The Lion in Winter
|
List Price: Our Price: $12.99 You Save: $1.99 (13%) Availability: Usually ships in 24 hours 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: Glen Close is amazing!
Summary: 5 Stars
I have long been a fan of the original version with Katherine Hepburn but I am sorry to say that Glen Close is amazing in the role. She is rivoting on the screen. Strongly recommend!Movie Review: The Lion In Winter
Summary: 5 Stars
As much as I struggled to see this 2004 production without comparing it to the 1960's classic which starred Peter O'Toole and Katharine Hepburn, Anthony Hopkins, Nigel Terry, and Timothy Dalton, the shade of the earlier, better film kept intruding into my thoughts, so let me get the comparisons out of the way here in the beginning. Yes, the `60's version of The Lion In Winter is the better of the two movies, though I also rate this `00's version five stars and don't hesitate to recommend it as an addition to anyone's DVD library. It's a fine, artsy, stunning piece of witty drama that depicts the murderous side of the an irreparably dysfunctional nuclear family, circa 1183 AD.
That out of the way, let me say that the 2004 film was far more visually colorful than its ancestor, its sets grander, the twelfth-century more detailed, the recreation of the high era of the Age of Faith was notably loving in the hands of its superb crew. This motion picture was as gorgeous to look at as it was to watch. (Meaning the human cast often took bottom billing to the sheer might and intricacy of the setting.) If only the actors had held up their end as well, this might have done the near-impossible and surpassed all recent on-screen presentations of the Medieval world.
Sadly, the weakness lies in The Lion in Winter's casting and acting. Patrick Stewart, a masterful thespian with a commanding voice, a great actor under most circumstances, was, I'm astonished to see myself write, among the most glaring trouble spots in the presentation. Stewart was simply wrong as Henry II. He chose to portray England's most volatile king with a light, comedic merriness that delivered a great man as an unbelievable braggart. And though no Hepburn, Glenn Close was also sub-par as Eleanor, yet I found her a better match for her part than Patrick Stewart was as Henry II. And was it just me or did it often seem Close was trying to give her best Hepburn impression in this role? Better a good Close than a bad Hepburn, as an acting coach might say.
A cast member I did enjoy watching was Julia Vysotsky, as Alyse, sister of the king of France, mistress of Henry, the father of her one-time betrothed. Vysotsky is a lovely Russian actress who did a French accent well and played her part with the right mix of delicate vulnerability and covert viciousness, one moment decrying her circumstances as a pawn in the game of politics, the next urging Henry to exterminate his sons then and there on Christmas Day. Male viewers, lesbians, and assorted connoisseurs of the female form will be pleasantly surprised at her topless scene and find it a plus that it came so close to the start of the movie.
The one person I truly wish had not been in this movie at all is Jonathan Rhys-Meyers, as King Philippe Auguste. I have liked this actor well enough in other roles, notably the one in Woody Allen's Match Point, but here Rhys-Meyers plays one of France's great monarchs while looking like some sort of post-modern Jesus and acting like a present-day Hollywood enfant terrible. The way he repeatedly releases his seething "take-me-seriously-damn-you" anger makes him seem bratty and silly, unlike Timothy Dalton's handling of the part in the 1960's production with his frigidly contained hatred of the Plantagenet's being a distantly frightening thing to behold. Rhys-Meyers did have a brilliant moment, however, when he is seen smugly chuckling to himself from his chair across the great hall of Chinon as he watches Richard and John, two future kings, bickering over who will succeed their still-living father, and one can all but read Phillipe's mind as his notions of Gallic superiority are once more reinforced. In witnessing the pettiness of the two rivals, Philippe becomes all the more certain that to attain his eventual victory over England, all he need do is outlive Henry, and wait...
Another brief but impressive moment unique to this version of The Lion In Winter came early on when the camera panned back from a by then emptying great hall to show Henry's crown lying alone on a table, and it was striking how up close the object of so much ambition looked like such a small battered thing unworthy of all the fuss over it, as if someone somewhere was commenting on what a paltry thing a kingship is.
