The Lion In Winter Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
All of Britain and half of France were his kingdom. But there was one thing Henry II would never control . . . His Family. (DVD)
A fearsome father. A scheming mother. Three sons battling for attention. (DVD)
King Henry II ('Patrick Stewart (I)' (qv)) keeps his wife, Eleanor ('Glenn Close' (qv)) locked away in the towers because of her frequent attempts to overthrow him. With Eleanor out of the way he can have his dalliances with his young mistress ('Yuliya Vysotskaya' (qv)). Needless to say the queen is not pleased, although she still has affection for the king. Working through her sons, she plots the king's demise and the rise of her second and preferred son, Richard ('Andrew Howard (I)' (qv)), to the throne. The youngest son, John ('Rafe Spall' (qv)), an overweight buffoon and the only son holding his father's affection is the king's choice after the death of his first son, young Henry. But John is also overly eager for power and is willing to plot his father's demise with middle brother, Geoffrey ('John Light (I)' (qv)) and the young king of France, Phillip ('Jonathan Rhys Meyers' (qv)). Geoffrey, of course sees his younger brother's weakness and sees that route as his path to power. Obviously political and court intrigue ensues.
| Glenn Close | Eleanor of Aquitaine |
| Andrew Howard | Richard |
| Patrick Stewart | King Henry II |
| Antal Konrád | Toastmaster |
| John Light | Geoffrey |
| Soma Marko | Young Prince John |
| Jonathan Rhys Meyers | Philip |
| Rafe Spall | Prince John |
| Yuliya Vysotskaya | Alais |
| Clive Wood | William Marshall |
| Andrei Konchalovsky |
7.20 out of 10 (835 votes)
Visitor Reviews
great mini series
posted on 11 May 2009a great mini series but not as good as the film version of 1967 Glenn close is great as Eleanor but I think katherine hepburn was a little better in the role, Patrick stewart is great as Henry and this story tells a little more than the 1960s version and is very good and great acting from the actors. all three boys want to get rid of Henry so one of them can get the crown.
Kudos to Patrick Stewart, and pretty darned "close," Glenn!
posted on 27 Apr 2009Setting aside the question of 'Why do we need a remake of an almost perfect original?' I was very pleased with this movie. Credit it, if you will, to Stewart's resonant, commanding voice, but I thought he more than held his own against O'Toole's Henry. Less pomp, more circumstance. Regarding Eleanor, well - nothing could ever top the great Kate's performance in the original movie. Considering the impossibility of doing so, though, I have to say that Glenn Close did a more than admirable job with the role. Indeed, in a couple of scenes – when she was talking but the camera wasn't on her face – you could almost imagine you were hearing Hepburn! Overall, Close's Eleanor was less bitter and acerbic than Hepburn's, but it was still a most valid interpretation of the character. Re: the sons - I didn't care much for Howard's interpretation of Richard – more smarmy posturing rather than the Machiavellian swagger of entitlement that I feel the part calls for (i.e., Anthony Hopkins' portrayal.) But, the characters of Geoffrey and John were cast better in this one, in my opinion, than in the original. Rafe Spall played John's blithering, namby-pamby, spoiled brat to perfection. Also, the sets were wonderful! Big thumbs up.
I couldn't turn it off
posted on 14 Feb 2009I've never seen the original ALIW with Hepburn, so I wasn't able to make comparisons there. I did see a stage version, years ago at my old university, so I was familiar with the plot and characters.Patrick Stewart and Glenn Close have wonderful chemistry. I freely admit that I could watch Stewart sit on a chair and read from the phone book, but he makes an absolutely commanding Henry II. Close is alternately domineering and fragile, but always riveting. Their separate scenes are elegant, but they shine most when they play off of each other; Henry and Eleanor have a fascinating dynamic, and the interaction between husband and wife is dazzling.I was less enamored with the performances of the three English princes. Andrew Howard's Richard was done well enough, particularly the scenes where he was portraying softer emotions. John Light's Geoffrey didn't seem quite right to me, but that may not be his own fault; the actor who played Geoffrey in the stage version I saw was a friend of mine, so my opinion of the character will forever be biased. Rafe Spall's John was utterly appalling -- but he was supposed to be, so does the fact that I absolutely loathed him mean he was brilliant? Yuliya Vysotskaya was a luminous Alais. She has a splendid range and presence, and I wish she would do more acting projects that would let her be seen in the U.S. She has a charming ethereal quality when the script calls for it, yet can be equally hard as needed.For me, though, the best performance was that of Jonathan Rhys-Meyers, who I found utterly captivating as King Philip of France. He steals every scene in which he appears, and gives the young King just the right balance of anger, slyness, contemplation, and humor. (And let's be honest, he's not really hard on the eyes either.) On the whole, I couldn't bring myself to stop watching the movie until it was over, and it's definitely one I would be happy to watch again.
