Close and Stewart were fine choices but the film as a whole lacked the passion of the O"Toole/Hepburn original..JOhn Castle,Anthony Hopkins,Timothy Dalton and Jane Merrow were all far superior to their 2003 counterparts and watching LIon IN Winter without JOhn Barry's masterpiece of a score is almost unthinkable.
shareI watched the 2003 version before watching the 1968 version, and I found both to be wonderful. I prefered John Light to the 'original' Geoffrey to be sure. The original may have been better overall, but I quite liked this one :) Close was excellent as ever
shareJohn Castle's Geoff was far superior to the actor in the new film. how can you even think otherwise for a split second????
http://photobucket.com/albums/a344/dawngirl/Personal%20pics/
All of the 1968 actors and actrsses are far superior to their remake counterparts (this is actually an understatement, but I can't think of a word or phrase that can do the actual superiority gap justice). All the scenes and lines that gave me goosebumps when uttered by characters in the 1968 version (like the "when the fall is all that is, it matters" line by Richard towards the end, or the masterful scene where Eleanor relates having sex with Henry's father to name two) were left too flat or lacked any emotion. This is not to mention the fact that they made Richard out to be a weakling (this is supposed to be the man that, after ascending to the thrown, would spend most of his kingship as a warrior king).
The feel of the movie itself was all wrong as well. When watching O'Toole walk down the castle corridor or through the castle's dining hall, I actuall forget I'm seeing actors on a set and instead believe I'm watching Henry II Plantaginet bicker with his queen (this is because of the way the sets look: dirty, ill-lit, and strewn with all manner of beleavable stuff). When I watch the new version, all I see is a well lit, clean, almost antiseptic Hollywood-esc soundstage.
Having seen and loved the 1968 version (to the point where I own it on VHS and DVD, and watch it at least once a month), I was so excited to hear that a remake was to be made, and just as crushed when i found that it isn't even good enough for me to step on on my way to grab the orginial version for another viewing. It baffles me to think that there are people in this world who would think the new version can hold a candle to the original (let alone think it better).
It is better to be feared than loved.
Another wrong comparing of two films as usual. This was a Tv movie, the original had all the support the true big budget film can afford. You have to judge the quality based on that. When you knew that the remake was going to be made for Tv, did you expect the same great production values the original had? Simply if you don't like Tv movies and all its cheaper quality, don't watch them and don't critizice them. Thank you.
Btw, for me this was a masterpiece as well.
Quote by lRS34:
Another wrong comparing of two films as usual. This was a Tv movie, the original had all the support the true big budget film can afford. You have to judge the quality based on that. When you knew that the remake was going to be made for Tv, did you expect the same great production values the original had? Simply if you don't like Tv movies and all its cheaper quality, don't watch them and don't critizice them. Thank you.
CooperNRG--You're being slightly unfair. Stewart is pretty near the equal of O'Toole and Jonathan Rhys-Myers is definitely better than Dalton as the French king. They also made the tiny but significant improvement of removing Henry's admission to Alais that he'd had sex with little boys, which makes his disgust at Richard's homosexuality more credible.
Otherwise, I agree that the original was definitely superior. The actor who played Richard suffers particularly by comparison with Anthony Hopkins. Close is a fine actress and does her best but Hepburn casts a very long shadow. The direction is partly to blame. Too many irrelevant shots of bit players, too little attention to making the main relationships work, castle looks like a well-lit soundstage. This version even manages to drag slightly, which is incredible given the script.
This version of the play was not shot like an old movie. That is the main difference. All you die hard Lion in Winter fans are outraged simply because this is different, not because it's worse. Well, I'm pretty sure that the filmmakers intended this to be different. It is merely a different take on a play.
shareBah, humbug. The production values are the absolute least of my issues with this remake. The acting is not as good and the direction doesn't make up for it. The chemistry between Stewart and Close doesn't crackle as it desperately needs to. Only Rhys-Myers is a distinct improvement on the original.
shareYou wrote :
"They also made the tiny but significant improvement of removing Henry's admission to Alais that he'd had sex with little boys, which makes his disgust at Richard's homosexuality more credible"
Homosexuality has no link with peadophilia, wich is molestation of little children. Like any other rapists, paedophiles are only interested with power, not sex.
emm
"to tax and to please, no more to love and to be wise, is not given to men"
I know perfectly well that homosexuality and pedophilia are not linked. However, homosexual pedophilia is (I think) universally considered worse than homosexuality, at any place and time when the latter is considered bad. In which case, if Henry has had sex with little boys, he should not be quite so appalled that Richard has had sex with a grown male.
Henry's extreme disgust that Richard had sex with Prince Philip would then make more sense as 1) thinking Richard was massively stupid for making himself emotionally and sexually vulnerable to a major political opponent, the French king's Machiavellian heir, and 2) deploring that it's unlikely Richard will produce an heir himself, if he has no apparent interest in women from early on.
I think what disgusts Henry is that his son is not a power machine like he is, unable to feel any inclination or love for something else than his crown, and probably hisself. Richard looks like he loves Philipp. (sounds convincing to me). Precisely feelings make him less impervious to domination by the antagonistic France.
emm
"to tax and to please, no more to love and to be wise, is not given to men"
I had only five minuts on the first of july, so here is the rest of the message.
I wrote that feeling love for Phillip was making him vulnerable to Phillip, in Henry's opinion. It makes senses for him, because Henry is a manipulative man, obsessed with power.
Now, I, wouldn't call that stupidity. On the contrary, and -well, history vindicates my saying so, so I have not used much brain oil on that point, I see Richard feelings as a weapon and as a superiority he has over his father.
After all, France did NOT conquer UK, dit it ?
emm
"to tax and to please, no more to love and to be wise, is not given to men"
I think from *Henry's* point of view it would be stupidity to allow oneself to be so vulnerable to a major political opponent. I was not commenting on whether it was *cosmically* stupid.
But I'm pretty sure that Richard Lionheart's private feelings had essentially nothing to do with France's not eventually conquering England. Especially since he was only king Of England for ten years, the vast majority of which he spent outside the country on crusade. (Henry II was king for 45 years and had much more influence on England's subsequent history.) While he is glamorous in his nominal country's memory, evidently Richard soaked England for money every chance he got, and liked war and his French provinces much better.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_I_of_England
I agree. It was very interesting to see Close and Stewart make the parts their own but the rest of the cast was awful. The direction was flat and the music was bad and intrusive.
For every lie I unlearn I learn something new - Ani Difranco
Partial disagreement here. The actors playing the sons were awful, but Jonathan Rhys-Myers was outstanding as the young King Philip of France. He was pretty much the only improvement on the original.
share[deleted]