This Movie Can Only Be Described With One Word.

An Exercise In Nonsense

Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

The movie really just wants to entertain people.

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".

I have given this film 7 out of 10 mainly because of the location scenes and the costumes. Generally the acting was superb but totally marred for me by the horrendous mistake of casting Katherine Hepburn as Queen Eleanor of Aquitaine. OK - she can act - BUT a medieval French lady with a broad American drawl totally spoilt most of her scenes. In the version that I have there are 9 subtitle languages but no English in sight. What an oversight, especially when conversations get heated and background noise is rather intrusive. Very disappointing for those who are increasingly hard of hearing. With all of that plotting going on it's a marvel that many of them lived so long!

It is a film of stunning performances, delightful jugglery of words (thanks to playwright John Goldman) and a very deserving Oscar-winning musical score of John Barry. It also marked the debut of Anthony Hopkins and Timothy Dalton (a former James Bond). The problems of the film lie elsewhere--anachronisms in spoken words of the play. Syphilis was not known in 1183 AD, at least by that name. Queen Eleanor's son could not have "seen" her "pictures" when she was young. The boats shown in the film are too sophisticated in engineering for 1183 AD. And there is no blood in the entire film with so many killings with swords and knives, And why did director Anthony Harvey have to show the statues with chipped noses and ears in the opening credits? But the film is amazing despite all its flaws. And O'Toole deserved the Oscar he was denied in this film.

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.