where he goes to bed, and then does something that I thought would be done in the first or second act, but it is not. It is at the very end, and it is in a way that I thought was just unnecessary. I would have done something like that. The next problem is the King Lear introduction. When he is introduced, it is so much like a play, it just wasn't necessary to have that long of a speech. I also thought the character of Hector was a little bit unnecessary. But other than those two, the production is great. The lighting and costumes are gorgeous, and the costumes are done beautifully, and the sets and scenery are very good. The movie version of the play is very good, but I have to say that it has been given an unfair reputation.

Marie Gibson photo
Marie Gibson

Here is a new version of King Lear, taken from the Shakespeare play, that seems to have a slightly different style than the old. This production will hopefully be more faithful to the original, which I have enjoyed. It was a little better than the show that came out a year ago, but I am not sure that the new staging makes up for the more limited role of Othello. There is some good acting, particularly from Hugh Bonneville and Richard Roxburgh. It was a shame that they did not get some lines that were in the original, but I did not expect this. The last two acts are pretty much the same as the show, with only a few minor differences. The modern setting of London is nice, but I did not like the overly modern style of the staging, which makes me wonder how they would have gotten this material on stage today. The costumes, set design, and set decoration are all very fine, and it is not hard to see why the makers of this production chose to go with a contemporary style. The sets are beautiful, and the costumes are beautiful. Some of the actors, such as Richard Roxburgh, and William Russell, do not have the same gravitas as they did in the original production, which is a shame, but the new staging does not really detract from the performances. The actors do not seem to be acting in the style that they were used to, and I think this makes them seem less natural. The music is again a bit subdued, but it still is appropriate. This production is great, but it is a bit of a let down compared to the original. 7/10

Matthew photo
Matthew

This was the first time I've ever seen a Shakespeare production and it was an excellent performance from everyone. Richard Eyre was superb as the role of Lear, and the supporting cast was also brilliant. If you are a Shakespeare lover, this is a must see. If you're not, it will be well worth your time. Richard Harris and Max von Sydow are brilliant in their roles, but there are other good performances from people who have previously only appeared in Shakespeare productions. This is a well crafted production, with excellent costumes and sets. The costumes were well thought out and the sets and setsmanship were excellent. This production is superbly directed and it was filmed with a budget of about $60,000. It had a limited distribution, but I'm glad to say that the production did well at the box office. I have to say that I think the film versions of "Macbeth" and "Hamlet" are great. There is nothing wrong with the film versions of those two plays, but there is nothing wrong with the stage versions. They were good, but not the best. This production, in my opinion, was a really good production and I would recommend it to anyone who is a fan of Shakespeare. I think it is a great addition to any collection of Shakespeare productions.

Sandra M. photo
Sandra M.

A big thumbs up from me, I watched this last night. I liked the book, and i loved the staging, although the acting in this version was better, and Richard Harris was very good in his role. I did, however, find it quite hard to believe that King Lear is an educated man and is still in his thirties, and can read and write, and is also known to have a vast library. Richard Harris is old and very well over 50, and in the old days, this was not the case. The one thing that bugs me is how this Lear is meant to be such a high class and educated man, yet his son never learns to read and write and yet he is a great teacher. Also, his son would be a professional writer, not a low level teacher. Lastly, how could he live with himself that he had killed his father so many years ago? He can't go back and rewrite his father's suicide to make it sound good, and yet he is still able to find the means to do this. This Lear must be a very tough man, and the writers of this version should have been so much more believable.

Grace E. photo
Grace E.

I actually thought it was an interesting performance, but I was very disappointed in the portrayal of Lear, as I thought that the whole narrative of his relationship with his father and the death of his mother was far more relevant to the plot. The performance of Bernard Herrmann, however, was very good. The story was also interesting and the cinematography was great. There was a sense of "wow" factor throughout the film. But, in my opinion, it was not what I expected. If you don't want to watch this film, I suggest you rent it instead, as it is much more interesting.

