Watch 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
480p, 720p, 1080p, 2K, 4K
Jonathan Munby
William Shakespeare
Sinéad Cusack, Ian McKellen, Danny Webb, Kirsty Bushell
Audio Languages
English, Deutsch, Français, Italiano, Español, Svenska, Gaeilge, Nederlands
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» (28)

Gloria photo

I watched this film at my local cinemas. I must say that I think it is quite shocking that people find this film horrible. In my opinion, the book is much better. This film has it's good points, the way its filmed and it's acting, but it's quite shocking how these same elements make it quite boring. Of course, we have the beautiful Miranda Richardson as Cordelia. She is truly stunning. That is what it's all about. There is a lot of nudity, very few in fact. This film is for entertainment, not for the reasons the director wants it to be. In fact, the movie is quite boring, but it is good enough to watch.

Lawrence photo

It's been a while since I've seen 'King Lear'. Yes, I have heard the praise for it, and have read the reviews. But I'm not a big Lear fan. I enjoy playing and watching Shakespeare, but I have no particular appreciation for this play. What is it about? Are some of the pieces very difficult to perform? Can a reasonably sophisticated audience absorb this complex, multi-faceted work, or is it just a one-dimensional, monochrome performance? I found this play's depth a bit frustrating. The complexity of Shakespeare's original text makes it challenging to play the most difficult pieces. One of the great strengths of Shakespeare's play is that it can be performed with the same basic story and set-up of the original text. It is difficult to explain the origins and development of a text to a theatre audience, but the parts can be cut in many different ways and still be equally meaningful. I don't think the same applies to Shakespeare's version of King Lear, which is difficult to play. This version requires a lot more work and it also requires much more knowledge of the original play. This is a potentially very rewarding endeavour, but it was more like being tied down in a good-sized pile of mud than anything else. I'd recommend it for people who are willing to put in the effort, and who have an appreciation for Shakespeare's work. I didn't feel that I really achieved any great depth of knowledge or deep insight into the play, even after five hours. Maybe that's because I've been playing Shakespeare for a long time, and I'd forgotten how challenging it was. I don't know.

Bobby F. photo
Bobby F.

Although the film is just a prologue, it is quite informative and informative on its own. This is a story about an ancient king, the title of which is the ancestor of King Lear, and about a nation that is divided between two powerful factions. This movie goes in the opposite direction, because in this story, it is a clash between two rivals who come from different backgrounds, they do not have the same background, but they do share a common adversary. This is a very good movie to see because it tells about many things, but at the same time it shows it all in an interesting manner. It has good actors and it is done in a very entertaining way, so even the kids will enjoy it.

Cheryl L. photo
Cheryl L.

Tom Stoppard, the director of the most expensive film ever made, King Lear, has once again shown us that his style is again at its best, despite some of the conventional devices he used. The film, directed by Steven Pressfield, is at its heart a kind of comic take on Shakespeare's classic tragedy. So when Stoppard jumps on the fantasy and adventure scenes and puts your mind into such a weird time, you will love the film. Also, the film is visually stunning, with shots like a girl dancing on her bicycle after her mother leaves her at a brothel, or the great rooms where the King goes to bathe in a river of wine. Also, the directing is top notch and everything is always a pleasure to watch.

Deborah Lucas photo
Deborah Lucas

Notable as a dramatic feature film in modern times, King Lear is a script that clearly tries to establish some interest for the audience by keeping the drama in the background, until the film progresses to its dramatic conclusion. The theme that King Lear attempts to convey - that of a man betrayed by his lover - is very powerful, as are the many vignettes that illustrate the story's complex dynamics. The actual (at least for me) portrayals of Shakespeare's characters - the way they were not written - was not in the least impressive to me, but it's clear that much of the show is made up, and the plot isn't very transparent to me, either. King Lear is a film I am able to get through without much interest, but I was able to do this because I could also follow the dramatic aspects of the story, and not be distracted by the "exciting" story elements in it. Most of the characters, even in the scenes with the gods, are boring and uninteresting, and nothing much is said about them at all. Perhaps the only character in the film that is presented to us in a memorable way, is Lear, as the movie progresses to its dramatic climax, with his private life revealed, and his cruel execution. Though it's difficult to describe what happens, it's always interesting to see what's coming next, as we're given hints at the end of the film. It's a pleasant surprise that the film doesn't take the usual route of delving into the historical aspects of the original play, as it would be much less interesting, since it is centered more on the character. Not all is made clear, either, and Shakespeare's philosophical ideas are never really addressed, so you're just left with a disappointing film, lacking of a "super-charged" character, while the character of Lear never really starts to develop, as it's not told how he came to be. I guess that's why I wouldn't say that King Lear is a good film, because it's not all that great, even if it is very interesting. It's entertaining, and I wouldn't mind seeing it again, but I wouldn't be too enthusiastic about it as a film.

