The Lion in Winter (2003 TV Movie) User Reviews

New adaptation for TV from classic film as brilliant as the original

[ma-cortes · 8/10 · 24 May 2006]

This splendid picture is set in Christmas 1183 , the medieval monarch Henry II (Patrick Stewart who also played Henry's son, Richard the Lionheart , in Robin Hood : Men in thighs , 1993) finds surrounded by astute and ambitious relatives who want to regain politic and egoistic rewards . The king pretends announce his heir and he invites his estranged wife Eleanor of Aquitaine (Glenn Close) imprisoned by conspiracy , there also comes the mean King Philip II of France (Jonathan Rhys Meyers) . Both of whom confront wits over the succession to the English throne and much else . The heir election between the three sons , the valiant Richard (Howard) , the opportunist Geoffrey (Light) and the the vain , useless John (Spall) to be originated intrigues , blackmails and hates . The grown brothers are fraught with tension , rapidly changing alliances and completed with a cutting edge psychological manipulation . In spite of possession a kingdom spread all Great Britain and halve France , there's one thing which Henry II never could to control : his own family .

The film is inspired by true events , thus occurred certainly the sons' rebellion incited by Queen Eleanor of Aquitaine for the marriage to King Henry II inherited the occidental France ; however , the coup failed and Henry ordered her entry into a convent but she was freed when died Henry and then Richard Lionheart was crowned until the third crusade (intervening along with Philip II and Richard conquered Acre) when was crowned John with no Land . This English domain over France will cause an overlong conflict known as ¨Hundred Years War¨ (1339-1453) . Besides , there appears famous knight William Marshall (Clive Wood) and is mentioned the enemy archbishop Thomas Becket whom ordered to kill (played in previous film by Richard Burton and again Henry II performed by Peter O'Toole) . Besides , Philip Augustus II Capeto (Jonathan Rhys Meyers) who truly combated Henry II and his sons Richard and John whom defeated in Bouvines(1214) battle .

This television movie is an excellent costumer drama with superb dialog and magnificently characterized medieval roles . Patrick Stewart and Glenn Close make triumphant characterizations . This is a brilliantly script-written picture , being rendered from his own play by James Goldman . The atmospheric and spectacular musical score being magnificently composed by Richard Hartley . Sensational production design by Roger Hall . The film was well directed by Andrei Konchalovsky (Siberiada). The flick will appeal to medieval drama buffs and historical cinema enthusiasts .

Worth seeing, some parts better than the original

[catherine_ell69 · 8/10 · 7 January 2004]

I enjoyed this. Though not quite up to the standard of the original it was still much better than many films. The script is still fast and witty. The production quality is not so high, they obviously did not have the same kind of budget as last time which shows occasionally in the sound and music quality. But this does not spoil ones enjoyment.

Prince John was not acted as well as last time but Henry's mistress (can't remember her name) was much better. In the original I could not see why Henry would be so taken by her - this girl was much more fascinating. The scenes between Henry (Patrick) and her were convincing.

I thought Patrick Stewart and Glen Close hit sparks off one another.

I could believe in these two as ex-husband and wife.

The French King was very different from the Timothy Dalton version but good in his own way.

Worth seeing and interesting to compare it with the original.

Battle of the wits

[Enchorde · 7/10 · 13 June 2009]

Recap: It is soon Christmas and Henry II decides to hold court at Chinon. There he intends to enforce his wish to crown his youngest son John as his heir and to make John marry Alais, a French princess and Henry's lover. Unfortunately, he is not the only one with interests in the succession. Both Richard and Geoffrey, John's elder brothers, want to be king. And the queen Eleonor, imprisoned by Henry since hers (and Richards and Geoffreys last uprising) has her own intentions. And then there is the young French king Philip that intends to enforce Henry's deal with Philip's father Louis that Alais should marry Richard. The game is set and there are too many players. The only thing to be sure about is that everyone looks out for themselves.

