Rating: 
Summary: Pathetic, terrible, graceless
Review: This movie fails from the outset. One cannot hope to surpass the original film, so why even bother making a second rendition? The producers, if they had any sense, would have realized that those most likely to watch this movie would be devotees of the original. To try to push this weak trash on us is an insult!
Foremost, Glenn Close does a horrific job trying to imitate Katherine Hepburn. Heresy! (understand my humor/indignation here) She constantly tries to affect Hepburn's majesty; she's clearly not up to the task.
The actor chosen to fill the role of my favorite personality, Duke Geoffrey II Plantagenet of Brittany, is totally devoid of emotion or spirit in his portrayal. Plus, he does not have the right bearing. John Castle (original Duke Geoffrey) should be outraged.
Patrick Stewart, also, does a poor job trying to replace Peter O'Toole in the role of King Henry II. He fails miserably. His bearing seems far too thoroughly licentious and domestic for the adulterous but unquestionably noble and battle-ready Angevin "imperator".
The actress who portrays Lady Alice of France---only heirs were entitled as royal princes(ses) throughout most of the Middle Ages---does a terrible job. She seems to struggle through her lines, which present themselves in a wooden and dissatisfying manner. Just because a character is French does not mean she may/should be incapable of expressing herself.
Finally, the movie, all in all, has glaring anachronisms. In the introduction, they use a supposed coin of Henry II, although the coin they use is clearly that of Henry II of FRANCE (1500's), judging by the hair style, posture of the representation, and, most importantly, the armor depicted. Also, in the initial battle scene, they show Eleanor wearing armor. No woman in her period would even consider wearing armor; it was a violation of Canon and civil law. Furthermore, her outfits appear to be appropriate to the 14th or 15th centuries, rather than the 12th. Also, they don't use the appropriate heraldic garb for Duke Geoffrey's men at arms. The armor worn by Henry in the same initial battle was too advanced for the 1170's. It would appear that the directors were trying to outdo the original in regard to sets and costumes, since they clearly couldn't in terms of the actors.
I am disgusted that I actually bought this movie. I did so only because I am a medievalist and have a kind of moral obligation to do so. Ms. Hepburn (may she rest in peace) must be spinning in her grave!
Rating: 
Summary: King Henry II and His Royal Heirs.
Review: At a matinee performance on Sunday, I saw a most unusual presentation of King Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine (his estranged wife whom he keeps in prison -- only lets her out on holidays) in 1183 for Christmas. She had been banished purportedly for instigatating a revolt against her husband, king of England, and wishing her fighter son would take his place.
He on the other hand had promised the younger son John he would be King and wed the French sister of King Philip. Thank God the formidable Kathryn Hepburn was not present, even in spirit. However, I would have welcomed Peter O'Toole, as this 50-yr-old king looked more like 75 with his young mistress. Glenn Close received the Golden Globe award for her performance in this version made for t.v.
There was much scheming, manipulation, deception, and some mild vulgar confrontations on Christmas Eve in the palace. Richard the Lionhearted was determined to wrest the crown with his mother's aid, but Geoffrey is equally determined to spoil his parents' and brothers' machinations.
After some confrontations with the three sons, the king has them imprisoned in the dungeon where Eleanor the intrepid brings them breakfast which has lamently gotten cold. Actually the tray held three knives which she wanted them to use on Henry before he kills them all -- for love of a young girl. All three are cowards when the king does make his visit wearing a long sword with which he almost beheaded Richard.
The mother said that she hated all of her sons, as they equally seemed to return the hatred. The way they manipulated each other for their own gain was something to admire, more so than the fact that Richard took part in the Crusades, and Eleanor was of royal blood. She wanted her freedom, but was banned by Henry back to her prison until the Easter resurection. The boys were allowed to flee.
This couple should have set a precedent and divorced each other. He decided maybe he would ask the pope for an annulment instead, thereby setting the stage for a new, young wife who could bear him more sons. Alas, it was not to be.
I'm sure that Patrick Stewart made a tolerable King Henry, but no one could beat Peter O'Toole, who always had such fun in all the roles when he could play royalty. This one I saw was at the Black Box theater and mostly was satisfactory; I did not feel comfortable (nor did the rest of the audience) at the final scene before Intermission. In fact, a friend of mine left early and missed the good part. It was worth the price of admission.
Rating: 
Summary: Fantastic!