Janet photo

As with most Shakespeare productions, the vast majority of the actors aren't exactly Shakespearean figures (e.g. Paul Scofield is an actor), but they do a respectable job. The challenge is in the technical side: in particular, the use of black and white is very difficult to follow, as the director in particular relied on the works of director Francis Bacon, who often used a mix of color and black-and-white films (to provide an impression of the time), which can be very confusing, especially if the character is a poet. The change in color is very well-done, however, and I'm glad it happened. The production is nicely paced, and the end result is very enjoyable. The performances are excellent, especially the sonnets, and I especially enjoyed the dramatic aspect of the writing. Overall, it is a good production. Seven out of 10.

Nathan W. photo
Nathan W.

The evidence on this page points to a student film on the stage, and so we may not be able to form a definite opinion about how this piece should have turned out. It certainly could have been better. The appearance of the Irish gypsies was a nice touch, but it was a little too on the nose. Everyone was 'looking' at the film as if it were Shakespeare. The ending could have been more profound, and the depiction of Ophelia's death should have been more like the King Lear, and also more downbeat. The production itself is a little strange and almost pretentious - the costuming is rather daft and at times looks as if it has been made in the eighties, and the film is a little too long, which may take away from its impact. However, it is a very well put together production, and a pleasing experience for those with an interest in Shakespeare. 7/10

Melissa R. photo
Melissa R.

Greetings from Lithuania. "King Lear" is not an excellent production, neither is it as beautiful as some critics claim. Yet, I personally think it is a highly interesting production, despite the poor production values. It is one of the most well-dressed production I have ever seen. If you have seen "The History of Henry VI" you will notice that Shakespeare's Henry VI was a bit short and very light (in comparison to the "Bitter and Sweet"). The production "King Lear" does not differ much from "The History of Henry VI", though I think the actors in "Lives" of Henry VI really went a bit over the top and over-acted in certain scenes. But, they're not the fault of the actors in "Lives", and it is a fault of the Director (and all the crew members). All I can say is that, the casting is much better than I had expected from the end. And the script is a lot more interesting than I expected. But there is a few things I would like to emphasize. While the performances are great and well-done, the scripts are also very much over-the-top. At the end of the day, this "King Lear" is not a superb production, but it is one of the most interesting and well-done productions I have ever seen, and even though it is not an outstanding production, it is still an extremely good one.

Doris photo

I didn't see the 'Encore' which I am expecting as part of the January 13th release date. However, I was disappointed by this presentation of the play. Most of the performances seemed 'dramatic', as though the director was forced to cast the performances with the intention of presenting the drama as though it were a comedy. There were some intriguing, and powerful moments in the production, but this was a disappointment.

Nancy Stewart photo
Nancy Stewart

This is a brilliant film, and I have never been so moved by a play. The performances are superb, and I was so moved by the scenes of grief and despair that I could not leave the theatre. I was also moved by the performances of the other actors. I was reminded of the play, and I was moved by the performance. I am so grateful to the people who made this film. It is a must see. I highly recommend it. It is a brilliant film.

Heather photo

This is a good movie but it is not Shakespeare. The performances are great. Robert Carlyle is fantastic as Lear. The movie is a good portrayal of this legendary play. It is really interesting and exciting to see how the dialogue between Lear and his long time enemy Guiness was originally written. Both actors are superb and they have given the best performances in this movie. Another outstanding performance was by Carice van Houten who plays Margaret of Sweden. Her portrayal of a crazy woman who can barely sit still was very convincing. The music was also great. The music had a great effect on me. I don't know why it got so many bad reviews. It is really a good movie with a great cast.