Comments: Set in the middle ages you almost think that they will solve every quarrel with swords, but this movie has almost none of it. Instead it his an entrenched battle of the wits with too many combatants so that no one never can be sure of who's trench they're in. Alliances are made and broken on a whim and everyone evolves around one thing. The throne. There are two main combatants, Henry and Eleonor, but the other has schemes of their own.

That makes for an interesting story. Everything is in motion. So even if it is long (originally a two piece series) it is never dull.

With no action to speak of, and the intrigue being all in words it is important that the characters is believable and all the pressure is on the actors. And they come through with flying colors. Both Stewart and Close are solid veterans, but they get strong support from all the others. No character, except for one, and that is the major flaw of the movie, is shallow or simple. All characters are deep, complex. There are secrets and hidden motives that evolve and surface during the movie. It is only John, Henry's favorite, that doesn't come through. If that is the directors intention or not I can't say but it is the weak point of the movie. Because John is too dumb and unfit to be king in almost any way conceivable. How he can be the intended heir is a conundrum. However, it is not only rational reasoning that command the players here, too much of it is emotions. Ant that, is another strength of the movie, because it builds to the unpredictability.

Well, I could go on, but the comment soon would be as long as the movie. In short, this was a nice surprise. Highly recommended for those that appreciate a battle in words and don't need explosions in every movie.

7/10

Kudos to Patrick Stewart, and pretty darned "close," Glenn!

[mepittman · 23 May 2004]

Setting aside the question of 'Why do we need a remake of an almost perfect original?' I was very pleased with this movie. Credit it, if you will, to Stewart's resonant, commanding voice, but I thought he more than held his own against O'Toole's Henry. Less pomp, more circumstance. Regarding Eleanor, well - nothing could ever top the great Kate's performance in the original movie. Considering the impossibility of doing so, though, I have to say that Glenn Close did a more than admirable job with the role. Indeed, in a couple of scenes – when she was talking but the camera wasn't on her face – you could almost imagine you were hearing Hepburn! Overall, Close's Eleanor was less bitter and acerbic than Hepburn's, but it was still a most valid interpretation of the character. Re: the sons - I didn't care much for Howard's interpretation of Richard – more smarmy posturing rather than the Machiavellian swagger of entitlement that I feel the part calls for (i.e., Anthony Hopkins' portrayal.) But, the characters of Geoffrey and John were cast better in this one, in my opinion, than in the original. Rafe Spall played John's blithering, namby-pamby, spoiled brat to perfection. Also, the sets were wonderful! Big thumbs up.

Better than You Think

[Valyrae · 9/10 · 1 June 2004]

I wonder if the first person reviewing this film actually saw it or is so beholden to the original that they couldn't accept this version. The original is a masterpiece - no question. But to say this remake is inferior in every way is a gross overstatement. In fact, Patrick Stewart brings a more conniving and regretful interpretation to King Henry which is an interesting approach. Richard the Lionheart is portrayed in a much more somber and serious way here than in the original (Hopkins overacted quite a bit but this was toned down). Prince Geoffrey is far superior in this movie; far more manipulating and quietly seething. Glenn Close is not Hepburn but she does a worthy job portraying Eleanor. Prince Philip is also portrayed in a more serious manner (less prissy than Dalton's rendition). The real letdown is Prince John who is borderline retarded. He's so clearly a blundering mean-spirited moron in this movie that you simply can't buy that King Henry would want him as a successor. Aside from that shortcoming (which is large I must admit), this movie works and is enjoyable and as feisty as one can hope.

Inferior in every regard

[ireide · 6/10 · 12 December 2006]

This is a poor and unnecessary remake of an outstanding original.

The 1968 version, which starred Peter O'Toole and Kathryn Hepburn (who were accompanied by an excellent cast of supporting actors), told the story of the animosity and conflict which took place between the King of England, Henry II, and the members of his family over Xmas 1183. Their interpretation of this relationship produced one of the great movies of the 20th century.