Review: I just finished watching this. This is so much better than the 1968 movie. Patrick and Glenn are much closer in age than the 1968 version. Even though Henry was younger, he wasn't that much younger than Eleanor as portrayed in the 1968 version. Both actors gave a 3D performance and their range and depth of character was incredible. Patrick is a dynamic performer and Glenn was certainly up to the challange. This performance is also complete. The 1968 version is a scaled down version of the play. Both characters were much more in line with history. My wife, a historian, is a direct descendant of Eleanor and Henry and this performance was indeed scrutinized. If you want a classic, get the 1968 version. If you want the real thing, get this one. You won't be disappointed in the powerful performances of ALL of the actors. It is a true emsemble of performers playing off of each other in an intense and rivoting way. This performance kept me on the edge of my chair continually.
Rating:
Summary: Atrocious remake of the best film ever
Review: I try to evaluate a movie like this on two sets of criteria: 1. Is it a good adaptation? and 2. Is it a good movie, in and of itself?
The answer to both questions, in this case, is no. The original movie's dialogue was delivered with such impecible timing and sarcastic, sharp wit that you could actually believe these folks WERE Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine. The onscreen chemistry between Peter O'Toole and Catharine Hepburn was off the charts, and the supporting cast, including a very young Anthony Hopkins, was superb.
In this remake, Patrick Stewart (who I always regarded as a great actor) and Glen Close (who I never did) seem to have about as much interest in their dialogue as a toddler in a calculus class. They sound so scripted and deadpan that it's hard to believe they weren't actually reading off of cue cards (perhaps they were). They barely, as far as I could tell, even make eye contact with one another.
Disappointing all around.
Rating:
Summary: Two and a half hours of pure delight and intrigue ...
Review: I was certainly a pleasant surprise that this fast paced (not in action to be sure) intellectual game of intrigue and give and take could keep my solid attention for the full movie. The viewers attention is required to keep track of the plot twists and turns as we see King Henry sparring with his wife Elanor and his three woebegotten sons in the hills of France. The greatest thing about this movie is that it depicts an interpretation of the life and times of King henry II, Richard and of course Prince John, an era that I have always felt were taken hostage by Shakespeare and Arthur and the knights of the round table...... Certainly a great depiction/interpretation of historical value that would, for me in any case, be too troublesome to read. I do give the viewer fair warning without any intellectual snobbery intended. The story is complex and chacrter development is long but thorough .... The action is of course limited and most, if not all the movie takes place on the set of the castle..... Unless you enjoy this type of human chess game, oddds are that you'll walk out after the first half hour ...
Rating:
Summary: Was this remake really necessary
Review: In a world which sees more and more remakes - some classics are better left alone. This is one of them. Glenn Close is no Katherine Hepburn and that's probably the major weakness of this remake although Patrick Stewart isn't a Peter O'Toole either. The image of Jean-Luc Picard keeps popping up and you keep expecting him to utter something like "Make it so, Number One" at any moment. The original also gave us a pre-James Bond Timothy Dalton as Phillip of France in a vastly underrated performance. And let's not forget Anthony Hopkins as Richard. Historically, if this movie were to be made with any accuracy it would feature French actors instead of English ones since French was the language spoken by Henry and his family. It's highly unlikely any of them - including Richard and John - spoke much if any English, so if its going to be re-done, perhaps utilizing French actors is the answer. Meanwhile, pop in your DVD of the O'Toole/Hepburn original and if you're wondering which version to purchase - go with the original.
Rating: 
Summary: A relatively light weight production of Goldman's drama
Review: It is impossible for me to watch this Showtime remake of "The Lion in Winter" starring Glenn Close and Patrick Stewart without constantly comparing it to the 1968 theatrical film with Katharine Hepburn and Peter O'Toole. That was the first Hepburn film I ever saw and the way she delivers James Goldman's great lines (my favorite would be "I could peel you like a pear and God himself would call it justice!") is forever etched in my brain. However, I also think that it is clear that the specter of the original film hangs over the entire cast of this production. By that I mean that it seems like every single memorable line from the play (and there are literally dozens) is delivered in a decidedly different way. Specifically, Close plays Eleanor of Aquitaine as being much more emotional, which is rather ironic given that her ex-husband, the late King of France, is described as being a weeper. This means that when Eleanor has what should be her final emotional collapse at the end of the film, it is really just another in what has been a series of emotional moments. As for Stewart, his Henry II tends to underplay all of the key moments. It certainly seems that every time O'Toole engages in bluster and bombast, Stewart goes quiet, bordering on a whisper. Again, I can only conclude that these were conscious choices because they stand out so boldly against the original film version. This is not to say that I am against new productions of the play. I would have loved to have seen Robert Preston and Julie Harris on Broadway or the Roundabout Theater production starring Laurence Fishburne and Stockard Channing. But Stewart and Close make choices, obviously endorsed by director Andrei Konchalovsky, that remove much of the fire from Goldman's brilliant dialogue. For those who have never seen a production of "The Lion in Winter" they may get a sense of the high quality of the drama, but I do not believe they get the complete picture. "The Lion in Winter" takes place during Christmas 1183, when Henry II, King of England, summons family to his castle in Chinon, France. At issue is the question of who will be Henry's successor to the English throne. Henry wants his youngest son, John (Rafe Spall), while Eleanor supports their eldest surviving son, Richard the Lionheart (Andrew Howard), which leaves middle son Geoffrey (John Light, in what I think is the best performance because I like his spin on the character). Also along for the ride are Henry's mistress, Alais Capet (Yuliya Vysotskaya), who is supposed to marry the heir, and her brother, Philip (Jonathan Rhys-Meyers), the young King of France. The chief attraction here is that while Henry and the rest play out their power games through a series of confrontations, feints, compromises, and sudden reversals they are delivering their lines with an extraordinary level of insight, wit, and irony. That is, of course, provided they are delivered so as not to undercut the power of the lines. The confrontations between Henry and Eleanor are supposed to be a clash of heavyweights and the cast here is dropping down in weight class.