A final, smarmy note is that the cast of the 2004 Lion In Winter was nearly all English, and I expect this was made so in order to lend a certain authenticity to a story set among feuding claimants to the English throne, and yet the irony is if authenticity was sought, French accents might have been more apt, since Henry, Eleanor, and their sons, including the fabled Richard the Lionhearted of Robin Hood fame, were all French, not English, and even the setting for the play, Chinon Castle, is in France, near the Loire River. (And still standing to this day.)
The 2004 version of The Lion In Winter stands well on its own but suffers in comparison to its predecessor. It's worth the long run time and contains some nice moments. It's visually appealing and in a few moments does get a little boring, but I think anyone who loves this ingenious story and the period in which it's set will quickly forgive these flaws. I'm glad it was made, and I'm glad I got to see it after having it on my list for several years.
Movie Review: The Lion in Winter Was Asleep
Summary: 2 Stars
I gave this version of this excellent play two stars solely for the quality of the staging but this film is SLOW. While it is well acted, with excellent cinematography and set design, the director has done a very poor job because it drags and drags and lacks any of the crispness of the original. In fact I didn't even finish watching it. Close and Stewart played Henry and Eleanor as truly estranged enemies who were sincerely plotting each other's destruction. This may have been closer to the historical truth (but who really knows?)but it simply wasn't fun or interesting. The play rests entirely on the repartee between Eleanor and Henry and the rapier wit of the two but alas this was missing in this version. The entire film was stagey and filled with pregnant pauses which killed the pace and wit. The Hepburn O'Toole version is much better because it is filmed in a more intimate way plus Hepburn and O'Toole play the characters as truly loving each other but people who cannot stop being King and Queen with totally different agendas. The Lion2 was a big disappointment.Movie Review: Lion in Winter
Summary: 4 Stars
Good movie, same lines as the original with Peter O'tool, supporting cast was rather weak. Richard was badly cast, as was the young King of France. The poor armor was really fake looking. But overall, the lead characters of Henry and Eleanor made the movie worth watching.Movie Review: A let down
Summary: 1 Stars
I'll admit that I'm a huge fan of the original. Having said that, I did try to watch Lion2 without prejudice. However, it was so bad that comparisons were just inevitable. One disclaimer: I couldn't finish watching this movie. It was that bad.
The plot itself: Yes, there were some changes but nothing major. Some of the speeches were done in different places in the original (most of Geoffrey's lines). I didn't find anything wrong with that at all.
Patrick Stewart as Henry II: I really only got this movie because of him. I love him as an actor and his roles are always played well. Except for this. His lines were delivered flippantly. He played it like it was a tongue-in-cheek rendition.
Glenn Close as Eleanor: Her acting was just bad. She didn't seem to care about anything either. It was as if she memorized the lines but didn't understand what they meant, so the delivery was flat. The lines needed a underlying venom or bite that was sadly lacking.
The boys: Richard was just bad casting. He was a weasely looking guy and he just came across as mean and surly. There was no range with this character. Geoffrey was close to right. In his case it was just that he wasn't John Castle. Prince John was just plain bad. You could actually tell that he was trying to act. He was supposed to be a snivelling schemer, but the guy who played him in Lion2 played him as a buffoon.
Actually, throughout the movie the actors were either quoting their lines by rote or they were fumbling along. There was no FEELING anywhere or for anything, yet the events that transpired were supposed to be vitally important to all of them.
In the original, you could feel the love/hate between all the characters, especially Henry and Eleanor. It was palpable. In Lion2 there really is no emotion.
As some have already stated, you could see that this whole production was done on a hollywood set. The original was dark and dank, like you would expect a medieval castle to be. In Lion2 everything was fairly bright and cheery. It set the wrong mood.
To sum up, on it's own Lion2 is just not very well acted. Compared to the original, however, it's a travesty. I would suggest skipping this one and seeing the original.