Home > Drama >

The Lion in Winter

The Lion in Winter (1968)

October. 30,1968
|
7.9
|
PG
| Drama History

Henry II and his estranged queen battle over the choice of an heir.

...

Watch Trailer

Cast

Similar titles

Reviews

SpunkySelfTwitter
1968/10/30

It’s an especially fun movie from a director and cast who are clearly having a good time allowing themselves to let loose.

More
Odelecol
1968/10/31

Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

More
Forumrxes
1968/11/01

Yo, there's no way for me to review this film without saying, take your *insert ethnicity + "ass" here* to see this film,like now. You have to see it in order to know what you're really messing with.

More
Brainsbell
1968/11/02

The story-telling is good with flashbacks.The film is both funny and heartbreaking. You smile in a scene and get a soulcrushing revelation in the next.

More
Kirpianuscus
1968/11/03

It seems the perfect film. it has all to be perfect. the story, the director, the magnificent cast. and the need, time by time, to see it. again. because it is the perfect mix of Shakespeare and Oscar Wilde. because a couple like Hepburn O Toole is fabulous. because it is the convincing story about power, hate and love, appearences, parenthood and compromises. because it is a fresco. huge. large, profound. embroidery of illusions and shadows. a film who seems be more convincing than the historical facts. because all is familiar. and a walk on ice bridge. because it is one of films who, behind masks, gives the real image and verdicts about near reality. a masterpiece ? off course. but, more significant, a gem. who gives brilliant dialogues and the force of acting of unique actors.

More
Ian
1968/11/04

(Flash Review)This is a literal chess match with an actual king, queen, knights, bishops, rooks and pawns. King Henry II is verbally jockeying with his wife, Duchess Eleanor, whom he has imprisoned but released for the Christmas holiday on which of their three sons shall become the future King. Add onto the game board, King Philip II of France and his half-sister who is the proverbial pawn and King Henry II's mistress. Each player has an angle to play for power or treasure or love. Who will make the shrewdest moves? Will any other them be able to outmaneuver and checkmate Henry? This is basically a sequel to the film Becket and both films have superb screenplays with smart, clever, emotional and snappy dialog. This still feels like it could be acted on stage but the sets in here give the proper appearance of being in a castle and compliment the dialog-driven nature of the film. O'Toole and Hepburn share many scenes together and give a full range of emotions; fun to see if that's your thing. Many reviewers are upset O'Toole didn't win the Oscar for this.

More
clanciai
1968/11/05

Most people seem to exalt this film to supreme top standard, while no one finds anything wrong with it. Maybe it's time for some alternative view.It's good, of course, everything is excellent, the acting is perfect, Katharine Hepburn reigning supreme and defeating everyone by just being what she is, and her part of the dialogue strikes everyone down. Peter O'Toole is next to it, and the three intriguing sons, only one of them being a bastard while he denounces them all three as bastards, add to the total family conflict. This could actually be the inner conflict of any family, these controversies are quite normal, and you could find the same pattern even in almost any Danish dogma film. Their quarrel isn't unique, they just carry it to extremes by overdoing it with a vengeance, and all except Katharine Hepburn almost go under in the process.So the story isn't really very remarkable. They just happen to be royalties, a king and queen and princes, and that's all. It all happens within the castle, almost within four walls, and is really a chamber play, unlike the four years earlier 'Becket', which was much more of a monumental story and drama and historically more correct, although they also took considerable liberties with facts there. Here it's all conjecture, it's a mess of a speculation in intrigue, and they even mix homosexuality into the slander to make it as worse as possible. Hence it's actually a rather artificial concoction of a drama just for showing off, but it's splendid theatre all the way. The dialogue is a feast of sumptuous quarrelsome eloquence, and especially the Queen constantly surpasses herself in delivering poisonous knockouts under the belt.Peter O'Toole was even better in ' Becket', but here he repeats the same role as a 12 year older man and convincingly. He is aging, he is losing control, he has reasons enough to worry about the future, while his sons are more than catching up with him. Prince John is something of a caricature and almost a parody of himself, Anthony Hopkins as Richard is not quite ready yet and too much into his mother to be recognizable as Richard, while Geoffrey is the best of them as a cool calculating bastard.Rosamund, his mother is constantly mentioned while she does not occur in either of the films, although her part in fact was extremely important, especially in the circumstances of Becket's death, but here at least her presence is constantly felt, as something of a bad conscience and lingering wet blanket for the entire all too powerful family for their own good. Neither Richard nor John became very happy as kings, which all films and history show, let alone Walter Scott.John Barry's music, finally, adds to the genuineness and atmosphere of the 12th century. He used to make music to thrillers and James Bond, but he is just as eloquent here with choirs and nunneries and efficient medieval bells.It's a great film, of course, but I still prefer 'Becket'.

More
JasparLamarCrabb
1968/11/06

Certainly well mounted but is it really much more than a soap opera circa 1150? Katherine Hepburn is Eleanor of Acquitaine, released from jail by husband Henry II (Peter O'Toole) for Christmas. Their power struggle to name an heir to the throne goes on for two hours plus with witty one- liners thrown out like Molotov cocktails. The two leads, along with Anthony Hopkins, Timothy Dalton, Jane Merrow, John Castle, and Nigel Terry, act up a storm reciting James Goldman's acid tinged dialog with a lot of gusto. One is left, however, with a feeling of emptiness as this movie drones on and on. It's exhausting. The direction (which consists primarily of having a camera follow the players around) is by Anthony Harvey and the production values are all first rate from the cinematography by Douglas Slocombe to the faux-regal score by John Barry. This movie one many awards including the Oscar for its screenplay.

More