Rating: 
Summary: Holiday movie about the Ultimate Dysfunctional Family!
Review: Once a year, Henry takes his wife Eizabeth out of the Tower to celebrate Christmas, with his conniving, stupid, and effeminate children who will be the heirs to his kingdom!Christimas magic! Keep a good ear out for the wonderful put-downs this film is rife with ("YOU BAG OF BILE!") Great holiday family viewing.
Rating: 
Summary: O'Toole you fool - Hepburn licking Mule!
Review: Wow. Why can't we have performers like Peter O'Toole and Kate Hepburn anymore. Talk about actors. Of course, this was probably one of the best dialouge oriented scripts I've ever seen. But then, it was by a playwright. And what words. It was just so much fun to watch these actors, not just O'Toole and Hepburn, go through the dance of deciept and subterfuge. That was really the magic behind this movie: watching to see who would be able to pull off the best double cross. So intelligent. Really. Also, it was nice to see a Young Anthony Hopkins and Timothy Dalton. Altough Dalton really talked like a girl. Maybe he was a castroti. I don't know. But I would've liked to have seen the flashback where Hopkins turns Dalton into his own personal catamite. Hmmmmm. Well shot too. This movie could've looked very bland, but they had just enough dollies and interesting cutting and effective close ups to keep me very engaged. You should totally check this one out if you haven't already. Truly a must for O'Toole and Hepburn fans. B,B+
Rating:
Summary: A MEDIEVAL VERSION OF 'WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF?"
Review: This is an interesting take on the relationship of King Henry II of England and his wife and Queen, Eleanor of Aquitaine. Based upon a stage play by James Goldman, who also wrote the screenplay for the film and won an Oscar for his efforts, it has the feel of theatre to it, rather than film. Here, Henry and Eleanor are in their golden years. Henry is fifty and his wife, whom he has had imprisoned for the last ten years, is several years older. He brings her out of captivity for Christmas, and she joins him and their three sons, Richard, Geoffrey, and John. Peter O'Toole gives a fine portrayal of the aging, but still robust and virile, Henry, who is in a seeming quandary as he debates a burning issue. To whom of his three sons shall he leave his hard won kingdom? He professes to want to leave it to his youngest, John, as that is the son whom he claims to love the most. One has to wonder, however, what kingly qualities he sees in John, played as a pimply faced, sixteen year old fool by Nigel Terry, who does what he can with this unsympathetic role. Eleanor, however, tartly played by the always glorious Katherine Hepburn, prefers her oldest, Richard, who is the son whom she has loved the most, though he, too, has his issues. Richard is played as a blood thirsty homosexual by a somewhat wooden Anthony Hopkins in his screen debut. No one seems to love the middle son, Geoffrey, and he knows it, though he seems to be the one son whose behavior is the most within the bounds of what one might consider acceptable, as he is neither a killer nor a fool. He is merely unloved by his parents. John Castle gives a strong performance in this role. Eleanore manipulates each of her three sones, as if they were pawns in a game of chess, in her quest for personal power. Henry also play them like fiddles. They, in turn, seem to care little for her or their father. It is no wonder that they are totally disfunctional as a family. Also, living in the castle is the beautiful Alais, sister to the young King of France, Philip II, played by Timothy Dalton in a very credible debut performance. Betrothed to Richard fifteen years before at the age of seven, Alais has since fallen in love with Henry, and he has made her his mistress. Eleanor is fully aware of the fact, and Henry flaunts her with gusto. Alais is played with warm tenderness by the lovely Jane Morrow, who is eclipsed by the highly intelligent and ruthlessly clever Eleanor. Yet, it is Alais whom the King professes to love. Still, one has to wonder. It seems that Henry and Eleanor have very strong feelings for each other, which are veiled by a mask of supposed hatred and disguised by the venom that they spout at each other. The dialogue between the two protagonists is sharp and bitter repartee, which is delivered fast and furious, reminiscent of the dialogue spewed forth in Edward Albee's play "Whose Afraid of Virginia Woolf?". Eleanor and Henry parry back and forth the entire film, each trying to vanquish the other verbally. The two aging monarchs are aware that they are coming to terms with their own respective mortality, yet each is loath to let go of the trappings of their greatness, no matter what the cost. Hepburn and O'Toole ham it up with over the top performances, though given the excesses of the dialogue, which is often witty and full of ripostes that go for the jugular, it is as the author wished. An interesting and clever film that will be enjoyed by all those who love theatre, period pieces, and historical dramas.
