King of Texas

I have down the story of 'King Lear' since I was ten years old and I think that 'King of Texas' is very much like it. Suzannah, the eldest daughter played by Marcia Gay-Harden, is very much like the character of Goneral in 'King Lear' who she is meant to be. Lauren Holly portrays the other evil daughter Rebecca somewhat differently from her original character Regan. The one good daughter Claudia (played by Julie Cox) is almost exactly like Cordelia, her original. But Instead of Kings, Earls, and Dukes, they are all landowners, who fight over land. Other than the story is very similar to the original except at the end there are a few things that happen to some of the characters (where they meet their end) that are very different. Matt Letscher, who plays Emmett one of the villains that is based on one of Shakespeare's most interesting villains named Edmund, gives an awesome performance. He also played a great villains in 'The Mask of Zorro', I don't know a whole lot about him, but I hope he becomes a big star. Patrick Stewart is so Lear, you can hardly tell the difference. This movie rates a 9/10.

The film does a fair job showing the effect of madness on Lear, but a more gradual descent would've been better. The film's best work is done in showing that the madness takes hold as his role as a father is peeled away, and shows in him this lack of a connective identity, which Shakespeare seemed to suggest could lead to madness in any person.

The film also does well in showing Westmore as a mirror of Lear, so it's worth watching---once.

The post-Alamo setting seems silly to me, as it reminds me too much of TNT's "Ebenezer", their poor 1997 old-west adaptation of "A Christmas Carol." I feel the film would've been better in a modern setting, with Lear as business executive, let's say.

The source is classic, and the acting is good, but it's misplacement can't be overcome enough to call it an excellent film.

Excellent performance by all actors, most especially Patrick Stewart. The emotional range is wide. Very moving film indeed. A film worth watching.

This short treatment does well in general by the story and by the characters. The characters have a certain frontier eloquence and it isn't till John Lear goes mad-- a bit too suddenly-- that you really miss Shakespeare's poetry. The script tries to compensate for the lack of weight in the storm scene by introducing a more pedestrian revelation: Lear comes to understand that peace is better than fighting. Well, duh.

On the positive side, we have sisters who are a little better motivated and less one-dimensionally monstrous than we're accustomed to and we have an interesting back-story (with an echo of the Biblical daughters of Zelophehad) in which Lear had intended his son to be heir but the son died in battle leaving only daughters to inherit.

Somehow we manage to meet a pretty full cast of characters, and they all seem natural occupants of free Texas, where the inhospitable desert separates warring ranches the way Shakespeare's heath separated the little fiefdoms. The story unfolds quite naturally too, with a creditable amount of the original complexity preserved.

The main weakness is the musical score, routine at best where the Texan setting provided the opportunity for something more distinctive and memorable.

"King of Texas" is a knock-off of Shakespeare's "King Lear" which sports an excellent cast, a sterling performance by Stewart, and solid art and technicals all on location in Mexico. Unfortunately the film was a bad idea as Shakespeare and Texas have just about nothing in common and the breeding of those incongruous elements results in an unwieldy and unattractive progeny. Most would agree that much of the beauty of the Bard's work is in the prose and "King of Texas" makes that point clear as it fails to achieve more than a modicum of entertainment while looking silly against its Mexican backdrop with obvious histrionics, gushing theatrics, and staginess ad nauseam. A novelty watch for the curious at best. (B-)