Carolyn photo
Carolyn

If you're reading this review, you're probably watching a re-run of the King Lear version, and that's OK. The movie itself is good, but you know the version you're going to see: what you are going to see is a dramatic re-working of the original, and it's not an easy job. The only major change I saw was that the "ceremonial" tasks were not carried out at the same time in the play, and a few other minor ones. For example, instead of deciding to send the hero to war, the king was to call an assembly of the nation's governors and assemble them to agree on a war strategy. The most dramatic part of the play was the closing argument between Lear and the last remaining viceroy. The film version takes a similar approach, but with different characters. The central characters are the son, the nobleman, the bad prince, the arch-villain, and the other viceroy. There is a lot of Shakespearean flavor to the performances. Richard Gere and Jack Warden are good, but Tim Roth is great as a "whiny villain" and Aimee Teegarden is the most menacingly good acting I've seen in years. There is a lot of time spent on the special effects, but that's OK because the film is so well-done. Overall, a good movie with an interesting story, but probably not a great Shakespearean play.

Hannah H. photo
Hannah H.

If I had to name one reason to watch this film, it would be to see what happens in the wake of King Lear, and not for the musical numbers. They are pretty short, but they are entertaining enough. I enjoyed it, but I would only recommend it to people who have seen the play. That being said, it is a pretty entertaining film. With a great cast, and great music, I think you will be entertained for the duration of the film. Good luck to the cast, director, and everyone involved.

Randy Miller photo
Randy Miller

I'm surprised that this movie is rated so low on this site. Perhaps I missed the best scene in the play or something, but this was a very good, thoughtful and intelligent movie. It really shows the versatility of Lear and how Shakespeare (in his later years) has moved beyond his role as a mere writer. Yes, this is a Shakespeare movie, but it is definitely not a 'Shakespeare' movie. It is a movie with a good story, some fine acting, a great story and excellent music. Shakespeare was far from being a great writer or playwright, but this is certainly his best movie. I don't want to give away the ending or spoilers, so I won't. But I will say that the movie is far from perfect. There are many problems with the movie, but the main one is the ending. In the Shakespeare's original, King Lear had a climactic scene in which Lear washes his feet and gets angry. Shakespeare's ending was a great scene of Shakespeare's and gave us the most poignant moment in Shakespeare's play, but in this version, Lear is washing his feet and gets angry. To me, this was just too abrupt and made the film feel too messy. Shakespeare didn't like the ending in the original, but in this movie he actually enjoyed it. I think the reason he liked it so much is because it was the beginning of a new period for Shakespeare. We are now into the late 16th century, when Shakespeare was writing 'Othello' and 'Romeo and Juliet'. He knew that he was no longer writing about princes and kingdoms, but was writing about the human condition and was about to enter the new stage in his life. Shakespeare believed that the reason Shakespeare did not get more recognition after his work had been written was because he had not been a writer in the strict sense of the word. Shakespeare was not a master writer and would never have gotten any recognition from the public. He was a writer who was simply writing about his life. The ending of this movie is great and really is the beginning of the change. I think it is the beginning of Shakespeare's own change, a change from writer to film maker. Shakespeare was a great writer, but it was his job to write stories and give them the life they deserved. It was his job to write plays and make them into movies. He was a great story teller, but his job was to write plays and give them life. Now he is a movie maker, not a great writer. I think this is why Shakespeare's plays are so popular, because it is his story told in a movie and the people have grown up with this new story. One of the best aspects of the movie is the music. There are many great pieces, but the

Timothy Gomez photo
Timothy Gomez

I found this play to be very watchable and entertaining. A number of major actors from the US and UK, both with and without accents, bring their usual strengths to the table, such as: Christopher Walken, Kenneth Branagh, J.C. Penn, Rachel Ward, and Neil Hamilton. Most of them bring their recognizable presence and unique characterizations to their roles. However, it was the choice of Christopher Walken as the major character that truly made this play stand out from the rest. I really can't tell you why, but he was amazing! His portrayal of Lear was so wonderful and, for me, the perfect choice of every Shakespearean actor for the role. His performance was filled with every emotion, but above all, with humor. A lot of people will not find this to be a good movie adaptation, but I found it to be much better than I expected it to be. I have a few things to say about the set design. I really thought it was wonderful. I don't think there are any flaws in the set, and I was pleased to see the original costumes and architecture, which are all correct to a very high standard. I also thought the costumes and architecture were wonderful. The scenery, as well, was beautiful. I was very impressed with the scenery and its beauty. Also, I was pleased to see the beautiful English countryside. The language in the play is a very important aspect of Shakespeare's works. This movie, in my opinion, did a pretty good job of reproducing the language as it would be understood by the audience. It was not as completely flawless as the stage play, but it did a very good job. As far as the direction, I thought it was excellent. I really enjoyed the camera work. There are some great shots of the city and countryside, and they are well-placed and professional. The performances were very good. Christopher Walken really brought his acting prowess to the role, and it was amazing to see Kenneth Branagh do the same. I also liked the actors in the smaller roles. They did a good job, and I was pleased with their performance. I found the sets to be beautiful and very well-done. Overall, I thought this was a good movie. It was a bit longer than it needed to be, but I didn't mind that, and I loved the cast and the direction. It's an enjoyable movie, with a great cast and direction.