A pity.
posted on 14 Nov 2008It's a pity that this was made AFTER the film, rather than before it. As a television production of a stage play it holds up reasonably well. As a remake of a classic - and not really very old - film, it constitutes a serious disappointment.I do not automatically hate remakes. The classic Bela Lugosi Dracula was a remake. So was Charlton Hestion's Ben Hur. The remake of Ocean's Eleven is better than the original, because the stars of the original were goofing off. However, a remake should offer something new over the original. Sound. Color. Special Effects. A great star who has a new interpretation of the old role. Ideally, a remake should have more than one of these things, and - sadly - this one doesn't.Patrick Stewart does have a new take on Henry ... at least a little. His Henry is less compulsive, more comfortable, less driven. Had Glen Close shifted her Elanor to match the results might have been interesting. Unfortunately Ms. Close gives the impression that she has been watching the original for some months, nonstop. She not so much plays Elanor of Aquitane as she plays Katherine Hepburn playing Elanor. One of the other reviews here remarked that at times you could imagine that Elanor's lines were being spoken by Ms. Hepburn, and that's true but it isn't a plus. Ms. Close delivers her lines very much as Ms. Hepburn did, and if Mr. Stewart had played Henry the way Mr. O'Toole did it might have worked. Since Stewart is not playing Henry in the same way that O'Toole did, the result is somewhat jarring at times.As for the rest; the young man playing Phillip cannot begin to match the young Timothy Dalton, nor the remake's Richard come close to Hopkins's interpretation. John is a mess, but John is written as a mess in the play, so it is hard to say who to blame. Lastly, Geoffrey lacks the sardonic power of the original. It's too bad.
Breath of fresh air
posted on 07 Jun 2008This is a fine movie. 'The Lion in Winter' captures the emotions, and intentions, of these historical personages. More than perfect staging, or props, it's the impression you receive from the movie that matters most. This is accomplished, because of the superb acting of the entire cast. Andrew Howard, who plays Richard, was fantastic, and Glenn Close demonstrated, once again, that she is one of the best actresses on the planet. Patrick Stewart, in particular, shines. This might be his best performance, yet. 'The Lion in Winter', gives us a glimpse into the troubles lives of royalty; indeed, it shows us how we humans behave in given circumstances. How frail, and how prone to treachery, we truly are. I cast a confident '9'.
No humor!
posted on 04 May 2008This version of Lion in Winter, aside from being horrible, also failed to convey any of the humor from the original movie or play.There's plenty of dark humor in the original movie and play, but the actors and director took it all way too seriously, missing all of it in the script.The lines were there, they just blew them.Patrick Stewart and Glenn Close are no substitute for Peter O'Toole and Katharine Hepburn.All this version did for me was make me want to watch the 1968 version.Thumbs down.
THE TRIUMPH OF "INFERIORITY"
posted on 02 Dec 2007Perhaps the viewer that seems to think that this production is "inferior," is because he may be too enamoured with the "stars" of the first.The original star-studded production, though excellent, suffered from Hollywooditis. O'Toole never let up from being O'Toole. Hepburn did a better job at playing the character.The current production boasts actors of at least the same quality and the story was allowed to develop without seeing the "stars."Close, Stewart and an evenly matched cast played to the storyline without playing to the camera.The tale became the "star," not the players.Bravo!
