The Lion in Winter

I can't say this is better than the original, but it certainly is different. This version is darker and far more intense than the original. The love, the hate, the pain are so much more evident here than they were in the original, especially that of the children.

Of course, I'll have to watch the original to compare, but what I recall is that the original came across as light, fast moving and clever.

Close and Stewart don't have the chemistry of Hepburn and O'Toole, and the exchange of dialogue isn't as snappy. And I think that perhaps, this ultimately aids in the depth of that dialogue coming across better. Though, Close does play the B**ch very, very well.

Andrew Howard as Richard and John Light as Geoffrey were awesome. Richard's pain at being the constant pawn stuck in the middle of his parents' war and Geoffrey's pain at being no one's favorite were, well, painful to watch.

While I adore the original version of Lion in Winter, I just *get* this version so much more. Maybe it's because these actors are from my generation whereas those of the original are from my mother's, I don't know. So, overall, while TLIW 2003 is not better than the original, it is as good as the original, just in a different way.

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.

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.

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.

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.