Rating:
Summary: Shakespeare comic strip makes great entertainment
Review: I once saw a comic-book version of _Hamlet_, in which the plot was still Shakespeare but the dialogue was pure Stan Lee. Towards the middle we get this exchange: Hamlet: "What the-? There's someone listening behind the curtain! Ha ha! I'll fix them!" [Stabs.] Polonius: "ARRRGH! You've got me!" Or something like that. Shakespeare never got round to writing a _Henry II_, but if he had, the Classic Comix version might have been a little like _The Lion in Winter_. I do mean that as a high compliment. The poetry is missing, but the structure is there. In particular we have the Shakespearian habit of personalising politics, reducing affairs of state to clashes between individuals in a way that makes bad history but good drama. The imitation of Shakespeare in James (brother of famed scriptwriter William) Goldman's script even extends as far as giving soliloquies to both Henry II and his estranged consort Eleanor of Aquitaine. These are prosey, posy and not completely successful. His imitation of Shakespeare's ruderies, on the other hand, works very well, including a vomit joke addressed (by Hepburn of all people) straight to camera, or - as Shakespeare would say - "aside". The cut and thrust of Goldman's dialogue is also much more successful than the more self-conscious soliloquising. And Goldman provides no shortage of opportunities for his cast to shine: all the characters are written much larger than life, whether in grandeur or villainy: or both, in the case of O'Toole's blustering, bitter and occasionally charming Henry II and Hepburn's Eleanor of Acquitaine, a cunning, controlled strategist occasionally melting into something like warmth. Each actor gives one of the best performances of their careers: neither is "realistic", but both are utterly compelling. Goldman's script, at its best, gives us some of the pathos of age, where vital people are not yet ready to relinquish power, or lust, or lust for power: at times it achieves an elegaic feel of better times lost and regretted, and a genuine pathos that I suspect Richard Lester drew on as a model for his wonderful film _Robin and Marion_, also about fighters and lovers past their prime, made some ten years later. Anthony Hopkins and Timothy Dalton make creditable film acting debuts as Henry's sons Most Likely to Succeed (pun intended), though the scripts gives them less to do. Dalton's portayal of the future Richard III as homosexual, and therefore weak, malicious and nasty, roots the film firmly in the late 1960s: brave enough to mention homosexuality at all, but not yet brave enough to go beyond stereotyping. But there's nothing wrong with the film being obviously an artifact of its time. Part of the pleasure of Shakespeare is observing ancient Greeks, or Romans, or Medieval Venetians through Elizabethan English eyes. In this script we see two periods of history, the Medieval period and the "sixties" intersecting, one period interpreted in terms of the other. This doesn't detract from the interest of the film, as a couple of reviewers suggested, but rather adds to it. I've reviewed script and acting because that's what this film is about: half a dozen actors gather in and around a draughty old castle and talk and chew scenery. And incidently they make history: a king is chosen, and of course if we know our Shakespeare (or our history) we know it's a bad choice. The cast conspire, argue, fight and make up, or make love: and it's gripping to watch. Goldman's script may not have been a great play, and some earlier reviewers have identified some of the reasons why not, but the point is that it made a great film. Not all of it is deep, though some of it is, and all of it holds the attention. This is a Damn Fine Film. Cheers! Laon
Rating:
Summary: A must-see classic!
Review: In a true departure from type, Katharine Hepburn won a well-deserved third Oscar for her portrayl of Eleanor of Acquitaine. The story involves Eleanor and King Henry's (Peter O'Toole, fully matching Hepburn) battle in 1183 to put different sons on the English throne. Based upon the stage play by James Goldman, the dialogue translates to the screen with lively and vicious clarity. This is all the more evidenced by O'Toole and Hepburn, whose offscreen love/hate relationship clearly fueled their performances. Even those who don't normally steer toward medevial/costume dramas will find this compelling. As a footnote: the film also won Oscars for Best Writing and Original Score (both also well-deserved).
Rating:
Summary: One of my favorites
Review: The Lion In Winter is primarily the story of a family that is rotten from within, though still bound by ties of love and attachment that none of them seem wholly able to shake, hard as they try. As noted by other reviewers this movie demands that you pay attention or you'll miss the frequent twists as the characters plot, bluff, attack, and counter-attack. I would not, however, say that it is an inaccessible film. Just dont expect it to be Titanic. Many will recognize that as a compliment.
Rating:
Summary: A Hepburn Classic!