Rating:
Summary: Slight correction
Review: One correction for a previous review. JULIE Harris was not in the Broadway production of "Lion In Winter". It was another wonderful actress, ROSEMARY Harris. One other interesting piece of casting, it was an early role for Christopher Walken as the King of France.
Rating:
Summary: A near miss
Review: The 1968 screen version of THE LION IN WINTER (Lion1) is the most excellent film I've ever seen, or likely will see in my lifetime. But, I've a lot to say about various aspects of this new version (Lion2), so I'd better get on with it. I'll make an effort to be evenhanded.
First, a concise history lesson in the context of the film.
King Henry II of England is also overlord of Wales, Scotland, Ireland, and half of France. Henry keeps his wife Eleanor, the Duchess of Aquitaine and the former first wife of King Louis VII of France, under house arrest in Salisbury Castle for revolting against him. In better times, Henry and Eleanor had, in addition to three daughters, five sons: (in order of birth) William, Henry, Richard, Geoffrey, and John. William died at age three. Henry, the anointed heir, died aged 28 in the summer of 1183. It's now the Yuletide season of that year, and Henry II is holding Christmas court at his French stronghold, Castle Chinon. Joining him are his surviving sons and, released from confinement for the festive occasion, Queen Eleanor. An aging Henry wishes to cement his succession. His favorite is John. Eleanor's is Richard. Geoffrey, nobody's favorite, maneuvers to get what he can. Complicating the gathering is the presence of Princess Alais and King Phillip II of France. Alais, Louis VII's daughter by his second wife, was betrothed to Richard by treaty between Henry and Louis when she was but a child. Alais has been living at the English court for years, and is Henry's mistress. Phillip, aged 18 and King since 1180, is Louis VII's son by a third wife. Phillip either wants the marriage of Alais and Richard to take place, or Alais's dowry, the French province of the Vexin, back. Phillip hates the English monarch, and will use Henry's sons against him any way he can. The holiday skullduggery is so thick as can be pierced with a backstabbing dirk.
The music score is positively anemic compared to John Barry's original. Of particular note in Lion1 are the vaguely menacing "Main Title" that serves as introduction to the destructive passions in the plot, the elegant "Eleanor's Arrival", which accompanies her regal progress up river by open boat to Chinon, and the finale - "We're Jungle Creatures" - that underscores the approaching end to Henry's reign, but the beginning of the great Plantagenet dynasty.
Costuming and sets are too pretty and finished. In Lion1, the interior of Chinon is gloomy, cold, rough-hewn, and smoky (from the torches) - perhaps to be expected in a 12th century pile. And the clothing, even for the royals, wasn't elegant by any stretch. (My favorite scene in the original has Henry casually throwing on a crown and royal cloak over otherwise plain garb before striding through the mud, dogs, chickens and peasants in the castle courtyard to greet the arriving Phillip.) In Lion2, the costumes are too fine and the castle interior, especially the main circular staircase, is too obviously a film set.
The dialogue, perhaps the best ever heard on the Big Screen, is virtually the same in the two productions. However, the nuances from facial expressions, body language, and timing raise Lion1 to the realm of the sublime.
The scripted action is also pretty much identical in both, except for three unnecessary sequences: an opening scene of Eleanor's failed rebellion in 1174, a silly shot of Richard riding his horse up Chinon's circular stairs, and another of Richard attempting to escape house arrest by rappelling down Chinon's walls.