The remake is inferior in every regard. To begin, the acting can at best be described as mediocre. Stewart and Close are tolerable, but their supporting actors seem little more than cardboard cut-outs staggering through their dialogue without enthusiasm or animation. Entirely absent from their performance is the purported purpose of the movie, to reveal the drama of a group of people battling and scheming for survival and power. The actors seem to be doing little more than reading their lines from cue cards. This performance is doubly painful to watch as the screenplay is a near word for word copy of the outstanding James Goldman original. Even the sets, which I hoped would be an improvement, are inferior. The original had an authentic air of grubby decay and dirt, while the new is filled with clean people inhabiting tidy surrounds—hardly convincing for the Middle Ages.

The term 'dumbed down' comes to mind when comparing the two.

To be frank, I did not watch all of this movie, however, I am certain I am not the worse for this lack. If anyone wants to see a great movie, see the original, ignore the remake.

I couldn't turn it off

[laurakay76 · 10/10 · 16 November 2005]

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.

What???

[donta49001 · 7/10 · 26 July 2005]

First of all, please don't be turned away by the title of my review, as this was an amazing remake of "The Lion in Winter". For some reason I wasn't even going to comment on the film, which is weird for me and my big mouth, but I had to reply to the first review that I read from "Tom Mack"....who said that in comparison to Katharine Hepburn, Glenn Close is an actor and Hepburn is a "movie star"?? Are you kidding me??? Don't get me wrong, Glenn Close is an amazing performer and her performance in this remake only reiterated that fact. Her emotional depth is always on point and I have never been disappointed in her talent and performance even if the film wasn't that great.

But to compare her to Katarine Hepburn is asinine. A "movie star"?? Maybe you didn't see the original "The Lion in Winter", for which she won the Oscar for, or "Long Day's Journey Into Night" or "Suddenly Last Summer" or "On Golden Pond" for that matter... This is the same actor who NEVER attended a single Academy Award ceremony, just to avoid the "movie star" crap. The same award for which she was only nominated for lead acting roles, has won the most awards in history, and had the most nominations until recently. Please please please give her the credit and respect that she deserves. Glenn Close even stated that she was terrified to play the role because she had to follow-up Katharine's unbelievable performance and has stated on many occasions that Hepburn was/is her biggest inspiration for getting into the industry.

At any rate, the remake was wonderfully made, performances were amazing, especially Glenn Close's. She continues to amaze me....but as for comparisons to Katharine, please don't do that. I mean my gosh, it's Katharine Hepburn for goodness sake... Thanx for reading :o)

Excellent human view of history.

[alphanet-1 · 10/10 · 28 May 2005]

Remakes of successful films are notoriously difficult. It took courage to challenge the Peter O'Toole, Katherine Hepburn film. It also took talent. Patrick Stewart and Glenn Close have that in abundance. The original is a classic, no doubt, but Stewart and Close made Henry II and Eleanor very real. In a larger sense, it's too easy to see distant history and the people who lived it as characters in a play, but this film made it clear that the people who lived in those distant time were like us; they dreamed, schemed, hoped, planned, laughed, hurt, made stupid decisions and wept. Henry and Eleanor might have had larger forces working on them than most of us do, but they were just people. Stewart and Close made them real. The Supporting cast was superb. I especially appreciated the portrayal of Richard. Our modern view of that strange tormented man and terrible king was well rendered by Andrew Howard. I would recommend this film over the original.

Too tough an act to follow

[carly7-1 · 6/10 · 27 March 2006]

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.

Not pleased at all

[thoraj · 2/10 · 3 February 2007]

OK performances but I have to say overall disappointing and utter crap. I usually adore Patrick Stewart and Glenn Close and their performances were quite good, Jonathan Rhys-Meyers was outstanding (didn't have enough screen time). The rest of the cast was nothing special. Maybe they were meant to be mediocre characters and in that case they did well.Yuliya Vysotskaya in her role as Alais was sensational and I hope to see her in future roles but this movie is just not worth the time it takes to see it. I didn't have any expectations when I rented it and it left me feeling unfulfilled. Have seen worse movies but it's in that category.