Review: What makes this a great movie are not the individual stars but the ensemble performance of everyone down to the smallest roles. The power of O'Toole is that he can be bigger than life and yet instantly capture a change in mood from the big scene to the very private moment. When he says in the film that he love's being king, one is aware that the man on the screen is king. Hepburn to me has had few equals and very few predecessors who could put themselves in her rank. She can dominate a scene with poise, anger, dignity, whatever is appropriate and yet never upstage anyone. We watch this marvelously dysfunctional family as if we were peeking in the window some 8 centuries ago. The actors Hopkins as Richard and Dalton as Philip of France debuted with this film, and they are auspicious debuts. The cinematography and sets leave nothing undone. A first class movie, performance and score. Nobody can miss with this one unelss you have no pulse.
Rating:
Summary: The Cat's Meow, so to say...
Review: In virtually every respect, this is one of the great films of all time. Katherine Hepburn and Peter O'Toole are magnificent. The whole venture is photographed stunningly with every creepy medieval gargoyle and dark corner in sharp relief. The screenplay, notwithstanding its historical basis, is pure Edward Albee - but with so much more class. Recommended absolutely without reservation. WARNING: A thorough command of English, and the intellectual capacity to follow the twists and turns of plot are essentials. No brain dead special effects, or action here. In fact there's almost no "action" at all! (It takes place in the mind - and what better place for real drama than that?)
Rating:
Summary: No frills - just great actors chewing scenery.
Review: One of the problems endemic to movies adapted from stage plays is the annoying boxing in of the action - everything must take place in the same two or three locales. Anthony Harvey, director of THE LION IN WINTER, manages to overcome this handicap by bringing the historical setting to a rich, credible life. As you watch, you find yourself leaning forward in fascination, muttering, "So *that's* what it was like." Still, though, a movie like this lives or dies based on the writing and the performances, and both aspects are nearly flawless. The script has a certain '60's stridency in parts, but God knows it's infinitely better than most plays from that era. The characters trade barbed ripostes like seasoned pros - even Anthony Hopkins' hulking Richard III is a wit - but the movie is better as catharsis than light entertainment. The story is a sad one, not grim, but flavored with the wistful remorse of the king and his queen, who have ended up making far less out of their lives than they could have and are acutely aware of the fact. The performances are great across the board - everyone knows who Hepburn, O'Toole, Hopkins, and Dalton are, but the lesser-known John Castle and Jane Merrow ace theirs perfectly well (both of them also turned in good performances in episodes of THE PRISONER, as did this film's briefly-seen Kenneth Griffith). I got my friends to watch this by telling them it was THE BIG KAHUNA in the Middle Ages; it's not, of course, but the principal joy of each film is the same: the pleasure of watching a pack of wonderful actors tearing into each other with maximum gusto. In short, this movie is a definite to-own. The DVD's extra features are practically nonexistent, but there is an interesting and illuminating commentary by the director. Even if there weren't, though, the superior presentation would still warrant a purchase.
Rating:
Summary: Talk About Your Disfunctional Families!
Review: Mother is in prison, father is having an affair with a girl half his age and the three sons carry adolescent rebellion and sibling rivalry to heights seldom witnessed. Good thing this is the twelfth century otherwise the Plantagenets would be hip deep in social workers and therapists. Eleanor wants her freedom, Richard as king and reassurance that Henry still loves her in spite of everything that's come between them. Henry wants Alais, the pretty French princess betrothed to Richard, or does he want Eleanor back? Even he isn't sure. He doesn't trust his wife or his oldest son and spoils his youngest, John. Richard wants his rights as eldest but couldn't care less about his supposed fiancee. He resents his father but loves his mother even if he doesn't quite trust her. Disregarded middle son Geoffrey wants to know why neither parent has ever loved him. He asks his mother right out but she has no answer for him. John wants some respect from his elder siblings and clings to being Father's favorite. Alais hates Eleanor as her rival yet loves her as the only mother she's ever known, at one point breaking down and crying in her arms. Philip of France, Alais' brother, wants to see the Plantagenets cut down to size and to that end makes trouble any way he can. As you can see we're all in for a lovely holiday season. What I want to know is do they go through this every year? From a standpoint of strict historical accuracy the affair with Alais is based on contemporary gossip which quite possibly wasn't true. And Richard's homosexuality is a modern myth based on a misunderstanding of medieval customs. Sharing a bed, as Richard and Philip did, was a sign of friendship and favor in the Middle Ages with no... connotations at all. Edward IV, a raging heterosexual if ever there was one, shared his bed with the Duke of Somerset as part of his campaign to win that nobleman's support by favors and honors.
| 