And how about the acting?
In Lion2, Yuliya Vysotskaya as Alais is at least the equal of Jane Merrow's original. Yuliya presents as a slightly stronger personality, and it doesn't hurt that she resembles a blonde Audrey Hepburn. And the new Phillip (Jonathan Rhys-Meyers) does a different and perhaps improved take on a relative youngster striving to be a King in the face of the formidable Henry, whereas Timothy Dalton in the role came across with the unscrupulous venom of a misplaced older man.
Rafe Spall as the latter-day John occasionally overacts, in my opinion, almost to the point of parody, unlike Nigel Terry's right-on portrayal of the pathetic youngest Prince. John Light is relatively sphinx-like as the contemporary Geoffrey compared to the sardonic and clever schemer revealed by John Castle. Andrew Howard as the new Richard, whatever the real-life man may have been like, didn't strike me as Lionheart material. The superficial trouble was the actor's unimposing voice. Anthony Hopkin's Richard, I think, would've wiped up the floor with the new guy.
Lion1 starred Peter O'Toole and Katherine Hepburn as Henry and Eleanor. Both received Oscar nominations, and the latter won her category. Only in the last third of Lion2, with Patrick Stewart as Henry and Glenn Close as Eleanor, does the power of their paired performance achieve that of Peter's and Kate's tour de force. Stewart and Close seem too amused with the familial dysfunction of their characters, almost playing them for laughs, especially in the early going. Whatever humor the audience perceives in the dialogue - and there's much, the real Henry and Eleanor, and O'Toole and Hepburn, squabbled over the succession with deadly seriousness. Also, Lion2 portrays both as white-haired ancients. In fact, Henry was only 51 at the time, though Eleanor was 11 years older.
Had I not seen Lion1, I would've given Lion2 five stars. But the former is so superlative in all respects that I cannot.
Finally, let's return to the historical record. A weary Henry, perhaps the greatest of England's monarchs, died of illness in July 1189, two days after being forced by the allied Richard and Phillip to accept humiliating terms ending a war. Richard succeeded to the throne, to be followed by John in 1199. (Geoffrey had died in 1186). Eleanor survived until 1202. John lost virtually all of his father's vast French holdings to Phillip. Alais returned to France to wed another.
Rating:
Summary: A good effort.
Review: The original Lion in Winter is one of my all time favorite films, which is odd because, except for rare occasions, I never much cared for either Katherine Hepburn or Peter O'Toole. So, when I saw this new version of the movie on the movie rental shelves, I was rather excited as I like both Patrick Stewart and Glen Close a lot.
The film was, unfortunately, a disappointment. Close and Stewart both do well, their timing isn't as impeccable as O'Toole's and Hepburn's, so the film loses some of it's humor, but they do manage to make the parts their own. Jonathon Rhys-Meyers is VERY good as King Phillip and better, in fact, than the original. Also better than her original incarnation is the actress who plays Alice (I'm not sure if that's the correct spelling of her name), she's much stronger than the original girl and makes her role more important.
Where the film really fails is in the boys. First of all none of them seem to have any relationship with their parents. The first film had the feeling of a family squabble over the holidays. This one is more of a love story between Close and Stewart with Alice in the middle. The boys and Phillip seem incidental and though that is the point of Phillip's character it should not be so of the brothers. Also, how the boys are played is a problem. Richard is not likeable and though it's mentioned that he writes poems and that is played up in his character is the war side. When Henry claims Richard was the best I'm a bit dubious as in this version Geoff seems to be, which also shows a failure in how the film makers percieved Geoffrey's character. I think perhaps they felt sympathetic towards him because no one loved him, but I feel no one loved him for a reason, which never comes across in this version. As for John his main problem is just that the actors to old to be believable in the role.
The other main problem with this version is that it's soooo slow. It takes ages for it to get its audience interested and even then it just sort of meanders towards its conclusion. I don't know if this is the fault of editing or what. I know at the beginning it's the fault of too many scene changes, a problem with which most play-to-movie adaptions are fraught.
I'd also like to say that the computer matt-paintings for the outdoor shots and exterior shots of the castle are just awful as is the case in everything Hallmarks has made since and including Gulliver's Travels. This is a problem that's easy to overlook, however.
Ultimately, the movie is interesting despite being slow and it's fun to watch Close and Stewart especially towards the end. The best scene is credited to Close in which she's trying on her jewels after her first defeat and she joined one by one by her children. She really made you feel for her.
I've given the movie three stars, which, to me, means it's definately worth watching once, but not buying.
|
