Rating: 
Summary: First: Why? You can't improve on perfection
Review: There are a few things in life that are perfect. The 1968 original of 'Lion in Winter' is one such rare thing. Why remake it at all? There was only one way such a project could compare to the original: badly. The brilliant flamoyance and radiant light that burst from O'Toole and Hepburn are missing here.
Instead we have a Patrick Stewart who fails as Henry II for the very reasons he succeeded as Aelius Sejanus in 1977's 'I, Claudius' and Capt. Jean-Luc Picard on the Star Trek: Next Generation. He simply is not the right man for part of this type. Especially after the genius of O'Toole's 1968 performance.
This remake is a perfect illustration of what separates the good (even the very good) from the great. The icy precision that made Glenn Close such a delicious Marquise de Mertuil in Steven Frear's 1987 'Dangerous Liasions." But Eleanor of Acquitance was no cold, scheming machine. She was a woman of strong passion and appetite, every inch the equal of Henry and the superior of all other men around her. In the chaotic mess of the 12th century she shines out as a shining beacon that West was reawakening.
Close's emotional scenes seem more histrionic than accomplished. The dignity and gravitas that made you ready "suspend disblief" for the original, simply isn't here in this version. I'm not saying Close is hamming it or overacting. She's trying to imitate things Hepburn had and she doesnt. It doesn't work. Katherine Hepburn, as Close did with the Marquise, has forever cemented that role as hers. No other actress could or has done it justice. Even more so Eleanor of Acquitaine. It's not a fault, it's a question of charisma. Close is now, arguably, our greatest living actress. But this part is not hers.
Further she and Stewart lack the chemistry that O'Toole and Hepburn created so magnetically. In the original, it seems like a window in time; suspension of disbelief was easy with Hervey's gritty, low budget direction then.
The real failure is the supporting cast. They get an F. Minus. No, I won't be that harsh, but they are simply less than B actors. Even the 'Bend like Bechkam" star who plays French King Phillip Augustus comes off as doing a bad Joaquin Phoenix impersonation a la 'Gladiator.' They simply aren't up to snuff. Julia Vsotsky (Alais) seems to struggle with Goldman's still noble lines. She lacks the heart-rending beauty of the original Alais and the acting skills. The rest seem to struggle with delivering lines period.
In all, as it had to be, a disappointment. Calling it "solid" is generous in the extreme. The movies rises close to the origianl only in a few scenes in the second half; I leave to judge which ones. Only in these does the suspension of disbelief take hold; only these few scenes do we forget we're seeing acting and become immersed in the story.
As I said, this movie illustrates the good from the great. Patrick Stewart is a good actor. He's competent and thorough; can anyone else imagine another as Capt. Picard? But he doesn't have the charisma or elan of O'Toole.
Close, a truly great actress, is simply miscast. Some challenges shouldn't be met. The performance is a misfire and, in this film at least, she captures none of the scene-stealing glory of 'Dangerou Liasions" or the unforgettable collapse at the end of that same movie. Here, her skills simply don't work.
Stick with the original. It's still one of the greatest films of all time. This remake, however, is not. And, it simply wasn't necessary. The first was a complete vision, nothing was missing, no improvement could be made. And, it it isn't.
I also note that this was Executive Produced by Stewart and his estragned or divorced wife, Wendy Neuss (a STNG producer). One wonders if this disaster lead to another.
Avoid.
Rating: 
Summary: LOGIC EVAPORATES
Review: There are times in the world of movies when it seems that all logic evaporates. A remake of THE LION IN WINTER, the 1968 masterpiece starring Peter O'Toole and Katherine Hepburn, is such time. Nothing in this movie comes remotely close to the original. In taking the role as Henry II, Patrick Stewart continues a line of miscasting messes that have included his trying and failing to best Gregory Peck's Ahab in a remake of MOBY DICK, trying and failing to make a credible Ebenezer Scrooge while falling well short of George C. Scott's masterful portrayal in A CHRISTMAS CAROL, and flopping like a fish on the sidewalk in his portrayal of a cowboy King Lear in KING OF TEXAS.
Glen Close is just awful! When compared to Katherine Hepburn, Close is like having a tuna sandwich when lobster is on the menu!
The rest of the cast is equally abysmal. How do you replace Anthony Hopkins, Timothy Dalton, John Castle and Jane Merrow? You don't as evidenced by this film. How can you think that you can? That remains the mystery!
