The Lion in Winter (2003)

A lot of fun.

A brilliant film that helped define a genre

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

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.

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

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.

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.