The Lion in Winter

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 - I expected that the characters would have all hardened solid, 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 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.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.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 was a waste of screen time and 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 had nearly worn out my original copy of Lion in Winter. I am a huge fan of Patrick Stewart, but had no idea this copy existed until I looked to replace my run-down vhs copy. As much as I love Patrick Stewart's work, and have all the faith in the world in his ability to bring out the best and the worst of characters, this would be a test. How could anyone (even Patrick Stewart and Glenn Close) compare with the phenomenal performances of Peter O'Toole and Katherine Hepburn? They couldn't, and they didn't. What they did was to recreate the roles in a style entirely their own. The script is essentially unchanged. The sets are a bit more elaborate. The performances are spectacular. I think Patrick Stewart managed better to create his own Henry than Gleen Close did with Eleanor. I should have liked to see Close really open up and not try so hard to meet the standard set by Hepburn. The early going has a lighter approach the the original version. I don't think that the chemistry of the first film could ever be matched. In the end, however, the characters play well off of each other. When Patrick Stewart unleashes the force of Henri's grief, the effect is absolutely wrenching. For the cast, overall, I think the only role I repeatedly missed in this performance was Anthony Hopkins' version of Richard.In every way as dramatic, as painful, and as entertaining as the original, this "new" Lion in Winter is definitely a keeper! If I had to choose now which performance I prefer, I doubt I could. As a matter of fact, I now own them both on dvd.

While Sir Patrick Stewart is magnificent in his role as Henry (as usual), Glenn Close is NOT convincing as either a British or French queen. The sets and costumes are wonderful. But that is about all I can say positive about this movie.Remember "King Richard the Lionhearted" from the Robin Hood story? This movie portrays him as a sniveling homosexual mama's boy. This movie is one long profane fight between family members. Glenn Close is constantly telling Patrick Stewart that she slept with his father - then she says she didn't - then she said she did. She made "Stepford Wives" the same year she made this - maybe she got the roles mixed up.DO NOT let young children watch this movie. It is listed as "unrated" but it should be rated MA - there is nudity, profanity, incest and homosexuality. Normally I would say that any movie with Sir Patrick Stewart in it was worth owning - I will make an exception for this one.

Well I suppose in choosing a favorite version of The Lion in Winter, it all depends on taste. I happen to choose Patrick Stewart over Peter O' Toole, but both Katharine Hepburn, and Glenn Close were Eleanor to the T. Both women capured that strong willed spirit, that makes Eleanor of Aquitaine my favorite queen, hands down. Both O'Toole, and Stewart deliver a king with a bellow, in the winter if his life. But, Stewart in my opinion takes the crown. He is regal.There is no historical data backing up the Christmas spent in Chinon castle, in the year that Henry II and Eleanor's eldest son passes, to my knowledge. However, Henry II "allowing" Eleanor to leave Salisbury castle, where she has been locked up, after a failed revolt against Henry, makes for an interesting story. All of the elements of the personalities of Henry II, Eleanor, Richard, Geoffery, and John are there. I would have thought Henry's mistress would have been Rosamond, but I woukd need to refresh my memory.As for Phillip of France, and the relationship with Richard the Lionheart goes, I think the jury is still out on that one. But, it added drama to the movie, so I suppose that is why it was included into the storyline.No matter which movie you choose, The Lion in Winter 1, or 2 you will be in for a treat, the costumes are elaborate, the scenery beautiful, and the acting superb!

Prodotto arrivato in tempo ed integro.Film bellissimo per gli amanti del medioevo.La versione precedente con Peter O' Toole e Katharine Hepburn è più sofisticata nella tessitura degli intrighi, ma questa è favolosa per la realizzazione dei costumi, molto dettagliati e regali, e delle ambientazioni.

Joué avec un talent fou par Glenn Close et par Patrick Stewart avec une importante et remarquable prestation d'un très jeune Jonathan Rhys Meyers, un film qui relève de la performance théâtrale.Dans un moyen âge pas si sombre que cela, se trament les intrigues de cour les plus compliquées pour la conquête du pouvoir à tout prix.Jeux de séduction, manipulations, stratégies perverses, mensonges et chantages sont les ingrédients d'un film très réussi.MM

Der Film hat mir, alles in allem, sehr gut gefallen. Er erinnert in seiner Komposition an die klassischen Tragödien von Corneille und Racine, da die Einheit der drei Regeln eingehalten wurde. Und der geschichtliche Hintergrund ist in jedem Geschichtsbuch nachzulesen. Eine unterhaltsame Geschichtsstunde um Eleonore von Aquitanien, ihre Söhne und die daraus entstandenen Familientragödien.

Buena actuación de Glenn GloseLa historia me pareció repetida del León en InviernoLa caratula promete más acción....que no huboMe hubiera gustado con subtitulo en español

Admittedly, the retitling of this film as "Lionheart", and the repackaging of the DVD to suggest an action-heavy drama (presumably by whichever company now owns the distribution rights to the film) is a disgrace that both insults it's audience and undermines the film itself.However, beneath the deceitful marketing hype, committed by the distributors (aided and abetted by Amazon it seems), there is an outstanding adaptation of James Goldman's play, "The Lion in Winter", which WAS the original title of this film before the distributors decided to dumb it down. If you are a 15 year-old kid (or any potential buyer) expecting some kind a medieval "Die Hard" epic you will be disappointed. The film is about the dysfunction family-feuding and power struggles between the 11th-century English King, Henry II (Patrick Stewart), his estranged wife and queen, Eleanor of Aquitaine, (played by Glenn Close -- a role for which she won both a Golden Globe, and a Screen Actors' Guild Award), and their three sons Richard (aka 'the Lionheart'), Geoffrey, and John (later the baaad King John). The story takes place over the Christmas period in 1183, during which time King Henry says he intends to nominate his successor for the English throne. The film explores the rivalry between the three sons, and the scheming by Eleanor to have her own favourite, Richard, nominated as Henry's successor over Henry's preferred favourite, John.The film is very dialogue-heavy, but what amazing dialogue it is. There is no attempt at cod-Shakespeare here, but a naturalistic style, with witty and acerbic exchanges between the main characters, and the adolescent grumblings of the sons.An earlier feature-film adaptation of the play (The Lion in Winter, 1968), starring Peter O'Toole and Katharine Hepburn, was itself outstanding, winning THREE Oscars and TWO Golden Globes. However, this made-for-television version is even better, as the extended running time (167 mins. against 134 mins. of the 1968 film) allows the ambitions and jealousies of the sons to be featured more than the original film. This film was co-produced by Patrick Stewart, and considering the made-for-television constraints, the production values are very high, as witnessed by the nominations it received for technical and production categories in many international awardsThis is not a medieval "Die Hard" for kids. It is a medieval "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" for those who have the patience to listen to well-crafted dialogue. If you want blood and gore go elsewhere. If you want an intelligent and witty historical drama then this is hight recommended.Sadly, the growing tendency for distributors to mislead potential buyers of DVDs, by renaming and repackaging existing films, does no favours to the film or it's audience, only creating the anger and resentment that many of the comment left here witness. The re-branding of 'The Prince of Jutland' (a proto-Hamlet, a similar star-studded medieval dialogue-based drama) as "Thrones and Empires", and repackaging it as medieval battle-epic is another sad example of this trend. Perhaps Amazon could offer a service to its customers, by have a policy of high-lighting when products have been tampered with in this way.