Not pleased at all
posted on 10 Nov 2007OK performances but I have to say overall disappointing and utter crap. I usually adore Patrick Stewart and Glenn Close and their performances were quite good, Jonathan Rhys-Meyers was outstanding (didn't have enough screen time). The rest of the cast was nothing special. Maybe they were meant to be mediocre characters and in that case they did well.Yuliya Vysotskaya in her role as Alais was sensational and I hope to see her in future roles but this movie is just not worth the time it takes to see it. I didn't have any expectations when I rented it and it left me feeling unfulfilled. Have seen worse movies but it's in that category.
WHAT A WASTE OF Viewing TIME
posted on 15 Oct 2007B*O*R*I*N*G*!!!! this is an incredibly awful representation of the wonderful play and tremendous portrayals of the 1968 film. the acting is dull. stewart and hepburn cannot touch o'toole and hepburn. the role of richard was played as a major wimp, john's portrayal was disastrous, and phillip a joke. only the geoffrey character was interesting, though it does not compare the brilliance of john castle. the script was almost word-for-word, but the deliverance was dull and w/out any passion or inspiration. i cannot say enough bad things about this version...it was entirely a disappointment. stick w/the original,the performances near perfect, and one of the best if not best of the 20th century films. don't waste your time or money on this TV version. see the original, you'll be glad you did.
i couldn't even watch the whole thing
posted on 19 Sep 2007i couldn't believe how bad this movie was. i think the biggest frustration for me was that it was created as an imitation of the original, rather than a reinterpretation. the shots, the costumes, the script, even the line delivery differed very little from the original. after cringing through half of the movie, i finally turned it off. i think a new examination of the story and the characters could have been really interesting, but this is just a pale imitation of a terrific film. the only thing i like better in this was the casting of john. rafe spall did a fantastic job in this role, much better than nigel terry in the original.
The play's the thing
posted on 29 Jul 2007"Of course he has a knife, he always has a knife, we all have knives! It's 1183 and we're barbarians!" The genius of James Goldman's perfect script for The Lion in Winter is the way it takes great historical figures and not only makes them all-too-recognisably human but also makes their faults serve as the world in microcosm. And it does it with wit, drama and genuine emotion as its two titans battle each other with a great hatred born of a once great love while their unlovely brood jockey for position and the crown of England in an ever escalating web of one-upmanship and betrayal. As such, it's foolproof and virtually idiot proof, the kind of thing that not even a talented director could ruin. Unfortunately one of the reasons the play has been so rarely revived is because it also managed to spawn a film version so close to perfection for all its budgetary limitations and technical faults that it must seem pointless to anyone to attempt to match it. So it's no great surprise that Andrei Konchalovsky's 2003 TV version leaves you feeling a bit like you've brought a ticket to the hottest show on Broadway only to find that the entire cast has gone down with food poisoning and the rep company from Des Moines will be taking their roles for tonight's performance.The biggest problem is that all these people have all too obviously seen the 1968 movie and fail to make the parts their own. Patrick Stewart fares best, but he lacks Peter O'Toole's delivery or comic timing although, to his credit, he doesn't try an impersonation. Unwisely, Glenn Close DOES slip into the odd spot of mimicry of Hepburn inbetween the odd half-hearted bout of Norma Desmond, but she makes surprisingly little impact until the second half of the game. Jonathan Rhys Myers' King Philip is especially weak, alternating between appearing stoned out of his skull (anytime he is required to stand or cross the room) or an unpopular school prefect in a school play. Indeed, there's too much of the Sixth Form Drama Society in Henry and Eleanor's loathsome litter. John Light takes what honours are available in that field as the unloved and unloving Geoffrey, but his competition is beyond merely light: Andrew Howard growls with more gravel than gravitas as Richard while a painfully incompetent Rafe Spall manages the impossible to turn in an even worse performance as an infantile John than Nigel Terry. Yuliya Vysotskaya's Alais is a somewhat better actress than Jane Merrow but far too East European to convince as a French girl and far too limited to make the part more than a cipher (but then, as Mrs Konchalovsky, her casting would appear to have been a deal breaker here).It's not bad – the superb writing carries it through even when the performances falter – but despite the bigger budget you get that distinct Saturday Matinée Dinner Theater feeling.
