Forumrxes
Yo, there's no way for me to review this film without saying, take your *insert ethnicity + "ass" here* to see this film,like now. You have to see it in order to know what you're really messing with.
HotToastyRag
Picture, if you will, Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? set in 1100s England, and instead of dinner guests, the lead couple bickers with their adult children. Now replace Liz and Dick with Katharine Hepburn and Peter O'Toole. That's The Lion in Winter.In 1183, King Henry II is in the winter of his life. He has his heart set on leaving the throne to his youngest son, but his wife Eleanor of Aquitaine wants their eldest son to inherit. For years, Henry has imprisoned the queen in a faraway castle, only letting her out for royal functions and holidays. During Christmas, she's brought home, and the two rulers play a nonstop game of cat and mouse, constantly trying to outsmart and out-hurt the other. With their three sons and the visiting king of France as pawns, it's an incredibly lively story.Peter O'Toole reprises his role as Henry II; he'd already played him four years earlier in Becket. He gives a wonderful, emotional, frustrated performance, but in the stiff competition for Best Actor in 1969, he lost to the unworthy performance of Cliff Robertson in Charly. It's tough to pick which loss is more appalling, The Lion in Winter or Becket. In either case, and even though I'm sure Richard Burton would have been just as good if not better in this role, Peter O'Toole is impressive. The sons are played by Anthony Hopkins, John Castle, and Nigel Terry. It was Anthony Hopkins's second theatrical film, and Timothy Dalton's first; Tim was very touched that Kate would come onto the set on her days off to act with him when he did his closeups and her presence wasn't technically needed. There's an awful lot of touching trivia relating to this film. Peter and Kate enjoyed each other's company on the set, having known each other for years earlier; Peter named his daughter after her. And speaking of descendants, Katharine Hepburn's lineage can actually be traced back to Eleanor and Henry II! The art and production designs are fantastic in the film. The castle is expansive, but the rooms are mostly empty. The thrones look worn and slightly coarse, and the jewelry looks rich but primitive. Margaret Furse's costumes are in mostly dark, muted colors, and they look very authentic. Furs and large swaths of linen are draped over the actors' shoulders; there are no ornately sewn gowns because in the 1100s, lavish clothes couldn't really have been created.And finally, there's Katharine Hepburn, who won her third Best Actress Oscar for the film. She vacillates between angry, hurt, cunning, desperate, hopeful, loving, deceitful, and exhausted, and each emotional change takes the audience with her. At times she'll make you laugh and at times she'll make you cry. You'll be kept on your toes, unsure of who to trust or root for, but it'll be worth it. After all, as Kate said in the film, "Every family has their ups and downs."
Alessandro Vincinni
These days you can find much better historical films, and I don't mean Hollywood blockbusters. This film feels very weird, it is an obvious attempt to create a "great" historical play worthy of the great bard, however the result is a poor mock-up. The standard recipe followed by the script is to portray "complicated" characters, who change their mind every minute like a wind and go from quiet to yelling all the time. This mess should be interpreted as a chess game of plots and intrigues. It is also weird to see that king Henry II played by O'Toole runs around the castle like a village kid. It is just not believable that this chap holds in fear two countries and all his family. Hepburn is overacting and predictable. Hopkins as Richard is a disaster unless you want to believe that he was a soul searching majordomo. John is portrayed like a young imbecile, exactly like in a later Disney's cartoon "Robin Hood", who for some crazy reason should inherit the crown.If you want to see a real historical/theatrical drama with a similar plot, but where characters are portrayed much more realistically I would recommend "Louis XI: Shattered Power".
Bernard Juby
I have given this film 7 out of 10 mainly because of the location scenes and the costumes. Generally the acting was superb but totally marred for me by the horrendous mistake of casting Katherine Hepburn as Queen Eleanor of Aquitaine. OK - she can act - BUT a medieval French lady with a broad American drawl totally spoilt most of her scenes. In the version that I have there are 9 subtitle languages but no English in sight. What an oversight, especially when conversations get heated and background noise is rather intrusive. Very disappointing for those who are increasingly hard of hearing. With all of that plotting going on it's a marvel that many of them lived so long!
Jugu Abraham
It is a film of stunning performances, delightful jugglery of words (thanks to playwright John Goldman) and a very deserving Oscar-winning musical score of John Barry. It also marked the debut of Anthony Hopkins and Timothy Dalton (a former James Bond). The problems of the film lie elsewhere--anachronisms in spoken words of the play. Syphilis was not known in 1183 AD, at least by that name. Queen Eleanor's son could not have "seen" her "pictures" when she was young. The boats shown in the film are too sophisticated in engineering for 1183 AD. And there is no blood in the entire film with so many killings with swords and knives, And why did director Anthony Harvey have to show the statues with chipped noses and ears in the opening credits? But the film is amazing despite all its flaws. And O'Toole deserved the Oscar he was denied in this film.
