...I thought I had already commented on "The Lion in Winter," but I don't find it. So, here we go again....
EVERYONE is right when they praise this movie and the fantastic acting by O'Toole, Hepburn, Hopkins, Castle, Terry, Merron; the direction was awesome, the score very riveting (which drew me to the film in the first place); lighting sensational, cinematography perfect, costuming very believable (not one of those movies where everyone parades-around in gorgeous outfits), sets extremely appropriate. I don't know how anyone could find fault with any part of it.
The opening scene, King Henry II watching his youngest son jesting and learning how to become a killer (he is a monster, anyway), explains exactly the kind of man Henry has always been - a lecher: if it moves, he's had sex with it. He tells his mistress (Merron) he has made love to "little boys"; she is his wife's adopted daughter, sister of King Philip of France (Eleanor) was married to their father, as the Queen of France, and raised them both, giving the French king no heirs). Eleanor was the rage of Europe and wherever she traveled, having owned most of France since she was a young woman; she isn't about to give it up to a king (her Engligh husband) who has been so adulterous (not to mention herself, also). If the king is so worried she will de-throne him, no wonder he has her locked-up in a prison/castle. With parents like these, how else can their children be (especially the sons) but wanting to get rid of the king so they can ascend the throne ? Almost every user who has posted a comment here writes eloquently, as the movie is written by James Goldman: Anthony Harley had a masterpiece to direct, as almost every user has written. They are all right: this film should have won every award for that year.
They are also correct that NONE of the plot's back-stabbing has been solved at the end of the movie. Eleanor is happy to get back on her barge and sail back to her prison; she knows that Henry's threat to go to the pope to have their marriage dissolved is a sham - she's already been through that with the King of France. Henry II isn't about to give-up his mistress and all the other miscreants in his sexual life. The sons haven't been given any hope they will ascend the throne, but know that "mummy" is in there plotting to make it "Richard" (Hopkins), because he's her favorite and she KNOWS that he is homosexual and had an affair with "Philip". Some users deny this - it's well-known. So, here's a set-up for the perfect sequel, rather-than making the same film over-and-over again. I suggest:
Eleanor of Aquitane lived well into her 80s - she out-lived Henry II and all their kids, and NEVER gave-up Aquitane. She was an international power, even with the papacy, so why not tell some of the outrageous incidents of her later life? which would give some other great actress (more-so than Hepburn?) the opportunity to complete this phenomenal woman's life-story. Whomever she may be, if they don't copy Hepburn's fire-and-ice performance, they're crazy. Streep could do it very easily.
"The Lion in Winter" is a real blockbuster - it has everything a classic film needs.......plain-ole, high-powered, brilliant acting. Who needs explosions and CGIs? If you are familiar with a little medieval history, that's to your advantage; if you ARE NOT, here's the opportunity to learn. "Lion" shows exactly how nasty, ambitious nobility was/is, and - in those years - didn't live in palaces like Versailles or Buckingham. It's a shame we can't rate it higher......
EVERYONE is right when they praise this movie and the fantastic acting by O'Toole, Hepburn, Hopkins, Castle, Terry, Merron; the direction was awesome, the score very riveting (which drew me to the film in the first place); lighting sensational, cinematography perfect, costuming very believable (not one of those movies where everyone parades-around in gorgeous outfits), sets extremely appropriate. I don't know how anyone could find fault with any part of it.
The opening scene, King Henry II watching his youngest son jesting and learning how to become a killer (he is a monster, anyway), explains exactly the kind of man Henry has always been - a lecher: if it moves, he's had sex with it. He tells his mistress (Merron) he has made love to "little boys"; she is his wife's adopted daughter, sister of King Philip of France (Eleanor) was married to their father, as the Queen of France, and raised them both, giving the French king no heirs). Eleanor was the rage of Europe and wherever she traveled, having owned most of France since she was a young woman; she isn't about to give it up to a king (her Engligh husband) who has been so adulterous (not to mention herself, also). If the king is so worried she will de-throne him, no wonder he has her locked-up in a prison/castle. With parents like these, how else can their children be (especially the sons) but wanting to get rid of the king so they can ascend the throne ? Almost every user who has posted a comment here writes eloquently, as the movie is written by James Goldman: Anthony Harley had a masterpiece to direct, as almost every user has written. They are all right: this film should have won every award for that year.
They are also correct that NONE of the plot's back-stabbing has been solved at the end of the movie. Eleanor is happy to get back on her barge and sail back to her prison; she knows that Henry's threat to go to the pope to have their marriage dissolved is a sham - she's already been through that with the King of France. Henry II isn't about to give-up his mistress and all the other miscreants in his sexual life. The sons haven't been given any hope they will ascend the throne, but know that "mummy" is in there plotting to make it "Richard" (Hopkins), because he's her favorite and she KNOWS that he is homosexual and had an affair with "Philip". Some users deny this - it's well-known. So, here's a set-up for the perfect sequel, rather-than making the same film over-and-over again. I suggest:
Eleanor of Aquitane lived well into her 80s - she out-lived Henry II and all their kids, and NEVER gave-up Aquitane. She was an international power, even with the papacy, so why not tell some of the outrageous incidents of her later life? which would give some other great actress (more-so than Hepburn?) the opportunity to complete this phenomenal woman's life-story. Whomever she may be, if they don't copy Hepburn's fire-and-ice performance, they're crazy. Streep could do it very easily.
"The Lion in Winter" is a real blockbuster - it has everything a classic film needs.......plain-ole, high-powered, brilliant acting. Who needs explosions and CGIs? If you are familiar with a little medieval history, that's to your advantage; if you ARE NOT, here's the opportunity to learn. "Lion" shows exactly how nasty, ambitious nobility was/is, and - in those years - didn't live in palaces like Versailles or Buckingham. It's a shame we can't rate it higher......