Brilliant acting
posted on 09 Jun 2007The craft of acting is often unseen to the casual observer. I say this because I find it hard to believe that any one would have anything bad to saw about the remarkable performances of Glen Close and Patrick Stewart. I walked away from watching this film thinking that a special Emmy should have been created for Glen. Riveting, powerful, nuanced, Close's performance astounded, showing depth in the character, and building up to the emotional explosion at the end of the film. I still have chills. And for someone to say there was no chemistry between her and Patrick I just have to say- huh? What were you looking for? The way they collided in the scene toward the end of the film revealed how much they LOVED one another...not how much they hated one another. Those angry sparks in the air had their birth in their status as soul mates.As for comparisons to Kate Hepburn? Come on now...Kate was a movie star, not an actor, and has no where near the range of Close.See this film.
WOW
posted on 26 Apr 2007I have seem 20-30 historical movies and this is by far the best. I never thought improvement of the O'Toole/Hepburn classic was possible, but I was wrong. This one gives a more accurate portrayal of the times and how little England as a country was to the Empire. The monarchy was more of a landlord and accumulating wealth was the order of the day. This was done through good governing and fear, as this movie accurately depicted. It was especially gratifying to see that the role of all the children was established. The original was based more on the King and Queen, with not as much emphasis on collateral figures. And, the acting was spectacular.
Doesn't Anyone Remember the Stage Version?
posted on 24 Apr 2007Doesn't anyone remember the stage version of The Lion in Winter? Rosemary Harris was absolutely terrific, and while Hepburn nails a wonderful performance in the '68 film, neither Peter O'Toole or Patrick Stewart can hold a candle to the strong and powerful performance of Robert Preston (yes "The Music Man") on Broadway. Some of the earlier comments are worth re-emphasizing: remakes have to be viewed with suspicion because they are excuses for originality ("if it was good the first time, it's going to be better the second" -- is that dumb or what?). Also, there is a tendency to try to improve on the original, although I'm glad they didn't monkey too much with the script in the Close/Stewart version (the vision of remaking "To Kill a Mockingbird" is horribly scary to say the least).
Battle of the wits
posted on 07 Mar 2007Recap: It is soon Christmas and Henry II decides to hold court at Chinon. There he intends to enforce his wish to crown his youngest son John as his heir and to make John marry Alais, a French princess and Henry's lover. Unfortunately, he is not the only one with interests in the succession. Both Richard and Geoffrey, John's elder brothers, want to be king. And the queen Eleonor, imprisoned by Henry since hers (and Richards and Geoffreys last uprising) has her own intentions. And then there is the young French king Philip that intends to enforce Henry's deal with Philip's father Louis that Alais should marry Richard. The game is set and there are too many players. The only thing to be sure about is that everyone looks out for themselves.Comments: Set in the middle ages you almost think that they will solve every quarrel with swords, but this movie has almost none of it. Instead it his an entrenched battle of the wits with too many combatants so that no one never can be sure of who's trench they're in. Alliances are made and broken on a whim and everyone evolves around one thing. The throne. There are two main combatants, Henry and Eleonor, but the other has schemes of their own.That makes for an interesting story. Everything is in motion. So even if it is long (originally a two piece series) it is never dull.With no action to speak of, and the intrigue being all in words it is important that the characters is believable and all the pressure is on the actors. And they come through with flying colors. Both Stewart and Close are solid veterans, but they get strong support from all the others. No character, except for one, and that is the major flaw of the movie, is shallow or simple. All characters are deep, complex. There are secrets and hidden motives that evolve and surface during the movie. It is only John, Henry's favorite, that doesn't come through. If that is the directors intention or not I can't say but it is the weak point of the movie. Because John is too dumb and unfit to be king in almost any way conceivable. How he can be the intended heir is a conundrum. However, it is not only rational reasoning that command the players here, too much of it is emotions. Ant that, is another strength of the movie, because it builds to the unpredictability.Well, I could go on, but the comment soon would be as long as the movie. In short, this was a nice surprise. Highly recommended for those that appreciate a battle in words and don't need explosions in every movie.7/10
Let's just have fun!
