Bárbaros & Traidores

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.

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.

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.

Why did these people have to go to Hungary to make this film? The whole thing appears to have been shot in some studio with leftover sets and costumes from some episode of the original Star Trek where they were transported back to medieval times. Everything looks like its made of styrofoam. Hey, they even put a dog in it to make it look gritty and realistic.

I do love Patrick Stewart and Glenn Close, and so I can only conclude that the director made them act the way they did. Neither of them has any teeth! Stewart snarls now and then, but nobody's *really* too worried about him. His Henry is ho-hum, OK, nothing to write home about, but what went wrong with Glenn Close? Her reading of this role is just weird. There are lines she delivers that just don't make sense when coupled with her face or tone. KH communicated all these subtle shifts with a lift of an eyebrow; Eleanor was agile as a cat, but GC emotes so promiscuously, you'd think Dr. Phil was behind a tapestry. Her Eleanor is schizy, and has nobody fooled. That odor of desperation is just wrong for this character. It feels like she combined Fatal Attraction with Mel Gibson's Hamlet's Gertrude to come up with this Eleanor. Wrong. I can't think of a role with more meat for a good actress to bite into. Why so far off the mark? Oh well.

The other players are not memorable enough for me to recall; they all played everything on one note.

If I was going to bother remaking a classic movie like this, I would have put the effort into it to use an appropriate location in France, get the costumes right, and give the actors some intelligent direction.

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.