Christian photo

I personally loved this movie. However, I felt that it wasn't fully understood. At least I never fully understood it. And I felt that that wasn't much of a point to be making. However, I still felt that it was a good movie. The acting was strong and there was good acting throughout. I also loved the costumes and the sets. It is very light, but I found it very nice. The story is simple and easy to follow. However, I think the story could have been a little stronger. I thought that it was a little slow. It was nice and even though it was not very inspiring, it was still fun to watch. The music was very good and it was a good soundtrack. I also really liked the costumes. The King Lear was a king of England. His costumes were wonderful. I would say that the costumes were well designed. The story is very simple but it is not boring and does not drag on forever. It does have some bits of narration that were enjoyable but overall it is really not that much of a problem.

Terry Pena photo
Terry Pena

I really loved this production of King Lear. It was just wonderful. The music was fantastic. The actors/actresses were perfectly cast. I have never seen it performed live before. I remember being quite nervous in the audience that night, but my mind was on the performance itself. Well, I can't wait to see the other productions in this musical series, which are now starting up. I would highly recommend them to everyone who loves Shakespeare and/or musicals. I would say a strong 7 out of 10.

Harold Simpson photo
Harold Simpson

I just saw this movie last night, and I thought it was brilliant. I have seen the original and the BBC adaptation many times, and I have to say that this is the best of the two. I'm not a Shakespeare scholar, but I am a lover of the Bard. I was delighted with the acting, especially by the two leads. The cinematography was superb, and the sets were well executed. I was impressed by the costumes and the costumes of the women. The costumes of the men were also well done. This movie is a great example of a story being told well, and it is an important story for Shakespeare to tell. It is not a great movie, but it is a good movie. The movie is not for everyone, but it is a must see for Shakespeare lovers. I give it 9/10.

Johnny photo

Martin Freeman plays Falstaff. The problem is, Martin Freeman just isn't very good at acting. This is not to say that he is bad. He is brilliant. His performance in Shakespeare in Love is absolutely brilliant. But, if you want to see him in an Oscar nominated role, look elsewhere. The main reason this is in my top 10 is that it's a good story and an inspiring film about Shakespeare's life and times. This is a great film and should be watched by every Shakespeare fan and general movie fan.

Victoria R. photo
Victoria R.

I love Shakespeare's work. I always have. I found Shakespeare in the recital room of a small public school in Toledo, Ohio. I was lucky to see him in person. I love his style. His style is the reason why I love it. His audience is a timeless people. His theatre shows timeless human feelings. The way he put on his stage is soulful and his audience experiences that. When I went to see Shakespeare on stage I realized that not only was I seeing a great play, I was going to see the greatest human being to ever live. I thought I would be content. I was disappointed when I realized how it ended, that the script had a soft ending. I have never been a fan of the Shakespeare adaptations. I felt that even the great actor's had too many strange parts in the original. I liked the movie, though. It had the thing that Shakespeare had that made his plays timeless. It had the human element that Shakespeare was so good at. It had something that the other productions lacked, that made Shakespeare great. The movie is a great adaptation. There is an interesting addition to the movie that I think all Shakespeare fans will enjoy. It is the ending. In my opinion the ending is perfect. It is what Shakespeare was going for. The ending makes me very happy. I have seen a lot of critics who are going to try to kill this movie, but I believe they are completely wrong. This movie is Shakespeare's masterpiece, and the ending is the end. I can tell you that I have always wished that the ending of Shakespeare's plays was like that. Even in the late 1800s, Shakespeare was supposed to have an ending like that. I give this film a 9/10.