Ruth Owens photo
Ruth Owens

The words 'John Lennon, John Lennon, John Lennon' adorn this film, and it's one that made me think of all the rubbish that came out of that time, that the great British arts were to be dissected, and dissected. This film has an excellent cast, as it follows the lives of various people connected to this work. It seems to be a comedy, but its on purpose, and for the most part it works. But then the bit where the cat gets chopped up comes in and ruins the whole thing. The writer/director, John Besh, is a genius at this kind of thing. He really makes it work, he's very intelligent, and he knows when to keep the mood, to keep it off, and when to cut it out. The acting is brilliant, and this is one of the best films I've seen all year, and one of my favourite films of all time. It was one of the best films of all time, and one of my favourite films of all time.

Howard Meyer photo
Howard Meyer

I'm not sure if I would consider this film to be Shakespeare's best work, but it is certainly worth viewing. Shakespeare wrote it as a play, but the script for "King Lear" was written in his head and adapted by his mother, Helen. One of the things that's amazing about this film is how well it's acted. The casting for "King Lear" is incredible. It was amazing to see the actors having a hard time saying their lines, but at the same time it's a wonderful, surprising performance. However, it would be great if they could've gone into the characters more and the plot more. The whole idea of the king and his wife having three daughters is the perfect kind of conflict to keep in mind when reading the script. It was a wonderful idea that was wasted in this film. But the story is still very interesting. The locations and scenery are great. The costumes are nice. The actors are brilliant. The music is great. I'm sure if you're a Shakespeare student you'll love this film, but the film was a good way to learn about Shakespeare and it was also a great way to get to know and respect his writings.

Jessica M. photo
Jessica M.

This is the first Shakespeare production I have seen, and I am glad I didn't go to see it with my girlfriend. This version is more focused on the characters and not on the music, which is why I rated it lower than other versions. I think they did a very good job of putting the songs into context and linking them to the play. The staging was good as well. The costumes were also great. I had to go to the bathroom before the end of the play, but I got up and started watching the rest of the play. The only real problem was that I really didn't know what the heck was going on in the play. The costumes were so colorful and beautiful, but it was hard to understand some of the themes. The cast was great, but I think the best actor was William Hurt. I think he has been missing his best performances lately, and he really delivered a great performance here. He has to be the most under-rated actor in America. This is a great movie for people who haven't seen it, and I would recommend it to people who have already seen it.

Brittany photo
Brittany

This film was the first and only play I ever attended and I must say I enjoyed it. The writing was fine, but the direction was a little lacking. The performances were good and most of the actors are up and coming. David Wenham was well cast. He is such a talented actor and I hope he can make a name for himself in Hollywood. Michael Sheen was also good. In the end I felt that it was a little over dramatic and I didn't like how the film went in a certain direction. Still, I am a big fan of David Wenham and Michael Sheen and would definitely recommend this film to people.

Justin Ramos photo
Justin Ramos

At first glance, 'King Lear' is a hack-job that takes its time, pacing, and storyline in some areas. I could not help but wonder why they would even bother to even bother with this movie. It takes its time, and yet it also seems to be lacking in many areas. In the end, I think it's worth watching if you are in the mood for a slow, boring, Shakespearean adaptation. It doesn't seem to focus too much on the play, but instead seems to take the plot in some different directions. I have seen people dislike this movie, and I don't understand why. I loved the play, and I think it is so important to it. It is one of Shakespeare's most famous plays, and it is an epic story that is full of drama, romance, and death. It is not just a story, it is a metaphor for how people live. I think the film could have done a better job of focusing on the importance of the play and how it is a beautiful masterpiece. I also think they could have included some more Shakespearean dialogue in the movie, but then again I also understand why they had to cut some of it out. I think the film could have benefited from a lot more time spent on the actual play. In the end, I think it is worth seeing for the sake of seeing it, and the fact that it is by Shakespeare. If you are one of the few that didn't enjoy the movie, I think you would have to be a very special person to not be in the mood for the play. If you like Shakespeare, then you should definitely see the play, and if you like any other Shakespeare play, then definitely see the play. It is a great story and it is a very interesting piece of writing.

