Glucedee It's hard to see any effort in the film. There's no comedy to speak of, no real drama and, worst of all.

mraculeated The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

Tobias Burrows It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

Marva-nova Amazing worth wacthing. So good. Biased but well made with many good points.

Armand difficult to define it. or to give a verdict. because the subject is only detail in this case. the performance is the star. and the comparison with original version. but, in few words, it is a real event. fireworks. a web of tension and intelligence. Glenn Close. and Patrick Steward. and magnificent gift of nuances, force and wise art to manage the traps of script. humor and masks. anatomy of marriage and dissection of an English history page. a story about power, its price and virtues of fragile victories. a play. a map of sentiments and ambitions. a duel. sure, emotions, expectations, crumbs of fear. and the end - Close as shadow of Hepburn. a special delight. or only delicate masterpiece.

thoraj 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.

cjp49 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.

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.