I've never thought of Close as a great actress, but she was amazing in what was otherwise a complete mess. She actually rivalled Hepburn in a way that no other actor here came close to rivalling his counterpart in the 1968 film (sorry, Trekkies). From now on, Glenn Close's name in the credits will be one factor in my choice to watch a film.
--
Ratings: http://us.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=4996900&s=uservote&s=reverse_uservote
I agree. This, and her portrayal of the Marquise de Merteuil (spelling?) in Dangerous Liaisons were in my opinion her best roles. She is fabulous!
shareHey, I agree too, on both of those movies !
Her sardonic wit really kept "Lion in Winter" bubbling and churning, and yes, she was a close rival to Hepburn in that role. And she was truly amazing in "Dangerous Liaisons". That final scene is just gut-wrenching.
I've never thought of Close as a great actress...
While Glen Close Marquise de Merteuil in indeed most perfect,
her Eleanor is just bleak in comparison.
It feels more like she is just doing her job,
but not as if she is really filling out the role.
In my opinion she shines in this remake,
because all others are dull,
even Stuart to my suprise and displeasure.
I thought Stewart better than Close, although Close exhibited some ability to act within the narrow confines of the way she drew the role; the role is written for exhibition of allure, sarcasm and power all in one feminine package (where was the femininity? Eleanor was known to be sexy and alluring even up until the time that Henry died - where was that?) Why they chose to dress Close without glamour, I do not know, but she needed to bring glamour to the role and she did not. Eleanor was a Queen and knew how to dazzle, Close cannot dazzle.
Bleak is a very good word to describe the central quality of her performance (and Eleanor might have had a bleak outlook after 10 years in captivity - but the whole point of the way her character is written is that she is irrepressible and buoyant - her entry into Chinon is supposed to represent that, but if Patrick Steward had not come out onto the battlements so eagerly, we'd have been yawning through that scene and wondering why Glenn Close was even invited to the party).
Yes, she can act, she had to give many glances full of meaning at her husband, her step daughter, her progeny, and she did that most of the time (but not enough to make me call it a great performance). Stuart took a straightforward path in his approach (and that suited Henry, who might have been the same way). The three sons were dull, I agree. Part of this is the fault of the original playwright who wanted to make John a caricature and a buffoon when history shows he was still an Angevin prince and quite a bit more capable in every way than this particular play/screenplay is willing to make him - although thank god the director (who is very good) polished that character up a bit and made him less silly than in the original.