The greatest movie ever!

This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

This is a gorgeous movie made by a gorgeous spirit.

Eleanor and King Henry II were the parents of the King Richard A.K.A Leon Heart. The King of Leon Heart wasn't great at all. He hadn't been interested in women. Someone were saying that' d been a gay, but the truth was that he'd been only a butcher and blood-thirsty maniac, who'd tried to bring back The Holly land from Saladin ( King of Egypt ). He'd killed every single man and woman at Akra ( The capital city of Turkey ), but Saladin'd succeded to keep " The Kingdom of Heaven ) and Richard'd been killed in France, tryng to rob as much as he could from Phlip II, who was the Crusader, too in that stuped war who nobody could win.

King Henry II (Patrick Stewart) keeps his wife, Eleanor (Glenn Close) locked away in the towers because of her frequent attempts to overthrow him. With Eleanor out of the way he can have his dalliances with his young mistress (Yuliya Vysotskaya).The film was directed by Andrei Konchalovsky ("Tango and Cash"). It was filmed on location at Spiš Castle in eastern Slovakia, which serves as a nice replacement for 12th century England.Glenn Close received a great deal of praise for this role, far more than her counterpart (Stewart) did. This is probably fair. While both are great, Close went the extra mile, and her raw emotions really shine through. Stewart tends to get a bit melodramatic.

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.

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.