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: A near miss
Summary: 4 Stars
The 1968 screen version of THE LION IN WINTER (Lion1) is the most excellent film I've ever seen, or likely will see in my lifetime. But, I've a lot to say about various aspects of this new version (Lion2), so I'd better get on with it. I'll make an effort to be evenhanded.
First, a concise history lesson in the context of the film.
King Henry II of England is also overlord of Wales, Scotland, Ireland, and half of France. Henry keeps his wife Eleanor, the Duchess of Aquitaine and the former first wife of King Louis VII of France, under house arrest in Salisbury Castle for revolting against him. In better times, Henry and Eleanor had, in addition to three daughters, five sons: (in order of birth) William, Henry, Richard, Geoffrey, and John. William died at age three. Henry, the anointed heir, died aged 28 in the summer of 1183. It's now the Yuletide season of that year, and Henry II is holding Christmas court at his French stronghold, Castle Chinon. (To be accurate, there's no record of a Christmas court at Chinon in 1183, but that's irrelevant to the essential theme and tone of the story.) Joining him are his surviving sons and, released from confinement for the festive occasion, Queen Eleanor. An aging Henry wishes to cement his succession. His favorite is John. Eleanor's is Richard. Geoffrey, nobody's favorite, maneuvers to get what he can. Complicating the gathering is the presence of Princess Alais and King Phillip II of France. Alais, Louis VII's daughter by his second wife, was betrothed to Richard by treaty between Henry and Louis when she was but a child. Alais has been living at the English court for years, and is Henry's mistress. Phillip, aged 18 and King since 1180, is Louis VII's son by a third wife. Phillip either wants the marriage of Alais and Richard to take place, or Alais's dowry, the French province of the Vexin, back. Phillip hates the English monarch, and will use Henry's sons against him any way he can. The holiday skullduggery is so thick as can be pierced with a backstabbing dirk.
The music score is positively anemic compared to John Barry's original. Of particular note in Lion1 are the vaguely menacing "Main Title" that serves as introduction to the destructive passions in the plot, the elegant "Eleanor's Arrival", which accompanies her regal progress up river by open boat to Chinon, and the finale - "We're Jungle Creatures" - that underscores the approaching end to Henry's reign, but the beginning of the great Plantagenet dynasty.
Costuming and sets are too pretty and finished. In Lion1, the interior of Chinon is gloomy, cold, rough-hewn, and smoky (from the torches) - perhaps to be expected in a 12th century pile. And the clothing, even for the royals, wasn't elegant by any stretch. (My favorite scene in the original has Henry casually throwing on a crown and royal cloak over otherwise plain garb before striding through the mud, dogs, chickens and peasants in the castle courtyard to greet the arriving Phillip.) In Lion2, the costumes are too fine and the castle interior, especially the main circular staircase, is too obviously a film set.
The dialogue, perhaps the best ever heard on the Big Screen, is virtually the same in the two productions. However, the nuances from facial expressions, body language, and timing raise Lion1 to the realm of the sublime.
The scripted action is also pretty much identical in both, except for three unnecessary sequences: an opening scene of Eleanor's failed rebellion in 1174, a silly shot of Richard riding his horse up Chinon's circular stairs, and another of Richard attempting to escape house arrest by rappelling down Chinon's walls.
And how about the acting?
In Lion2, Yuliya Vysotskaya as Alais is at least the equal of Jane Merrow's original. Yuliya presents as a slightly stronger personality, and it doesn't hurt that she resembles a blonde Audrey Hepburn. And the new Phillip (Jonathan Rhys-Meyers) does a different and perhaps improved take on a relative youngster striving to be a King in the face of the formidable Henry, whereas Timothy Dalton in the role came across with the unscrupulous venom of a misplaced older man.
Rafe Spall as the latter-day John occasionally overacts, in my opinion, almost to the point of parody, unlike Nigel Terry's right-on portrayal of the pathetic youngest Prince. John Light is relatively sphinx-like as the contemporary Geoffrey compared to the sardonic and clever schemer revealed by John Castle. Andrew Howard as the new Richard, whatever the real-life man may have been like, didn't strike me as Lionheart material. The superficial trouble was the actor's unimposing voice. Anthony Hopkin's Richard, I think, would've wiped up the floor with the new guy.
Lion1 starred Peter O'Toole and Katherine Hepburn as Henry and Eleanor. Both received Oscar nominations, and the latter won her category. Only in the last third of Lion2, with Patrick Stewart as Henry and Glenn Close as Eleanor, does the power of their paired performance achieve that of Peter's and Kate's tour de force. Stewart and Close seem too amused with the familial dysfunction of their characters, almost playing them for laughs, especially in the early going. Whatever humor the audience perceives in the dialogue - and there's much, the real Henry and Eleanor, and O'Toole and Hepburn, squabbled over the succession with deadly seriousness. Also, Lion2 portrays both as white-haired ancients. In fact, Henry was only 51 at the time, though Eleanor was 11 years older.
Had I not seen Lion1, I would've given Lion2 five stars. But the former is so superlative in all respects that I cannot.
