IMDb RATING
5.5/10
1.6K
YOUR RATING
A descendant of Shakespeare tries to restore his plays in a world rebuilding itself after the Chernobyl catastrophe obliterates most of human civilization.A descendant of Shakespeare tries to restore his plays in a world rebuilding itself after the Chernobyl catastrophe obliterates most of human civilization.A descendant of Shakespeare tries to restore his plays in a world rebuilding itself after the Chernobyl catastrophe obliterates most of human civilization.
- Awards
- 1 nomination total
Woody Allen
- Mr. Alien
- (uncredited)
Freddy Buache
- Professor Quentin Kozintsev
- (uncredited)
Leos Carax
- Edgar
- (uncredited)
Julie Delpy
- Virginia
- (uncredited)
Jean-Luc Godard
- Professor Pluggy
- (uncredited)
Kate Mailer
- Self
- (uncredited)
Norman Mailer
- Self
- (uncredited)
Burgess Meredith
- Don Learo
- (uncredited)
Michèle Pétin
- Journalist
- (uncredited)
Molly Ringwald
- Cordelia
- (uncredited)
Peter Sellars
- William Shaksper Junior the Fifth
- (uncredited)
Storyline
Did you know
- TriviaWhen he was starting out, Quentin Tarantino claimed on his CV that he had appeared in this film, as he guessed nobody would have seen it and know that he was lying.
- Quotes
The Great Writer: For words are one thing, and reality, sweet reality, is another thing, and between them is no thing.
- ConnectionsEdited into Histoire(s) du cinéma: Seul le cinéma (1994)
Featured review
I don't know where to begin.
I cannot contain my contempt for this film (if I dare call it a film). In my opinion this is the worst Shakespeare adaptation committed to any art form anywhere in history. And one of the most egotistical pieces of rubbish in the annals of film.
It has NO USE. You couldn't even use this if you were doing a thesis of King Lear at college because this is faeces. Not to mention that it has hardly anything to do with the play King Lear. It has no plot, no interesting characters or character study and hardly anything in the way of decent direction.
And it is not just the fact that it lacks so much, it is the fact that what it does have is so goddamn terrible. Quotes and sayings repeated endlessly, terrible seagull sound effects that 1) happen in scenes where there are no seagulls and even scenes when we are indoors 2) happen in scenes when there is other dialogue going on and 3) are so loud that your ears begin to bleed (well, nearly).
I went to see this film because 1) I had only seen one other Godard movie Bande à Part (1964) and 2) I am a great Woody Allen fan. Now I mentioned earlier that this was egotistical and I will go further and say that this is sheer celluloid masturbation! Godard (in my opinion the most over rated director in cinema history) has almost become drunk with power, power gained from years of critics kissing his ass, and now believes he can do no wrong as long as he entertain and excites himself (i.e. masturbation). Another celluloid masturbator (for want of a better word) is Woody Allen, this shared hobby probably bringing the two together. But the one difference between these two is this, Woody Allen still has the gift to entertain and excited others as well as himself, whereas Godard lost this gift along long time before King Lear.
Now I have wasted enough time talking about this catastrophe.
I give it 0 out of 10.
P.S. If you want a really good Shakespeare adaptation try Throne of Blood (1957).
I cannot contain my contempt for this film (if I dare call it a film). In my opinion this is the worst Shakespeare adaptation committed to any art form anywhere in history. And one of the most egotistical pieces of rubbish in the annals of film.
It has NO USE. You couldn't even use this if you were doing a thesis of King Lear at college because this is faeces. Not to mention that it has hardly anything to do with the play King Lear. It has no plot, no interesting characters or character study and hardly anything in the way of decent direction.
And it is not just the fact that it lacks so much, it is the fact that what it does have is so goddamn terrible. Quotes and sayings repeated endlessly, terrible seagull sound effects that 1) happen in scenes where there are no seagulls and even scenes when we are indoors 2) happen in scenes when there is other dialogue going on and 3) are so loud that your ears begin to bleed (well, nearly).
I went to see this film because 1) I had only seen one other Godard movie Bande à Part (1964) and 2) I am a great Woody Allen fan. Now I mentioned earlier that this was egotistical and I will go further and say that this is sheer celluloid masturbation! Godard (in my opinion the most over rated director in cinema history) has almost become drunk with power, power gained from years of critics kissing his ass, and now believes he can do no wrong as long as he entertain and excites himself (i.e. masturbation). Another celluloid masturbator (for want of a better word) is Woody Allen, this shared hobby probably bringing the two together. But the one difference between these two is this, Woody Allen still has the gift to entertain and excited others as well as himself, whereas Godard lost this gift along long time before King Lear.
Now I have wasted enough time talking about this catastrophe.
I give it 0 out of 10.
P.S. If you want a really good Shakespeare adaptation try Throne of Blood (1957).
- cd011b7032
- Oct 1, 2002
- Permalink
- How long is King Lear?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Release date
- Countries of origin
- Official site
- Languages
- Also known as
- Jean-Luc Godard's King Lear
- Filming locations
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- $2,000,000 (estimated)
- Gross US & Canada
- $61,821
- Opening weekend US & Canada
- $8,756
- Jan 24, 1988
- Gross worldwide
- $85,018
- Runtime1 hour 30 minutes
- Color
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content