The Lion in Winter
|
List Price: Our Price: $12.99 You Save: $1.99 (13%) Availability: Usually ships in 24 hours Buy Used: from $2.99 (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: 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: The play's the thing
Summary: 3 Stars
"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 honors 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 Matinee Dinner Theater feeling.
Movie Review: Fantasic!
Summary: 5 Stars
I've watched this many times and I just enjoy it more and more. It certainly has differences, but Glenn Close and Patrick Stewart pull of an amazing performance. If you are tired of computer-generated movies and a lot of speacil effects this is for you. The acting is suberb and I would reccomend this to anyone who wants to see acting at its finest!Movie Review: Don't waste your time...
Summary: 2 Stars
No matter who is in the cast, it would be hard to outshine the Peter O'Toole/Katherine Hepburn "Lion in Winter" -- even if Hepburn is Hepburn as always.
This new version comes nowhere near. Visually it's somewhat better -- the detail on costumes, props, and sets is fascinating. But poor Patrick Stewart, poor Glenn Close (who I normally adore!), poor cast -- abysmal. The three princes are awful, and Jonathan Rys-Myers -- well, he should have passed on this one. He's very talented, but it doesn't show here.
I have to confess I didn't even finish watching it. It just doesn't work. This is another remake that should never have been remade!
Movie Review: Good, but not great
Summary: 3 Stars
I'm such a big fan of the 1968 version, I was really leery of watching this, but I'm not sorry I did. The costumes and the castle of Chinon are wonderful, the historical details are superb. I thought Glenn Close was every bit as good as Katherine Hepburn; they are different actresses of course, but I admired Glenn Close's performance just as much. I really liked Jonathan Rhys-Meyers as King Philip -- his performance is excellent. And I appreciated the way all the characters delivered their lines in this teleplay -- for the most part, their delivery was natural, and the words flowed like actual conversation; less like a "play", with more "reality".
BUT. I had a problem with Patrick Stewart's performance. It's good enough, as far as performances go. I kept trying not to compare it with Peter O'Toole's, but I missed that triumphant bellowing, the presence, the "oomph". I thought Patrick Stewart was a little too down-key; perhaps too reserved. He has such a marvelous voice, I would have liked him to use it to its best effect. In the quiet scenes, he's OK but he really needed to turn on the juice for the anger, the hurt at John's betrayal, etc.
Unfortunately, I didn't care for the actors who played Richard, Geoffrey & John. None of these performances stood out, except perhaps the Geoffrey character was successful in showing the hurt he suffered from his parents' ignoring him all his life. He was twisted (as he's referred to in the teleplay) by this neglect, and at least you had the sense of that from this performance. But on a whole, the actors who played the sons in the 1968 film gave much better performances.
All in all, I liked this teleplay, but I loved the 1968 version. That's the one I have to wholeheartedly recommend.