Janice Weaver photo
Janice Weaver

First of all, I must say that 'King Lear' is the most beautiful Shakespeare I have ever seen. 'King Lear' plays as a sort of rhapsodic love poem. When 'King Lear' was written, Shakespeare was very weak in the genre of dramatic drama. He was as much a mawkish writer as he was a traditional dramatist. When he wrote 'King Lear', he left the rhapsodist world of his works behind him and he became a classical actor. What was very great about Shakespeare is that he created plays that are highly personal, and that's where Shakespeare excels. They speak of two lovers, a father and a son, and there are many others. 'King Lear' is by far the best play in the canon, but it is not the only one. It is good to see how Shakespeare expanded his material with 'Hamlet', 'Carmen', and 'Twelfth Night'. I have seen 'King Lear' numerous times, and I always find new things to notice. But it is a beautiful story, and it is a poetic one. That's why the style of this play is more expressive than other ones of Shakespeare. There are many things that Shakespeare did differently from his contemporaries. He still had the wit and the technique that made him so special. There is an amazing amount of comedy, and it is not often done by Shakespeare. In Shakespeare's plays, he did so many of these in the early plays. Like the books 'Romeo and Juliet', 'Romeo and Richard', 'Twelfth Night', and 'Romeo and Juliette', Shakespeare does an incredible amount of parody, and there is a lot of laughter in 'King Lear'. Shakespeare was known for his style and style alone. 'King Lear' was a great success in the theatres. When it was first written, it was great, but when it was staged, it was better. There is one scene that is still a controversial one in modern audiences. There is one instance where Lear is trying to understand Shakespeare's famous line. He asks, 'If a king should come to me to take the part of king, what should I tell him, that if he calls my name by no more than "Lancelot"?' His eyes seem to roll. It is a great moment in which the audience could see how much Shakespeare excelled over the rest of the world. In the film, we see how King Lear said all of this in his daydreams. It is one of the most beautiful scenes ever filmed. The acting is superb, and I have to give credit to the direction. John Madden, who is one of the greatest directors of all time, directed 'King Lear' with such flair and passion. He knew what he wanted from his actors and he used all of the classic Shakespearean techniques in his performances. In his film, we see a very sincere performance from the main characters. Hamlet is truly a fantastic actor. To see him in the role of Hamlet was almost like seeing Shakespeare himself. It was a great experience to see Ham

Sara M. photo
Sara M.

The King Lear (1997) is a rather strange movie, and it does not know whether it is an extended introduction to the play or just a prequel, in which case it doesn't have any information to offer. It's a tale of ambition, ambition, ambition. Wherein Andrew Lloyd Webber's classic is almost literally a work of fiction, with all the details lost (except the fact that Lear was a conniver), the modern production was done on the same level of genius. Geoffrey Rush, Timothy Spall and Christopher Eccleston are all great in this production, especially Eccleston, who conveys all his emotions so convincingly that you're sure he has Lear in his head as well as the audience. But the movie is too long, and the acting is too light, even from the main actors. The only scene that works is when one of the princes is lying in a coffin. But that's all. The movie is three hours long, so the ending is rushed and it feels incomplete. If you want to know how the play ended, you can ask the actor who played Don King (Thomas Dalton). The only thing this movie has is a lot of talented people, but not enough work to make the movie a good work. Do not watch the movie if you are planning to watch the play.

Ralph photo

You know, the best "hollywood" production isn't always the most popular one. This one was the one I remember seeing at the theater, at least the first time I saw it. It was Richard Dreyfuss in a similar role (or was it his first? Who knows, it was the very first time I saw it) as Lear. I was aware that the film was based on a stage play, but it looked like that. I remember thinking "why isn't Shakespeare playing the role like Shakespeare? No, not the typical drama and melodrama; the play's already a masterpiece, and the movie just looks like a bad stage production." So I was still kind of in the dark, but it wasn't a total disaster. The actors did well, there were some solid scenes and I can admit the production was a bit garish. But it didn't ruin the picture, and I think the director got it right. Overall, I would recommend this to Shakespeare fans; but if you're not a Shakespeare fan (and you probably aren't), it will probably be a pleasant experience. I wouldn't say it's a great film, but it's an enjoyable one. If you're in the mood for a slight drama, I would recommend you to check it out.

