A Different Vision, But Still A Great One
Added 12/5/2008
Any depiction of The Lion in Winter must inevitably be compared with the magnificent 1968 production starring Peter O'Toole and Katherine Hepburn. This version starring Patrick Stewart and Glenn Close has some significant departures from the 1969 gold standard, but nevertheless manages to be a superb dramatization in its own right.
Its Christmas, 1183, and King Henry II of England has called his family together for a happy holiday season. The problem is, he has his wife Eleanor of Aquitaine in prison, and she and their three sons Richard, Geoffrey, and John, are all thirsting for power. The King is growing old (he was to die in 1187) and he wants his youngest son John to succeed him. Eleanor's favorite is their oldest son Richard, while the middle boy Geoffrey is biding his time and waiting for his chance. Adding to the complications is the presence of Princess Alais of France, who was supposed to marry Richard but who has become King Henry's mistress, and her brother King Philip of France, 18 years old but already a master of intrigue and deceit.
While this version lacks some of the fabulous chemistry and sparkle provided by O'Toole and Hepburn, it makes up for it by the deeper, more somber interaction of Stewart and Close. This version doesn't make me laugh as much as the 1968 version does, but it definitely has an even deeper sense of gravitas and irony. Both dramatizations are superb, and my advice is to buy both and watch them on successive nights.
2 out of 2 people found this helpful.
|
I had nearly worn out my original copy of Lion in Winter. I am a huge fan of Patrick Stewart, but had no idea this copy existed until I looked to replace my run-down vhs copy. As much as I love Patrick Stewart's work, and have all the faith in the world in his ability to bring out the best and the worst of characters, this would be a test. How could anyone (even Patrick Stewart and Glenn Close) compare with the phenomenal performances of Peter O'Toole and Katherine Hepburn? They couldn't, and they didn't. What they did was to recreate the roles in a style entirely their own. The script is essentially unchanged. The sets are a bit more elaborate. The performances are spectacular. I think Patrick Stewart managed better to create his own Henry than Gleen Close did with Eleanor. I should have liked to see Close really open up and not try so hard to meet the standard set by Hepburn. The early going has a lighter approach the the original version. I don't think that the chemistry of the first film could ever be matched. In the end, however, the characters play well off of each other. When Patrick Stewart unleashes the force of Henri's grief, the effect is absolutely wrenching. For the cast, overall, I think the only role I repeatedly missed in this performance was Anthony Hopkins' version of Richard.
In every way as dramatic, as painful, and as entertaining as the original, this "new" Lion in Winter is definitely a keeper! If I had to choose now which performance I prefer, I doubt I could. As a matter of fact, I now own them both on dvd.
1 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
The Lion In Winter
Added 9/14/2008
A different view froim the O'Toole/Hepburn classic but very well acted and still as engrossing
1 out of 2 people found this helpful.
|
Proves the original is still the best...
Added 6/24/2008
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).
1 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
Last week I had the pleasure of viewing for the third time the original Lion in Winter, and decided to check out this newer version. See my review of the original, which of course I rated 5 stars as well, for my thoughts on that. IMO,the new production is different. Not better, not worse, just different.
Glenn Close and Patrick Stewart are both fine actors who are well suited to playing their roles as royalty. Both turned in subtle, restrained performances that do credit to both themselves and the play, never allowing overbearing grandness and arrogance to obscure the humanity of their characters. Having read widely on the subject of their lives, I believe that both Eleanor and Henry were consummate power players, capable of using either bullying or beguilement as the situation required. Close and Stewart display emotion from one end of that range to the other. It's often said that love and hatred are opposite sides of the same coin, and that is certainly apparent here, between husband and wife as well as parents and children.
The supporting cast in the new Lion is also strong, though you have to wonder if the original John was really as worthless and repulsive a toady as he appears on screen.(Eleanor was certainly correct in her assessment of his kingly potential!) The other production values are stunning, with accurately researched costuming and good contrast between the richness of the interior and the dirt and squalor of the exterior settings. It was striking to watch for the servants, who performed their duties nearly invisibly, as would have been expected.
This is a movie worth watching, though a tolerance for talk over action is required. Goldman's dialog is timeless, every bit as witty, stinging, and touching as ever.
6 out of 6 people found this helpful.
|