posted on 11 Nov 2006I enjoyed this film a lot. I watched it for itself and didn't care to compare. I like the plot and the actors, and neither disappointed me. It doesn't matter whether the original was better, I like both. The story of this family is definitely a 12th century reality show. I would like to see them interviewed by Dr. Phil, or or playing on the "Family Feud." They are their own version of "Survivor." This is about relationships and feelings. There are self-esteem issues, great sibling rivalry, and a love/hate marriage of two strong characters. These same things are present nowadays. We can compare these similarities from then and now. Of course, now we do have modern plumbing - thank the heavens for that! And lastly, we are in the same position of trying to pick our leader, McCain (Richard), Obama (Geoffrey) and Steve Carell (John!). If you can't stand this remake, go to the library and try reading a book instead! Pj
Better than You Think
posted on 05 Nov 2006I wonder if the first person reviewing this film actually saw it or is so beholden to the original that they couldn't accept this version. The original is a masterpiece - no question. But to say this remake is inferior in every way is a gross overstatement. In fact, Patrick Stewart brings a more conniving and regretful interpretation to King Henry which is an interesting approach. Richard the Lionheart is portrayed in a much more somber and serious way here than in the original (Hopkins overacted quite a bit but this was toned down). Prince Geoffrey is far superior in this movie; far more manipulating and quietly seething. Glenn Close is not Hepburn but she does a worthy job portraying Eleanor. Prince Philip is also portrayed in a more serious manner (less prissy than Dalton's rendition). The real letdown is Prince John who is borderline retarded. He's so clearly a blundering mean-spirited moron in this movie that you simply can't buy that King Henry would want him as a successor. Aside from that shortcoming (which is large I must admit), this movie works and is enjoyable and as feisty as one can hope.
Inferiority triumphs
posted on 23 Aug 2006This movie is a rarity: a remake
that is inferior to the
original in every single aspect.
Not only is every actor
inferior (even the minor ones).
Not only are the direction, sets,
music, photography, etc. inferior.
Not only do the few
changes to the screenplay weaken
the production. The remarkable
achievement of this film is that
every single *line* of dialogue
makes one long for the original.
Inferior in every regard
posted on 12 Jun 2006This is a poor and unnecessary remake of an outstanding original. The 1968 version, which starred Peter O'Toole and Kathryn Hepburn (who were accompanied by an excellent cast of supporting actors), told the story of the animosity and conflict which took place between the King of England, Henry II, and the members of his family over Xmas 1183. Their interpretation of this relationship produced one of the great movies of the 20th century. The remake is inferior in every regard. To begin, the acting can at best be described as mediocre. Stewart and Close are tolerable, but their supporting actors seem little more than cardboard cut-outs staggering through their dialogue without enthusiasm or animation. Entirely absent from their performance is the purported purpose of the movie, to reveal the drama of a group of people battling and scheming for survival and power. The actors seem to be doing little more than reading their lines from cue cards. This performance is doubly painful to watch as the screenplay is a near word for word copy of the outstanding James Goldman original. Even the sets, which I hoped would be an improvement, are inferior. The original had an authentic air of grubby decay and dirt, while the new is filled with clean people inhabiting tidy surrounds—hardly convincing for the Middle Ages.The term 'dumbed down' comes to mind when comparing the two.To be frank, I did not watch all of this movie, however, I am certain I am not the worse for this lack. If anyone wants to see a great movie, see the original, ignore the remake.
- 1
- 2
Worth seeing, some parts better than the original
posted on 14 Jun 2009I enjoyed this. Though not quite up to the standard of the original it was still much better than many films. The script is still fast and witty. The production quality is not so high, they obviously did not have the same kind of budget as last time which shows occasionally in the sound and music quality. But this does not spoil ones enjoyment.Prince John was not acted as well as last time but Henry's mistress (can't remember her name) was much better. In the original I could not see why Henry would be so taken by her - this girl was much more fascinating. The scenes between Henry (Patrick) and her were convincing.I thought Patrick Stewart and Glen Close hit sparks off one another.I could believe in these two as ex-husband and wife.The French King was very different from the Timothy Dalton version but good in his own way.Worth seeing and interesting to compare it with the original.