Louis photo

I think the biggest drawback is that the film tries to portray Lear as a psychopath (as does Shakespeare in his plays) and I think it suffers for this. Nonetheless, it is a good film which should be watched by those who have not seen the play and Lear. The film is very well filmed, in fact I didn't see anything about the shots that were distracting to me. The actors and the actors were outstanding. Ian McKellan is brilliantly suave, which is an obvious tribute to Balzac. Hugh Grant was stunning and his acting is superb. The actors portrayed the parts with emotion and respect for Lear and should be commended. Lucy Boynton was brilliant as the Rochford Lady and she is an underrated actress. She was too good a hand. Christopher Hampton and Ben Kingsley were equally magnificent. Meryl Streep was very good, as was Clive Owen and the rest of the cast. I feel that the film is very faithful to the play and it is also very politically correct, which is not something I want in a modern movie. However, as it is based on a play which is more of a drama, and drama is what I like in a film, I think it is worthy of watching. The film is quite slow at times, and the final scene at the Inn is disappointing as it does not really work in this film. However, the film is full of great actors and I would recommend it to all. It is a shame that it is not better than 'King Lear', but it is not terrible either. 'King Lear' was far better, but I still have to give this film some credit for trying to portray the play as a film, which I think is a good thing. It is too bad that it was not well received by critics, although it has received favourable reviews. I think that most critics were misled by the poster for 'King Lear' which was a different film. I would not have been expecting 'King Lear' from a poster. If you do not know what Shakespeare was or have not seen the play, I do not think you will be disappointed with this film. However, if you are a Shakespeare fan, and you like this kind of film, I recommend you see it.

Mary Marshall photo
Mary Marshall

I watched this film for the first time in 2002. I was so amazed by the acting of Jeremy Northam, the story of Lear, and of course the cinematography. There is so much beauty in this film. The colour, the period, the costumes, the images, the language, and even the sound are spectacular. I never knew it was possible to shoot in a color that doesn't seem dull, like amber or yellow. Jeremy's performance is incredible. His intonation is so expressive, and he is not afraid to show the complexities of Lear. Lear is a hero in a lot of ways. He is a bully who is self-centered, ambitious, and insecure. It is so interesting to see his journey. He can turn from a prince into a fool. Lear must do so many things to transform himself to be better. He is a complicated character, not just Lear. There are many other factors that keep us focused on Lear. The music is wonderful. It captures the melancholic feel of the tale and the king, and yet keeps you on the edge of your seat. The acting is incredible, but all of the music is wonderful. The performances are all strong and insightful. Kenneth Branagh is brilliant. It is hard to believe he's been away from the stage for so long, but he manages to make a play worthy of such a performance. With this, he proves he has the skills to be a Shakespearean actor. Kenneth Branagh is not a great actor, but he is brilliant. He truly has the ability to take a Shakespearean play and show it to us on screen. All in all, this is a wonderful film that we should see. I think the next time I am in a theatre, I will see it again. I would not mind seeing it again in the future.

Stephanie Williams photo
Stephanie Williams

This is a great first attempt at making a Shakespeare play in the modern era. Shakespeare's Lear is a fairly mediocre play, but it is not historically inaccurate. It was never the thing we had wanted it to be, but it did make for a very nice performance. This is mainly due to the film's method of filming, where the actors are all in close-up, and it is done from a distance. They are not static, and don't put the camera as close as possible to the actors. It's different, as far as I'm concerned. So, it is obvious that this is a good effort, and it doesn't get too much better than it is. It is a good first attempt, and it was rather cool to see Tom Hooper doing Shakespeare in the old style, with all the actors getting on with the story. That was a first, as well as seeing Terence Stamp doing a little improvised Shakespeare on camera. This isn't great, but it is a fair effort, and I'd recommend it.

Kelly S. photo
Kelly S.

I really liked the idea of making the play in cinemas for one reason and one reason only, to give it more depth and to raise the standards of the production. The first part of the play is not done in the theatre at all, the actors get to see it at the end. But, I think the cinematography should have been better, to show the great detail and to show that the actors have a deeper understanding of the dialog. But it is an interesting attempt to raise the standards of the production. On the other hand, to some extent, it is still a staged play in cinema and it is a very ambitious one, for the director to try to emulate the work of Shakespeare. But in a way it is a movie that is made for everyone. Shakespeare is a great author, and this movie is an attempt to make a cinematic version of a very remarkable work, which has been even harder to get a "masterpiece" than Richard III. And the whole thing will be shown to a European audience. So I think it was a good venture to make the movie, that was a bit longer than the play itself, and to see the actors get some depth and to make the play look better in cinema. For me the best part was the end, when the actors were giving their speeches in a crowded theater and when the music of the maestro Giacomo Puccini came out. So this movie was a good effort and it was worth the effort. The cinematographic make-up and sound is great, as are the costumes and make-up. All in all, the King Lear is a good play and I recommend it.

