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 $1.94 (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: 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: Watch it for Stewart and the costuming
Summary: 3 Stars
When I was a kid, my high school put on a rendition of Henry V that I actually was pretty impressed with...until I happened to watch Kenneth Branagh's movie version and realized that my school's drama teacher had just lifted all the major elements straight out of that, and told his students to copy those actors' performances. I never went to another school play after making the discovery.
I have had a similar difficulty with Glen Close after watching this movie. The O'Toole and Hepburn version is on my very short list of very fine movies, so it didn't take me long to discover that Close was just marking Katharine Hepburn's performance from beginning to end. She did absolutely nothing original with the role. I'm so disappointed in her!
On the other hand, I must congratulate Patrick Stewart for creating a version of Henry II that is subtly but profoundly separate from Peter O'Toole's. He's quite a different man actually: his words have different emphasis, his actions different motivations. It must be very hard work to stay out of the shadow of such an excellent predecessor, as Close's failure demonstrates; but then again Stewart has had plenty of experience at this in the Royal Shakespeare Company. I've never seen him in one of those roles, but will definitely try: I was that impressed with his work in The Lion In Winter.
In the end I simply can't recommend this movie to others unless they have first seen the 1968 version so they will know what to be impressed with. Also Stewart's and O'Toole's interpretations of Henry inform each other when experienced side by side, and together help round out a very complex fictional character.
Oh, also this version is quite a lot better LOOKING than the 1968 one. I'm thinking the costumers had actually been looking at some 12th century miniatures. At least in terms of color.
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.
Movie Review: Though not a masterpiece, a movie worth watching!
Summary: 3 Stars
The story unfolds a few years before the Third Crusade a.k.a. the Kings' Crusade (1189-1192). It is 1183; France is split between the kings of England and France respectively. While the English crown is in the hands of Henry II, he grows old and his three surviving sons (Richard, Geoffrey, and John) grow restless and eager for the throne. Things get a bit more complicated when their mother Eleanor of Aquitaine also gets involved in the schemes of succession.
On the positive side: a) it is a good plot and the acting is above average, b) the setting and costumes are excellent, and c) there is a wonderful feel of History; the clash between the English and the French is fascinating and very well presented throughout the film, as is the clash within the royal family.
On the negative side: a) one could say it is way too "theatrical," even for a film that it is based on a play, b) it does get to be very slow at times, c) everyone within the family seems to be overly self-centered and selfish; there are no "good guys," none whatsoever...
In short, though not a masterpiece, The Lion in Winter is a movie worth watching!
History, Intrigue, and Drama are all about.
Strongly recommended to those who love History and Western European History in particular. 3½ Stars
Movie Review: Proves the original is still the best...
Summary: 3 Stars
Anyone who's viewed the classic original "The Lion in Winter" understands the fabled nuance and timing of the greats Hepburn and O'Toole. Glenn Close and Patrick Stewart are exceptional contemporary actors, but they fall short in the witty repartee so evident in the original "TLIW."
The supporting cast members are barely worth mentioning (with the exception of the exquisite Jonathan Rhys Meyers-his portrayal of King Phillip is genius in its coy, cloying, emotionally manipulative aggressiveness). The actress who played Alais was utterly irritating with her grating accent and flouncing (as opposed to gracefully walking). The sons, Richard and Geoffrey, did an admirable job (although Richard showed a bit too much angst at times-he appeared to be an immature teenager instead of a grown man). Geoffrey had fine moments, but John was an absolute disaster! What should've been a character with a childish devotion to daddy dearest came across as an imbecilic moron.
This "TLIW" can't hold a candle to the original both in character depth, production design (it's a medieval castle-why is it so sparkling fresh and clean?) and direction. This was a 2.5 star effort (truthfully based on the widespread appeal of Rhys Meyers).