Makes me wonder how Close and O'Toole might have been...

[winstonfg · 9/10 · 3 September 2010]

It's been a long time since I saw the "original" (film, that is), but I think this version stands up very well. The script, of course, is sumptuous, and the actors clearly enjoy themselves with it. The production also seems less stagey than what I remember of the 1968 version, something which is often difficult to achieve on the small screen.

For me, Glenn Close's Eleanor was superb - possibly even better than Hepburn's; but I'd have to see the original again to make sure. She interprets the transitions between scheming power-broker, desolate prisoner and wistful "ex" with a naturalness that I don't remember in the original, yet somehow still manages to deliver the comic lines (and there are plenty) with the timing of a master. And there were only a couple of occasions when I detected any hint of Hepburn's shadow.

As for Henry: I like Patrick Stewart a lot, but I'm not sure this was his role. He's always seemed a little brittle when it comes to passion; and if there's one thing Henry was, it was passionate. There are also times when he comes across as declamatory (probably the Shakespearean training) and, while O'Toole could probably be accused of the same thing, I missed his energy. It's also plain that he is older than Close, when in fact Henry was 11 years younger than Eleanor (and that was a lot in those days). That said, he makes a good fist of it; and some of the exchanges between the two of them are memorable.

Where this production really scores though is in its drawing of the smaller characters. I hardly even remember what the sons were like in the original, but here they all have distinct personas; with Andrew Howard's Richard the standout. Rafe Spall even manages to flesh out the character of John - by James Goldman's own admission, the worst written of all of them - and John Light's unloved, Machiavellian Geoffrey is perfectly believable. Johnathan Rhys-Myers' ambivalent Philip also hints at the savvy of a man who would go on to become one of France's greatest kings. Only Yuliya Vysotskaya, as Alys, seemed slightly weak - too timid for a princess of France for me - but that probably has more to do with the script than anything.

Maybe I'm just a sucker for historical drama, but I thought this was an excellent (and brave, considering the original) effort at depicting two of the most powerful and interesting figures of their time.

9/10

Henry II

[gavin6942 · 7/10 · 3 February 2015]

King Henry II (Patrick Stewart) keeps his wife, Eleanor (Glenn Close) locked away in the towers because of her frequent attempts to overthrow him. With Eleanor out of the way he can have his dalliances with his young mistress (Yuliya Vysotskaya).

The film was directed by Andrei Konchalovsky ("Tango and Cash"). It was filmed on location at Spiš Castle in eastern Slovakia, which serves as a nice replacement for 12th century England.

Glenn Close received a great deal of praise for this role, far more than her counterpart (Stewart) did. This is probably fair. While both are great, Close went the extra mile, and her raw emotions really shine through. Stewart tends to get a bit melodramatic.

Major disappointment

[wigginsmum · 2/10 · 27 December 2003]

I've waited for most of this year to see this film and feel sadly let down. You'd think with classy actors like Patrick Stewart and Glenn Close, we'd get something to at least approach the original version, but no - this is utter pants. There's no chemistry between the leads, and the supporting actors are merely adequate. None of the brooding coiled intensity that was there in the original between Peter O'Toole and Katharine Hepburn - this plays more like a soap opera with dreadfully schmaltzy music. Even the excellent script by William Goldman trudges rather than sparkles. One to be avoided.

Brilliant acting

[tom_mack · 10/10 · 5 March 2005]

The craft of acting is often unseen to the casual observer. I say this because I find it hard to believe that any one would have anything bad to saw about the remarkable performances of Glen Close and Patrick Stewart. I walked away from watching this film thinking that a special Emmy should have been created for Glen. Riveting, powerful, nuanced, Close's performance astounded, showing depth in the character, and building up to the emotional explosion at the end of the film. I still have chills. And for someone to say there was no chemistry between her and Patrick I just have to say- huh? What were you looking for? The way they collided in the scene toward the end of the film revealed how much they LOVED one another...not how much they hated one another. Those angry sparks in the air had their birth in their status as soul mates.

