classicsoncall
As a cinematic experience, the film is compelling and visually entertaining throughout. As a study in family dynamics, I do believe that King Henry II and Eleanor Aquitane, along with their sons, put a capital 'D' in the word dysfunctional. As such, various sorts of nefarious intrigue come to light as the warring monarchs engage in a battle of wills to see their favorite be named to the succession. It's middle son Geoffrey (John Castle) who appears as the odd man out in this tempestuous feud, as Henry favors the youngest, John (Nigel Terry), while Eleanor sees only Richard (Anthony Hopkins) as worthy. Such is Henry's dilemma that at one point, he throws all favoritism to the wind and imprisons his three sons while deciding to marry the much younger Princess Alais of France (Jane Merrow). Aside from the scourge of watching these figures plot and malign to their heart's content, the performances of all the principals is roundly stellar, most notably that of Katherine Hepburn as Eleanor and Peter O'Toole as King Henry II. They portray the kind of characters that fascinate in their loathsome behavior, and definitely not the sort of family members you would want to have over for Thanksgiving dinner.
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".
MisterWhiplash
The Lion in Winter is about the games that people high up in power tend to play with each other when they can, but it's also about parents, their children and how a woman has to act in such a society. This movie is rich with a lot of ideas and concepts, and yet it mostly comes down to the acting - people not exactly of the small-time variety like Peter O'Toole and Katharine Hepburn as the King of England and Eleanor of Aquataine (in other words, the Queen, or once was), and featuring supporting roles for the likes of Anthony Hopkins (his first film, really) and Timothy Dalton. Does a lot of this get stagy? Oh, very much so. It can be a drawback, or maybe just the "Showiness" in quotation marks. I use quotes since that's what other people say, and I do too. But is this necessarily a bad thing? No, but the feeling that this was a play and brought to the screen by its author is never left.This is all essentially a familial drama with political implications at a lot of turns: the King has to choose his heir, as he is fifty years old and seemingly won't live that much longer (perhaps for the time, the 12th century, it was quite old, albeit Eleanor is supposed to be 61). Who will he choose: super strong but emotionally wounded Richard, the middle-child with his own scheming Phillip, or the lovable but weak-willed and odd John? If he really could have his way he'd want to choose all of them - and, as one might see, the question could arise that none of them is an option - but a lot of these games are complicated by other factors, such as of course Eleanor, the mother of his children and a prisoner for her own scheming over the years; the King of France (Dalton) who is often referred to as "boy", and the king's sister cum mistress for Henry, and a to-be-betrothed to one of the sons (Jane Merrow, underrated among the cast, she's really good here).In other words, there's some wackiness that ensues, of the sometimes dark, melodramatic and brooding kind. But what I found most interesting were what was behind so much of the drama, what these characters carry with them and continue to do so, some of them as they are facing death sooner someday than others. With Eleanor of Aquataine, this is a character who has had power taken away from her, she really doesn't have anything, and yet she can - or really has to - cut Henry down every chance she can to keep up to his level. She really is a vulnerable character deep down, when she can show it, though when that is exactly is anyone's guess. Like many plays (or the ones that I've seen and heard over the years), the games that people play on each other - think Virginia Woolf, for instance - is what is supposed to make it riveting for the audience. Who is going to plot what next? How will all of this drama (verging on soap opera) unfold? Maybe all of this is soap opera. There were certainly times, like when the sons are hiding not totally comically in Dalton's bedchamber when Henry comes in to have a talk, that the staginess of it can't be helped. But what stuck out for me and what made me like the movie so much is that the director Anthony Harvey and writer Goldman takes this material as seriously as they can, and mostly as this family drama first. Again, one may think of Game of Thrones as well (this could just as easily be the Lannister clan, fans of the show will know what I mean). And yet in order for this stuff to work, the actors do have to sell it and not hold back; if one is to do this sort of high-voltage, highly emotionally charged stuff right, get some people who will commit to it completely.Peter O'Toole gives what could be one of his two or three best performances here. That's a bold statement considering what other work he did in his career, but really when has he been better? Yes, this King has to yell and pontificate in GRAND, BIG ways (in caps) in many scenes. But a lot of this, we are in the know on, is braggadocio, like a much more refined version of Archie Bunker or Ralph Kramden. And yes, a sitcom comparison could be made here, only the laughs had aren't shallow or base: these characters really can't stand one another - that, and, in one of those contradictions people have to keep in their heads one alongside the other, they love each other still. That's what's fascinating about watching O'Toole and Hepburn (in a role far more Oscar-y than 'Dinner' in 67). If you don't buy them as a bitter, wry, deeply wounded married couple, the movie actually doesn't work as well. I bought into them, and many of their scenes carry that electrified air of big, bold dramatic moments, especially in the last act when big claims are made about past familial ties.I don't know if it's all a great film. Some of the dramatic confrontations here get into that realm of such theatricality that it's hard to take a few times, just in that way of 'Oh, for chrissake, just kill each other and get it over with already!' But it has such a strong script and acting, and the themes of being a woman in that period and what a marriage was in such medieval times, or being a father and sons, that I had a great time watching it. By the end one senses not much has *really* changed for these people, but then why should it? Life goes on, until it doesn't, for these people of royalty and obsessive power