THE HORSEMAN
Rating: 
Summary: Dark historical drama
Review: This dark historical drama set in 1183 is a far cry from most of the 2003 Oscar Nominees and Winners, except perhaps for Master and Commander and Girl With A Pearl Earring,two historical dramas. It concerns King Henry II of England who meets with his jailed wife, three ambitious sons, and the new King Philip of France at Chinon in France over Christmas to decide the accession to the throne and the dividing up of Henry's considerable lands among his heirs. There is considerable conniving among the lead characters, since the stakes are so high, and neither the mother nor her three sons are very loyal to their father. Eleanor of Aquitaine was particularly noteworthy for siding with her sons in their claims against their father. Various plots and alliances are hatched while the unfaithful Henry continues his affair with young Alys, sister of the French King, whom he offers as a pawn in his game of divide and conquer.
I found this to be a stimulating remake of the Katherine Hepburn film,which I haven't seen.Both Glenn Close and Patrick Stewart seem highly involved in their roles throughout. Eleanor in the course of the dialogue reviews the course of her marriage with Henry II from her teenage years when she was married to the King of France and possibly slept with Henry's father. Their rocky relationship has its ups and downs in the course of the film, ending on a positive tone. But there are scenes with Eleanor insulting her husband's masculinity as he contemplates taking a new wife to produce an heir, for example, claiming he has no sons, and she also threatens him with the distinct possibility that at one time she slept with his father. At times Henry seems to favor his youngest son John, and Eleanor favors Richard, but these alliances do not last and eventually all three sons end up in the dungeon. If you have tried to enjoy Shakespearean drama but have found it somewhat inaccessible, I think you will enjoy this film which is quite accessible to the general public. Of course it helps to have some knowledge of history.
Rating: 
Summary: Improvement on the already perfect
Review: This version of the play "Lion in Winter" is actually a little better video than the 1968 movie.
I own the play book, the O'Toole/Hepburn 1968 movie, and this Stewart/Close 2003 video. I expected this to be an "almost as good" and was shocked and supprised that I like it better.
Actress Glen Close especially faced a challenging job of living up to Hepburn's epochical performance, and achieves it. The improvement to the play from her performance is similar to all the other actors' in this video: their characters are shown as slightly vulerable and hence more believable.
This 2003 'Halmark' production is a little better in that the psychology of the characters is a little more subtle and better brought out. O'Toole/Hepburn/Hopkins focused a little more on the verbal knives and daggers, less on the wounds. The acting by Close/Stewart/Howard and the rest of this cast leans more towards the hurt felt by the characters from eachother's barbs, something that's a needed emphasis to make the interactions such a long practiced dysfunctional family believable - one expects that they would have all been hardened years ago.
The only performance that I found somewhat difficult to adjust to was Andrew Howard's portrayal of Richard, compared to Anthony Hopkins'. Howard shows a much more convincingly human Richard, but not as kingly "lion hearted" as Hopkins'. In 1968, perhaps because he was worried about portraying a sympathetic gay character, Hopkins played a Richard who is the obvious choice for the next king. But that made Hopkin's presentation of Richard's moments of humanity in the play - when he is overcome by his love for his mother, or his feelings for his ex-lover, Phillip - are less believable than Richard as played by Howard. Howard's tortured Richard is clearly soft under his armor, and the vulnerable scenes seem natural. But I perversely missed the comic-book "Good King Richard" on the screen while watching Howard play Richard as fully human.
Rafe Spall's body is a superior casting choice in this movie. I hope Spall will forgive me, but he looks the part of the slob; all the better to portray "Bad King John," which rightly reduces the intensity of his lines. Unfortunately the director over-did the visual metaphors with the pigs in the end-of-video barnyard scene. It's an insult to Spall's already excellent portrayal of the spoiled youngest child.
There are other small visual clues that show moments of tenderness or affection between characters in this video, such as a fond glance between Philip and his half-sister Alais, that greatly help the story, which is otherwise so overloaded with family battles that the audience can forget that there is such a thing as a healthy, loving relationship. Another improvement is the rhythmic appearance of Eleanor's bodyguard; the actor portrayed vigilant loyalty so well, and without a single line, that he deserves to be listed in the credits. His performance serves again to show that good relationships are possible - where would Eleanor be without someone she could rely on to kill people in her way and then hide the body?
I haven't seen anyone play Geoffrey in a way that satisfies me yet, but I think that could be a flaw in James Goldman's writing of the character.
Rating: 
Summary: But Why?
Review: To be sure, the reasoning behind many of today's films defies understanding. This one is no exception.Although the main stars all give adequate performances, and the screenplay is exactly the same as the original, the question remains. Why remake one of the finest films of all time? Who could have possibly thought there was room for improvement? Why not remake Casablanca or Citizen Kane while we're at it? Again, I fault not the actors in this treatment, for they all did fine jobs - if pale by comparison to the originals. My problems with this film stem with the powers that be who decided to produce it in the first place.
|