As for comparisons to Kate Hepburn? Come on now...Kate was a movie star, not an actor, and has no where near the range of Close.

See this film.

Like watching a new version of `Streetcar'

[rrb · 14 August 2004]

It's refreshing to see a new take on a familiar work. But when the original is a legend, the new interpretation often seems wanting. So it is with this `Lion in Winter.' You want it to succeed, but…you hear the actors speak their lines, & ache for the brilliant readings of the earlier film. You respect capable actors like Close & Stewart, but yearn for the inspired pyrotechnics of Hepburn and O'Toole. All actors admirably give performances quite distinct from those of the '68 film-but only Jonathan Rhys-Meyers gives one at least as impressive as his earlier counterpart. His spoiled, manipulative, bisexual man-boy is a fascinating Philip.

This `Lion in Winter' is enjoyable, but pales in inevitable comparison to the first version. If nothing else, it will make you treasure its superb predecessor all the more.

WOW

[chuck-282 · 10/10 · 28 May 2004]

I have seem 20-30 historical movies and this is by far the best. I never thought improvement of the O'Toole/Hepburn classic was possible, but I was wrong. This one gives a more accurate portrayal of the times and how little England as a country was to the Empire. The monarchy was more of a landlord and accumulating wealth was the order of the day. This was done through good governing and fear, as this movie accurately depicted. It was especially gratifying to see that the role of all the children was established. The original was based more on the King and Queen, with not as much emphasis on collateral figures. And, the acting was spectacular.

Not bad at all

[Smoky · 9/10 · 21 May 2015]

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.

Terrible is an understatement

[cjp49 · 1/10 · 2 January 2006]

The original film version starring Katharine Hepburn and Peter O'toole is my favorite film of all time simply because of the two brilliant actors who take the starring roles and the witty dialog that they exchange. This remake was not only sad, it was pathetic. I am glad that it was only a TV release so it will not scar the image of the original with moviegoers.

This version not only had problems, it was a problem. To begin with the script that made the original sparkle was dimmed for this revamp. Evidently it was felt that "dumbing down" was needed in order for new audiences to comprehend the dialog. So instead of the exchange of mighty wits that they first was built on this film presents a battle between idiots who can barely speak. Close attempts to take on the character of Eleanor but fails when compared to Hepburn who seemed to become Eleanor. As for Patrick Stewart, whom I admire as an actor, he was possibly the best part of the film although his part suffered from being brought down to the level of a supposed audience of idiots. As for the actor who played John, words cannot express such disgust for bad acting or unseemly display of stupidity.

The only thing this film had going for it, and I am not sure it was a plus, was that it was slightly more historically sound than the original, but in order to be so I am sure the original play had to be changed in some way.

A Superior Adaptation!

[Sylviastel · 10/10 · 13 June 2010]

I never saw the 1968 version with Katharine Hepburn although I will later. Glenn Close is illuminating as Eleanor of Aquitane with a range that runs from comedy to tragedy. Sir Patrick Stewart OBE plays her King Henry II. He is brilliant in this role and this project is a labor of love with his wife and producer Wendy Nuess Stewart. Stewart's well-known as a Shakespearean actor before he became famous for another role. Unlike Shakespeare, The Lion in Winter is more enjoyable because there isn't iambic pentameter. The cast is great. Stewart and Close are remarkable as the estranged couple and parents of three sons, Richard; Jeffrey; and John who are nothing but disappointments to their parents. They're after their father's throne. But the film really belongs to Stewart and Close because their performances stand out so well.

