The Lion in Winter (2003)

Save your money for something good and enjoyable

Awesome Movie

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

One thing is fore sure: it takes some serious guts to remake a classic like Lion in Winter. That is especially true for Glenn Close, who dares to take on the role of Eleanore, which earned Katherine Hepburn her fourth academy award in the 1968 original.Somewhat surprisingly, I actually found this installment to be the better of the two. The story, very briefly, unfolds at King Henry II's Christmas court where his imprisoned wife, his warring sons and the King of France are present. The entire action is confined to a few days and concerns the machinations and intrigues surrounding the selection of Henry's heir. It's a film that is almost entirely carried by the characters and their various weird interrelations, although the costumes and the castle are actually really nice, especially considering that it was made for TV.Patrick Steward can truly shine here and one is duly reminded that he is a Shakespearean actor and not just the captain of the Enterprise. He is a much more nuanced and also humane Henry and makes Peter o'Tool in the 1968 installment look like a bone-headed brute. He makes it believable that he favors John, which I never quite understood in the original. Glenn Close's performance is also top notch and the chemistry between her and Steward is perfect. The reals standout performance for me however was Jonathan Rhys Meyers as the young king Philip of France. His portrayal of the spoiled kid become king is spot on and sometimes incredibly funny.The only reason I am not giving the full 10 stars here is actually the script. While it is fun to watch the scheming up to a point, I found it to be a bit too much towards the very end.All together however, this made for TV movie is a real treat.

It's a pity that this was made AFTER the film, rather than before it. As a television production of a stage play it holds up reasonably well. As a remake of a classic - and not really very old - film, it constitutes a serious disappointment.I do not automatically hate remakes. The classic Bela Lugosi Dracula was a remake. So was Charlton Hestion's Ben Hur. The remake of Ocean's Eleven is better than the original, because the stars of the original were goofing off. However, a remake should offer something new over the original. Sound. Color. Special Effects. A great star who has a new interpretation of the old role. Ideally, a remake should have more than one of these things, and - sadly - this one doesn't.Patrick Stewart does have a new take on Henry ... at least a little. His Henry is less compulsive, more comfortable, less driven. Had Glen Close shifted her Elanor to match the results might have been interesting. Unfortunately Ms. Close gives the impression that she has been watching the original for some months, nonstop. She not so much plays Elanor of Aquitane as she plays Katherine Hepburn playing Elanor. One of the other reviews here remarked that at times you could imagine that Elanor's lines were being spoken by Ms. Hepburn, and that's true but it isn't a plus. Ms. Close delivers her lines very much as Ms. Hepburn did, and if Mr. Stewart had played Henry the way Mr. O'Toole did it might have worked. Since Stewart is not playing Henry in the same way that O'Toole did, the result is somewhat jarring at times.As for the rest; the young man playing Phillip cannot begin to match the young Timothy Dalton, nor the remake's Richard come close to Hopkins's interpretation. John is a mess, but John is written as a mess in the play, so it is hard to say who to blame. Lastly, Geoffrey lacks the sardonic power of the original. It's too bad.

...not quite as good as the original with Peter O'Toole and Katherine Hepburn. The acting isn't quite up to par for the majority of the cast. The emotional side of the characters did not come through in the performances, even during dialog that one would normally expect to see some sort of outburst. Patrick Stewart and Glenn Close play their parts excellently, as usual. However, their timing and delivery pale in comparison to that of Peter and Kate. Throw in a supporting cast that includes Anthony Hopkins(Richard) and Timothy Dalton(Phillip) and you can see why this film earned Kate an Oscar. All in all a good effort, but I'll stick with the original recipe.

Doesn't anyone remember the stage version of The Lion in Winter? Rosemary Harris was absolutely terrific, and while Hepburn nails a wonderful performance in the '68 film, neither Peter O'Toole or Patrick Stewart can hold a candle to the strong and powerful performance of Robert Preston (yes "The Music Man") on Broadway. Some of the earlier comments are worth re-emphasizing: remakes have to be viewed with suspicion because they are excuses for originality ("if it was good the first time, it's going to be better the second" -- is that dumb or what?). Also, there is a tendency to try to improve on the original, although I'm glad they didn't monkey too much with the script in the Close/Stewart version (the vision of remaking "To Kill a Mockingbird" is horribly scary to say the least).