That was an excellent one.

I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

A Disappointing Continuation

I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

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'.

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!

I hadn't seen this movie in years. Once I started watching it, though - just before the crucial scene in Philip's room - I couldn't stop. There's one great scene after the next, where I just sat marveling at the way the actors delivered their lines.After awhile, I realized how much this resembled "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf" in Medieval costume. Family members ripping each other's guts out every chance they get, often by tearing the scabs off old wounds. The language is more "noble," of course, and the lines delivered in a more oratorical, theatrical fashion, but it's still pretty much the same thing, with O'Toole - who is really marvelous in this movie - for Burton and Hepburn for Taylor.This isn't the sort of movie I would want to watch often, I confess. But it was certainly a great pleasure to see it again today.

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.