Actuakers One of my all time favorites.

GrimPrecise I'll tell you why so serious

Platicsco Good story, Not enough for a whole film

Fatma Suarez The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

carly7-1 I really am a big fan of both Glenn Close and especially Patrick Stewart, but Katherine Hepburn and Peter O'Toole are just too tough an act to follow. While both performances are fine, you just don't get the sensation of tired antagonism from these two as you did O'Toole and Hepburn. For myself, the supporting cast could not hold a candle to the original as well. Again, when you've got Anthony Hopkins and Christopher Dalton in the original, this version just doesn't hold up. In the '68 version, you are on an emotional roller coaster of emotion with each characters victories and defeats (which seems to happen every other paragraph). This isn't a bad film, and if the original never existed I'd be satisfied watching it, but the original does exist and in doing so renders this film somewhat watered down in comparison.

Laura I've never seen the original ALIW with Hepburn, so I wasn't able to make comparisons there. I did see a stage version, years ago at my old university, so I was familiar with the plot and characters.Patrick Stewart and Glenn Close have wonderful chemistry. I freely admit that I could watch Stewart sit on a chair and read from the phone book, but he makes an absolutely commanding Henry II. Close is alternately domineering and fragile, but always riveting. Their separate scenes are elegant, but they shine most when they play off of each other; Henry and Eleanor have a fascinating dynamic, and the interaction between husband and wife is dazzling.I was less enamored with the performances of the three English princes. Andrew Howard's Richard was done well enough, particularly the scenes where he was portraying softer emotions. John Light's Geoffrey didn't seem quite right to me, but that may not be his own fault; the actor who played Geoffrey in the stage version I saw was a friend of mine, so my opinion of the character will forever be biased. Rafe Spall's John was utterly appalling -- but he was supposed to be, so does the fact that I absolutely loathed him mean he was brilliant? Yuliya Vysotskaya was a luminous Alais. She has a splendid range and presence, and I wish she would do more acting projects that would let her be seen in the U.S. She has a charming ethereal quality when the script calls for it, yet can be equally hard as needed.For me, though, the best performance was that of Jonathan Rhys-Meyers, who I found utterly captivating as King Philip of France. He steals every scene in which he appears, and gives the young King just the right balance of anger, slyness, contemplation, and humor. (And let's be honest, he's not really hard on the eyes either.) On the whole, I couldn't bring myself to stop watching the movie until it was over, and it's definitely one I would be happy to watch again.

ichbing ...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.

Dick Blust Some films should simply not be remade, and The Lion in Winter is among them. The writer cannot be blamed; after all, it's Goldman's original script, almost word for word. The culprits are the director and the actors, laboring so hard to craft every scene and deliver every line differently than in the O'Toole-Hepburn version that they just lose their way. (The Charlton Heston version of A Man for All Seasons, another remake that should never have been, suffers from the same thing.) There are other problems; on one hand, (in theory, at least), while Stewart and Close could have been perfect casting choices as Henry and Eleanor, the rest of the cast just don't appear comfortable or confident in their roles and it shows. Masterpieces should be left alone; I only hope no one ever gets any bright ideas about To Kill a Mockingbird.