WHAT A WASTE OF Viewing TIME

[suzangrace · 1/10 · 11 May 2007]

B*O*R*I*N*G*!!!! this is an incredibly awful representation of the wonderful play and tremendous portrayals of the 1968 film. the acting is dull. stewart and hepburn cannot touch o'toole and hepburn. the role of richard was played as a major wimp, john's portrayal was disastrous, and phillip a joke. only the geoffrey character was interesting, though it does not compare the brilliance of john castle. the script was almost word-for-word, but the deliverance was dull and w/out any passion or inspiration. i cannot say enough bad things about this version...it was entirely a disappointment. stick w/the original,the performances near perfect, and one of the best if not best of the 20th century films. don't waste your time or money on this TV version. see the original, you'll be glad you did.

No humor!

[barrettd-1 · 22 September 2004]

This version of Lion in Winter, aside from being horrible, also failed to convey any of the humor from the original movie or play.

There's plenty of dark humor in the original movie and play, but the actors and director took it all way too seriously, missing all of it in the script.

The lines were there, they just blew them.

Patrick Stewart and Glenn Close are no substitute for Peter O'Toole and Katharine Hepburn.

All this version did for me was make me want to watch the 1968 version.

Thumbs down.

Pretty good remake, but....

[ichbing · 8/10 · 7 March 2005]

...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.

Let's just have fun!

[pjcrazysmart · 10/10 · 24 July 2008]

I enjoyed this film a lot. I watched it for itself and didn't care to compare. I like the plot and the actors, and neither disappointed me. It doesn't matter whether the original was better, I like both. The story of this family is definitely a 12th century reality show. I would like to see them interviewed by Dr. Phil, or or playing on the "Family Feud." They are their own version of "Survivor." This is about relationships and feelings. There are self-esteem issues, great sibling rivalry, and a love/hate marriage of two strong characters. These same things are present nowadays. We can compare these similarities from then and now. Of course, now we do have modern plumbing - thank the heavens for that! And lastly, we are in the same position of trying to pick our leader, McCain (Richard), Obama (Geoffrey) and Steve Carell (John!). If you can't stand this remake, go to the library and try reading a book instead! Pj

She was made to play queens and he was made to play kings. They are the lion couple.

[mark.waltz · 10/10 · 12 May 2023]

Don't let their verbal animosity fool you. King Henry and Queen Eleanor do indeed love each other, or at least the challenge of hating each other, that kind that contains a thin line of love involved. Perfectly cast in the parts originated by Robert Preston and Rosemary Harris and immortalized onscreen by Peter O'Toole and Katharine Hepburn, Patrick Stewart and Glenn Close tackle their parts as if they were Lord and Lady MacBeth (Maurice Evans and Judith Anderson) and Emperor Augustus and Empress Livia (Brian Blessed and Sian Phillips), with Phillips once having played Eleanor on stage in London. They are the power couple of the 12th century, even if she has been banished to her own castle, only released for holidays and pageants.

The game of thrones they play is a deadly one, with Eleanor admitting that she really doesn't like her children, especially Prince John (Rafe Spall) whom history has proven to be probably England's most hated King. Heir Richard (Andrew Howard) has his share of secrets, while middle son Geoffrey (John Light) is perhaps the most capable of being king, his strength and idealism at odds with the weaknesses and amorality of the rest of the family. But he's a subtle schemer too, not as blatant as his mother and youngest brother, aware of everyone's secrets and keeping them secret...for now.

Then there's surrogate daughter Julia Vysotskaya as Alais who is the much younger mistress to the man who practically raised her, beloved to Eleanor who seems to understand what led to this sick twist, and the very handsome Jonathan Rhys Meyers as King Philip of France, son of Eleanor's first husband, having a secret love for Richard, well...one sided for one of them. A family with its ups and downs, maybe not ideal, but fascinating. It's ironic that playwright/screenwriter James Goldman also wrote the musical "Follies", because that describes this delightfully messed up family. Director Andrei Konchalovsky creates a stunning TV version of the play that expands the story just a bit to give additional development to Eleanor. Certainly one of the best TV remakes of a big screen classic ever made, Shakespearean in tragedy yet ironically funny and loving.