The Lion in Winter
|
List Price: Our Price: $6.99 You Save: $7.99 (53%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $1.92 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
Movie Reviews of The Lion in Winter
Movie Review: Improvement on the already perfect
Summary: 5 Stars
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?
Movie Review: Let go of the original when you are watching this
Summary: 5 Stars
I have read many reviews stating that this remake is inferior to the orginal version of 1968. Granted, that version is marvelous.
I have bought both versions and love them both. OK, it is difficult not to compare when watching.
BUT I can't help wondering: if this version would have been the first I or anybody watched instead of the 1968 version, if people would have been complaining about that version?
I can have different versions of Vivaldi's four seasons can't I? Actually for those among us who love classical music and opera it is quite common to have several versions of the same musical piece and enjoy them all (and I do understand that people can have preferences for one or the other). We would never say this or that piece is a remake of that version, would we? I have gone to the opera numerous times and watched Don Giovanni three times. Every time with different performers. Remake? Absolutely not.
I think that the only reason one would have made this version of lion in winter is the wish to make it, because is such a great play. So, logically this would not be a remake!
Why can't we watch this version for what it is and let go of the other (splendid 1968) version when doing so?
That done, I must say I understand why Alais is in love with king Henry. Patrick Stewart is a very fine actor and has magnificent voice which he uses very well. He is a very good match to Close's queen. I did not care for Richard, I thought he was not commanding enough, bit whiny. I think John is a difficult part to play to say the least and I didn't care for him either, too much the idiot. Geoffrey on the other hand is really conniving and very good. King Philippe: too much a boy, although he has moments when the interaction with king Henry makes him interesting. Alais:good enough.
Which of the versions do I prefer? that is difficult. I have highly enjoyed both. I think the 1968 version has a sharper edge because of Hepburn and I prefer her to Close. This version has a more emotional and sometimes romantic (Alais and Henry) approach.
I definitely prefer Stewart to O'Toole, who seemed too young for the role. I liked the way Stewart made us see Henry's self confindence in his plans and his pleasure in manipulating and scheming (that is, until the end, when things turn out the wrong way and you see hem falling apart). O'Toole had a very serious approach all the time.
On the other hand: Anthony Hopkins and Timothy Dalton were both splendid. I think overall that the 1968 version has a better supporting cast.
Which of the versions I watch, depends on the mood I am in. I think they are both good in their own way.
Movie Review: A Very Fine Recreation of THE LION IN WINTER
Summary: 5 Stars
Showtime Television has more sophistication in building films than most commercial movie studios and nowhere is that fact more evident than in the 're-make' of THE LION IN WINTER. Though some would say, "Why make another version of the 1968 Hepburn/O'Toole award winning movie", to those I would ask, "Why continue to reprise the the superb play by James Goldman in theaters around the country?" Simply, the play is just that good - an exciting mix of history as explored through the dysfunctional family syndrome tying it all together.The photography of France (as viewed through Slovakia and Hungary settings) in the late 12th century is magnificent, both in exteriors ( Eleanor's entrance on the barge is as grand as Cleopatra's any day!) and in the dank and dark interiors that serve the plot so well. Glenn Close is radiant and in pitch perfect form as Eleanor of Aquitane, the Queen of England to Henry II's King (Patrick Stewart is fine fettle) and who has been imprisoned for 10 years for 'treason'. The couple has three sons and one must be named Henry's successor, but which one - Richard (historically to be known as The Lionhearted), the wily Jeffrey, or the buffoon but beloved of Henry, John? (All three of these roles are in capable hands). Eleanor is released from her prison castle for a Christmas Celebration and the entire play takes place during these two stormy days. The struggle of equally powerful wills of Eleanor and Henry are superimposed on the greed of the three sons, and made more pointed by the arrival of the King of France, Philip (played with complete credibility by Jonathan Rhys-Meyers). Intrigue abounds, secrets long held are made known, and treachery is omnipresent. But in the midst of this fascinating exposure of monarch history between France and England author Goldman has written dialogue so razor sharp that it suggests Edward Albee's "Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolfe": the duets between Eleanor and Henry, the trios and quartets among the brothers and parents, and especially moments like the revelation of the homoerotic relationship between Richard and King Philip are pure theater in the finest sense of the term. This version of the play is 2 1/2 hours of intense and intensely entertaining bravura acting and direction. It deserves to be seen , and to be in the libraries of collectors when it becomes available for purchase.
Movie Review: timeless
Summary: 5 Stars
Last week I had the pleasure of viewing for the third time the original Lion in Winter, and decided to check out this newer version. See my review of the original, which of course I rated 5 stars as well, for my thoughts on that. IMO,the new production is different. Not better, not worse, just different.
Glenn Close and Patrick Stewart are both fine actors who are well suited to playing their roles as royalty. Both turned in subtle, restrained performances that do credit to both themselves and the play, never allowing overbearing grandness and arrogance to obscure the humanity of their characters. Having read widely on the subject of their lives, I believe that both Eleanor and Henry were consummate power players, capable of using either bullying or beguilement as the situation required. Close and Stewart display emotion from one end of that range to the other. It's often said that love and hatred are opposite sides of the same coin, and that is certainly apparent here, between husband and wife as well as parents and children.
The supporting cast in the new Lion is also strong, though you have to wonder if the original John was really as worthless and repulsive a toady as he appears on screen.(Eleanor was certainly correct in her assessment of his kingly potential!) The other production values are stunning, with accurately researched costuming and good contrast between the richness of the interior and the dirt and squalor of the exterior settings. It was striking to watch for the servants, who performed their duties nearly invisibly, as would have been expected.
This is a movie worth watching, though a tolerance for talk over action is required. Goldman's dialog is timeless, every bit as witty, stinging, and touching as ever.
Movie Review: WOW!
Summary: 5 Stars
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.