Lawrence Alexander photo
Lawrence Alexander

It is not easy to create a production for a long time; it is also not easy to make something that is not a piece of work. Here is another one of the old-fashioned productions for which nobody seems to have a clue. But then, it is not only about the words but the direction, and that is also a characteristic of the actors' role. Very good casting, but this one should not be seen as a masterpiece. It is a great historical play, but it should not be seen as something it was not, nor should it be used as a demonstration of the TV-movie business. I suppose that it was a movie. But it is a great movie, and I am glad that I did not pay to see it at the cinema. My vote is seven. Title (Brazil): "La Canto de Lear" ("The Contemplation of the King")

Frank photo
Frank

I'm not usually a fan of Shakespeare but this version is good. If you liked the original, you'll like this. I'm not too big on the original version, but I have to say I really liked this one. I guess it was a bit more of a "feel-good" version than the original version. The original is a little more dark, but this one isn't as dark. I like the way it ended too. It wasn't a "goodbye" movie, but it ended well. If you want to watch this, it is worth the price of admission.

Jessica photo
Jessica

The Laurence Olivier "King Lear" which I saw on the stage in the US some 10 years ago is the best that I've seen on the big screen, as far as I'm concerned. This version by Olivier and the great Tony Scott is definitely his best of his work. The screen version was good as well. The tragedy of King Lear is in the story but not in the details of the depiction of the scenes. Olivier's version has an elegance of the story that is in its own way a modernizing effect of Shakespeare's tragedy. Olivier's adaptation is more successful than the Shakespeare version in capturing the Englishness of Shakespeare's comedy. The reason is that the American director, Tony Scott, understands that the movie-goer has to use the language of Shakespeare. The scenes are generally in two voices (Hans/Claudine, Sir Walter/Sir Percival, Queen/Sisley, and Lear/Lady Cordelia), but Scott's actors allow for some well-known lines in which the language of Shakespeare is used. That is one reason why Olivier's version is better than Shakespeare's version. It is also in its own way the best Shakespeare adaptation that I've seen. The performances are very good. Ian McKellen and Sir Laurence Olivier are great together. Ian McKellen is so powerful as the Lear that Olivier must have had to re-enact his performance for Olivier. Olivier has made it possible for McKellen to win the Oscar. The director's use of music is also a big plus. Olivier used music only in one scene in which he had to bring the music back in the audience's mind from the flashback of his other performances. Olivier's music is rich and impressive, with a sound that you would never find in a film version. The last scene of the film is an excellent portrayal of the tragedy of King Lear. The most important point in the film is that the acting is very good. The most outstanding thing about the movie is the Englishness of the performance. The English actors in the film are more English than Shakespeare's English actors. That is not a criticism of the actors, but it is an achievement of the film. Also, Olivier's version is more realistic than Shakespeare's version. Olivier's version was very realistic in that it was possible to tell the story in the way that Shakespeare did. Olivier's version is much more realistic and you can understand it in the way that the Shakespeare version was realistic. The version of King Lear is better than Shakespeare's version. Olivier's version of the King Lear is a film that you must see, but the film does not deserve a Oscar. The Laurence Olivier King Lear is a brilliant work that you must see.

Nicole photo
Nicole

There's a reason why I haven't reviewed this movie since I went in to this with very low expectations. I came out saying to myself that I didn't care about the story at all, and I can tell you that I still do. The director, Adrian Lyne, has created an engrossing story that has a really good structure, a well-told narrative, and a compelling, gripping climax. The score is absolutely perfect, as well. Overall, I thought this was a good, solid effort. I'm not sure how much I can criticize the movie for. It's worth a watch, and there is a lot of tension, intrigue, and suspense that's not captured in a lot of other movies, both in the play and the film.

Mary photo
Mary

I was lucky enough to catch this at the screening. It's a beautiful film, shot in black and white and in color. Shakespeare's original version is played by Danny Glover in a complicated role that is very complex. There are characters that we have never seen in his plays, and the play itself is very different than the film version. It's a unique and wonderful movie. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did.