. . . Better than Mel Gibson doing "Hamlet."

Good performances all around, especially by Stewart. It is unfortunate, however, that nothing could be done about his accent. Stewart has a fine voice. Trouble is he's, well, English. I think they would have been better off leaving things as they were. The Southwestern overlay sometimes distracted from the dialog by generating unintentional humor. If I could buy a Frenchman named "Jean Luc" with an English accent for seven years on TV, I'd probably be willing to accept an English landowner in North America. There were enough of them, after all.

Accents notwithstanding, the film is well worth seeing. The plot line remains intact and the direction is solid. I hope it makes it to DVD.

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.

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.

I watched a DVD of this movie last night. There are no special features on the DVD except for a few bits on info on Patrick Stewart, as well as the director and the screenwriter.

Overall the movie was a fascinating drama. In the first five minutes, you know you are in for a heartbreaking saga. Because no one does crazy old like Patrick Stewart. He played a crazy old Ahab in an adaptation of "Moby Dick". He played several crazy old men on the Star Trek: The Next Generation series. When Stewart plays a crazy old man, your heart just goes out to him. You look at him and wish you could help. But, he gets so far gone in such a short amount of time, that you have to be resigned to the fact that there is just no hope.

I gave the movie an 8 for two reasons: I took away the first point because Stewart's accent rears its head a time or two whenever he pronounces his character's name: John Lear. It sounds like he is saying "Joan Lair", which was kind of distracting. Then I had to take off another point for the violence in the movie. What happens to Westover will probably give me nightmares for a little while! After the movie, I had a hankerin' to start reading Shakespeare again. Whoever he was, he could shore tell a tale!

Last thought: why would two attractive, wealthy women go after the same weak loser? He only became powerful after they made him so.

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

"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-)

Stephen Harrigan has produced a script that the Bard himself would have been proud of. Patrick Stewart, in the lead, heads a cast that lived up to the quality screenplay. On the whole, a magnificent film, worthy of a cinema run.

RELEASED TO TV IN 2002 and directed by Uli Edel, "King of Texas" is a Western starring Patrick Stewart as the proud & loveless title character, John Lear, whose ranch spreads across a vast region of West Texas. His decision to divvy up his empire between his dubious daughters (Marsha Gay Harden & Lauren Holly) based on their willingness to flatter him yields disastrous results as Lear descends into madness and despair. Julie Cox plays his other daughter while David Alan Grier plays his wily man Friday, Rip.

The plot's taken from The Bard's "King Lear." But is also inspired by real-life Texas cattle baron Captain Richard King and his King Ranch in South Texas, which is the largest ranch in Texas, encompassing some 1,289 square miles.

The movie starts shaky with the sequence where Lear divides his holdings between his daughters, but only because you don't yet have a grip on the character of Lear and his dysfunctional relationships with his daughters. The rest of the flick, however, clears things up. One of the best parts is the chemistry that Stewart has with Grier. Their banter back-in-forth is entertaining and often humorous.

What I like most about this Western beyond the great cast, magnificent Mexican locations and moving score, is its uniqueness, which is likely due to it being based on "King Lear." Moreover, there are moments of greatness, like when Lear madly chases the eagle as if longing to take flight from the cage of his proud, quirky flesh and this fallen world in general; or when he passionately cries out to God in the storm. If you think it's unbelievably melodramatic, you're wrong. It's real.

THE FILM RUNS 95 minutes and was shot in Durango & Pachuca, Hidalgo, Mexico. WRITER: Stephen Harrigan based on Shakespeare's play. ADDITIONAL CAST: Colm Meaney and Patrick Bergin appear as the husbands of Lear's daughters. Roy Scheider plays a neighbor and Matt Letscher & Liam Waite his sons while Steven Bauer is on hand as a Hispanic ranch owner threatened by the two daughter's outrageous greed.

GRADE: B/B+

A lean version of King Lear set in the wild west frontier. Local landowner John Lear gives his land to two of his daughters and banishes the third and quickly descends into madness and realises the folly of his decision.

Two of the daughters engage in a blood lust where they plan to go to war with their Mexican neighbour for a land grab.

Patrick Stewart seems to be enjoying this version of Lear, Roy Schneider brings dignity as friend and neighbour and one of the few sympathetic characters in this adaptation.

The film is accessible but what lets it down is the Made for Television look. It looks cheap despite a starry cast and some of the violent scenes are toned down or abruptly cut.

I watched this movie on TV last night, I went in blind, all I knew was it was a re-imagining of Shakespeare's King Lear and it starred Patrick Stewart and Roy Scheider. That was enough for me, so I gave it a chance and was pleased I did.

Roy Scheider is simply wonderful here, stealing the movie right from under the nose of Patrick Stewart, which is no easy feat (even with his dodgy accent) because Stewart is on top form here too.

Your heart just goes out to him. You just want to help him. One complaint I did have was, he gets so far gone in such a short amount of time.

A good effort and worth a watch at least once.

King Leer plays Mr. Dunson (from Red River).

Of course, as an old Patrick Stewart fan, I loved his performance as John Leer. Pretty good accent -- he only slipped once that I caught -- after a series of consistent "hoss", he said "horse." Anyway, the cast was excellent; particular kudos to Roy Scheider.

My major complaint is that it just doesn't feel much like a western. Perhaps a western stage play? Most westerns are action=centered, of course, and don't have nearly as much dialog to get in. So, I missed a lot of the western schtick that John Ford or Andrew MacLaglen might have put in. Nice try.

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.

Although the concept is original, King of Texas is incredibly disappointing. It does remain fairly faithful to King Lear, however. (Naturally, in order to make a cohesive hour and a half film, specific characters and plot elements were discarded.) Patrick Stewart, best known for his portrayal of Captain Picard, delivers an unreal, ludicrous, performance. Whoever thought it would be clever to cast an Englishman as a hard core Texan was gravely mistaken.That said, the film was not completely terrible. In fact, certain parts were outright hilarious. The film is utterly overacted. The repeated comments about the Alamo and San Jacinto are completely unnecessary, ridiculous, and tasteless, and the film is completely outlandish. But, what makes the film awful makes it watchable. The utter absurdity of this film keeps the viewer in stitches.