King of Texas (2002)

Save your money for something good and enjoyable

Good concept, poorly executed.

It's an amazing and heartbreaking story.

There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

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.

. . . 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.

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.