Kyle R. photo
Kyle R.

There are many elements that make this film stand out: the music by The Byrds, the first ten minutes of the film with the "Beneath the Mask" (twist ending), the computer animation animation of the King Lear's face; the sound of the overlapping voices and the slow, dead pan narration. As a film maker, (which this movie is mostly a director's/writer's) its the camera and placement. Like in the end credits, the whole audience watched the live performance of King Lear and chose how much they would see. The camera often moved slowly and became more and more shaky as the story progressed, which became more and more unnatural. There were many sequences that had nothing to do with the story except for the fact that Shakespeare knew it was going to be something to look at. The level of dialogue and the pace were not up to par with some of the best movies. The story was not that engaging as Shakespeare would have liked it to be, but the pace was. The characters were not that engaging as were the actors. But for the sake of a story about a good acting-wise, I think this movie should be watched. There are many good stories in English that is one of the most popular languages, and for this movie, I would say it is one of the best.

Stephanie K. photo
Stephanie K.

This film is really a superb piece of art. The acting is superb, the story is very interesting and the director did a fantastic job. The costumes are amazing and the set design is fantastic. The sound and the lighting are also amazing. I think it's the best film I have seen in years and I recommend it to anyone who likes Shakespeare. It's really a must see.

John Armstrong photo
John Armstrong

I saw this film at the London Film Festival and it was great! It was a great mix of comedy, drama, and action. It was a great film for the whole family. I thought the acting was superb, the director did a fantastic job. The actors were all great. I would recommend this film to everyone who likes a good film.

Louis photo

I expected to see a 'good, clean' production, using all the elements of Shakespeare's original work, but in reality this film had more holes in it than walls. In fact, there were many gaps in the story, which you could easily say was made up for by additional (supposedly) Shakespearean dialog, and nevertheless, such shortcomings were nothing compared to the unoriginality and theatrical style of the whole production, which while being technically a good production, unfortunately was not Shakespeare's best, as the Shakespearean text itself was an extremely powerful, and also highly poetic, work, and the text itself was a hugely powerful work. Also, the characters were not only uninspired and cliched, but also very poorly executed. I would not like to talk about the acting, since this aspect was also 'nothing special', but the characters were often drawn out of no-where (e.g. King Lear's character was so uninteresting and forgettable, you could not get attached to him, and that despite being an extremely powerful character). Lastly, the director, the director of photography, and the cinematographer did not produce a Shakespearean film in anyway, shape or form. For that, you might say, 'oh, Shakespeare was one of the greatest authors ever, he must be doing it himself', but in reality, they were merely putting Shakespeare's words on the screen. Thus, the actors that played the characters should not have been part of this production, because they lacked the genuine Shakespearean acting of each character, in fact, they were the complete opposite. They were a bunch of stale, pretentious actors. So, yes, I do not think this film is so bad that it is not worth seeing. However, it is not a very good representation of the story, nor should it be considered a Shakespearean production at all. It is a rather weak attempt to be a Shakespearean adaptation, and, most importantly, the best Shakespearean adaptation should be the one written by Shakespeare himself, and in any case, Shakespeare's words should not be altered, and that should be the biggest statement you can make, in order to justify a Shakespearean adaptation, even if it is by Shakespeare himself. I will say one thing though: this is a very good adaptation of 'King Lear'. It is not so good that it is in Shakespeare's best works. It is very good and may even be one of his best works. But it is not Shakespeare's best, nor is it an accurate representation of the story. That being said, I would still recommend you watch this movie. Not to analyze it too much, but to watch it to see for yourself what I am talking about. It is hard to say what is truly Shakespearean about it, and I cannot say that about every movie that is an adaptation of a Shakespearean text. But, as a whole, this movie is good, and is probably the best one that I have seen (at least).

Anthony photo

I have seen this film many times, and I can see why some people would not like it. I was thinking of this when I read some of the other comments, but I would like to say that this is a great film, and a great film for the whole family. It is a very well acted film, with some great performances from all the cast, and I think that the director should be congratulated for his film. The film is very entertaining, and I am sure that it will appeal to many people. The film does a great job of portraying the most important events in Shakespeare's life. I think that it is a very well made film, and I would recommend it to anyone.