George Parker "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-)

gatebanger . . . 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.

rickz-6 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.

JEdwardP 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.