Finally, let's return to the historical record. A weary Henry, perhaps the greatest of England's monarchs, died of illness in July 1189, two days after being forced by the allied Richard and Phillip to accept humiliating terms ending a war. Richard succeeded to the throne, to be followed by John in 1199. (Geoffrey had died in 1186). Eleanor survived until 1202. John lost virtually all of his father's vast French holdings to Phillip. Alais returned to France to wed another.
Movie Review: Fantastic!
Summary: 5 Stars
I just finished watching this. This is so much better than the 1968 movie. Patrick and Glenn are much closer in age than the 1968 version. Even though Henry was younger, he wasn't that much younger than Eleanor as portrayed in the 1968 version. Both actors gave a 3D performance and their range and depth of character was incredible. Patrick is a dynamic performer and Glenn was certainly up to the challange. This performance is also complete. The 1968 version is a scaled down version of the play. Both characters were much more in line with history. My wife, a historian, is a direct descendant of Eleanor and Henry and this performance was indeed scrutinized. If you want a classic, get the 1968 version. If you want the real thing, get this one. You won't be disappointed in the powerful performances of ALL of the actors. It is a true emsemble of performers playing off of each other in an intense and rivoting way. This performance kept me on the edge of my chair continually. Movie Review: A good effort.
Summary: 3 Stars
The original Lion in Winter is one of my all time favorite films, which is odd because, except for rare occasions, I never much cared for either Katherine Hepburn or Peter O'Toole. So, when I saw this new version of the movie on the movie rental shelves, I was rather excited as I like both Patrick Stewart and Glen Close a lot.
The film was, unfortunately, a disappointment. Close and Stewart both do well, their timing isn't as impeccable as O'Toole's and Hepburn's, so the film loses some of it's humor, but they do manage to make the parts their own. Jonathon Rhys-Meyers is VERY good as King Phillip and better, in fact, than the original. Also better than her original incarnation is the actress who plays Alice (I'm not sure if that's the correct spelling of her name), she's much stronger than the original girl and makes her role more important.
Where the film really fails is in the boys. First of all none of them seem to have any relationship with their parents. The first film had the feeling of a family squabble over the holidays. This one is more of a love story between Close and Stewart with Alice in the middle. The boys and Phillip seem incidental and though that is the point of Phillip's character it should not be so of the brothers. Also, how the boys are played is a problem. Richard is not likeable and though it's mentioned that he writes poems and that is played up in his character is the war side. When Henry claims Richard was the best I'm a bit dubious as in this version Geoff seems to be, which also shows a failure in how the film makers percieved Geoffrey's character. I think perhaps they felt sympathetic towards him because no one loved him, but I feel no one loved him for a reason, which never comes across in this version. As for John his main problem is just that the actors to old to be believable in the role.
The other main problem with this version is that it's soooo slow. It takes ages for it to get its audience interested and even then it just sort of meanders towards its conclusion. I don't know if this is the fault of editing or what. I know at the beginning it's the fault of too many scene changes, a problem with which most play-to-movie adaptions are fraught.
I'd also like to say that the computer matt-paintings for the outdoor shots and exterior shots of the castle are just awful as is the case in everything Hallmarks has made since and including Gulliver's Travels. This is a problem that's easy to overlook, however.
Ultimately, the movie is interesting despite being slow and it's fun to watch Close and Stewart especially towards the end. The best scene is credited to Close in which she's trying on her jewels after her first defeat and she joined one by one by her children. She really made you feel for her.
I've given the movie three stars, which, to me, means it's definately worth watching once, but not buying.
Movie Review: Dark historical drama
Summary: 4 Stars
This dark historical drama set in 1183 is a far cry from most of the 2003 Oscar Nominees and Winners, except perhaps for Master and Commander and Girl With A Pearl Earring,two historical dramas. It concerns King Henry II of England who meets with his jailed wife, three ambitious sons, and the new King Philip of France at Chinon in France over Christmas to decide the accession to the throne and the dividing up of Henry's considerable lands among his heirs. There is considerable conniving among the lead characters, since the stakes are so high, and neither the mother nor her three sons are very loyal to their father. Eleanor of Aquitaine was particularly noteworthy for siding with her sons in their claims against their father. Various plots and alliances are hatched while the unfaithful Henry continues his affair with young Alys, sister of the French King, whom he offers as a pawn in his game of divide and conquer.
I found this to be a stimulating remake of the Katherine Hepburn film,which I haven't seen.Both Glenn Close and Patrick Stewart seem highly involved in their roles throughout. Eleanor in the course of the dialogue reviews the course of her marriage with Henry II from her teenage years when she was married to the King of France and possibly slept with Henry's father. Their rocky relationship has its ups and downs in the course of the film, ending on a positive tone. But there are scenes with Eleanor insulting her husband's masculinity as he contemplates taking a new wife to produce an heir, for example, claiming he has no sons, and she also threatens him with the distinct possibility that at one time she slept with his father. At times Henry seems to favor his youngest son John, and Eleanor favors Richard, but these alliances do not last and eventually all three sons end up in the dungeon. If you have tried to enjoy Shakespearean drama but have found it somewhat inaccessible, I think you will enjoy this film which is quite accessible to the general public. Of course it helps to have some knowledge of history.
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?