The Lion in Winter (1968) User Reviews

'The Lion in Winter' is A Riveting, Nuanced Period Drama!

[sandnair87 · 9/10 · 28 December 2015]

The Lion in Winter, based on James Goldman's play about treachery in the family of King Henry II, is an intense, fierce, personal drama, directed with evident pleasure by Anthony Harvey.

Cataloging the vicious wrangling for inheritance one Christmas holiday, the action is mostly contained within one day. The all-powerful Henry II (Peter O'Toole), summons his politically ambitious family to a reunion in 1183, when a decision on succession is deemed advisable. This includes his exiled, embittered and imprisoned wife, Eleanor of Aquitaine (Katherine Hepburn), and three legitimate male offspring, along with his mistress and her brother, youthful king Philip of France. King Henry II schemes against the mother of his children, Eleanor to try to get his favorite son, a sniveling slack-jaw John (Nigel Terry), appointed as his successor while Eleanor hopes to position her favorite, the soldier genius Richard (Anthony Hopkins), as the heir apparent. Meanwhile, middle child, the reserved and quiet Geoffrey (John Castle) hopes to play them all against one another and come out victorious as the future king. The members of this tempestuous family jockey for position and brutally squabble among each other, rekindling every injury suffered and adding new, Homeric insults to their already bruised reputations.

In one day, the seven characters are stripped bare of all inner torments, outward pretensions and governing personality traits. Goldman blends in his absorbing screenplay elements of love, hate, frustration, fulfillment, ambition and greed. The relationships between people, though ambivalent, are ambivalent with a certain satisfying ferocity. Director Anthony Harvey's knowledge of the craft aids him in keeping the tension high and never letting the audience settle for long on an outcome in the constant feud, with twists, turns and plenty of incredible backstabbing.

Even though Terry, Castle and especially Hopkins are all at the top of their craft, this film is all about the thorny and turbulent relationship between Henry and Eleanor, whom he's had imprisoned to keep her from meddling with his empire. A marvelously flamboyant Peter O'Toole plays the revolting king to the hilt and holds his own against Katherine Hepburn in a witty, literate, and inventive script. Hepburn is simply magnificent as the scheming and shrewd Eleanor of Aquitaine. There is something about an actress with this degree of presence and a wholly distinct, pleasant and idiosyncratic voice that gets her through even misplaced weepy or extravagant scenes. Her verbal duels with the equally impressive O'Toole are spellbinding. Both play their scenes with great passion, vigor and expertise. Right from the first scene, they both show a wonderful relish for even the most mundane sarcastic line.

Despite feeling a bit stage-bound, The Lion in Winter is every bit as engrossing and watchable. It's a nuanced, gorgeous film that keeps you riveted right from the word go.

The Theatre of Monarchy...

[Xstal · 9/10 · 9 September 2020]

Performed to absolute perfection as Henry II plays feudal family chess to select his future heir. With a dialogue as sharp as a dagger, as cold as winter, with greed and jealousy and treachery conjoined. You'll struggle to find a more captivating piece of cinema, or indeed one whose protagonists you'll be so keen to explore further once you've absorbed it.

Extraordinary battle of wits and verbal warfare between O'Toole and Hepburn

[ma-cortes · 8/10 · 22 January 2008]

This excellent costume drama with box office success is set in Christmas 1183 . The medieval monarch Henry II Plantagent (Peter O'Toole which played again in Becket) encounters surrounded by astute and mean relatives who wish ambitious rewards . The king pretends announce his heir and invites his estranged wife Eleanor of Aquitaine (awesome Katharine Hepburn which took her third , she is the only movie star to win four Academy Awards) imprisoned by conspiracy . Eleanor married first to Louis VII , King of France , and subsequently Eleanor's marriage to Henry II , King of England . There also comes their throughly dislikeable sons and king Philip II of France (Timothy Dalton , screen debut . Everybody confronts wits over succession to the British throne and much else , including a game of verbal chess . The heir election between three sons , Richard (Anthony Hopkins , screen debut) , Geoffrey (John Castle) and John (Nigel Terry's first film role) will cause intrigues , hateful , blackmail and psychological manipulation . In spite of possession a kingdom spread all England and great portion France , there's one thing that Henry never can to control, his rebel family .

This film is a rich pageant of fun for drama enthusiastic and history lovers . This is a magnificent film inspired on real events and writings by James Goldman adapted from his own play , which deservedly won an Oscar . Superb drama with top-notch performances , duo starring gives triumphant characterizations . Fantastic and evocative musical score fitting to medieval times by John Barry with Academy Award included . Sensational production design shot on location and with an impressive castle ; furthermore , an atmospheric cinematography by Geoffrey Unsworth , reflecting splendidly Middle Age . The tale was marvellously directed by Anthony Harvey at his best film , but after this , he strayed into the critical , though not commercial hits . Remade recently for television in inferior version by Andrei Konchalovsky with Patrick Stewart (Henry II) and Glenn Close (Eleanor of Aquitaine).

A Director's Dream Come True

[AvhHines · 10/10 · 3 August 2006]

How lucky can you be to get a script like this and a cast like this all in the same movie? I've been shocked at some of the negative comments by other viewers. I was quite young when the movie came out, and didn't realize for years that Peter O'Toole wasn't the fifty year old he was playing, and Hepburn was exactly Eleanor's age at the time, so I fail to see the age mismatched some have mentioned. I'm fifty myself now, and I still find O'Toole perfectly plausible as a fifty year old in this movie. (Although, DAMN, he looked GOOD! What a gorgeous man!)

As for the 'anachronistic dialog,' it was extremely intentional and would have been totally wrong without it. To our ears, the possibly more elegant speech of the period would have sounded unnatural; only by using modern language could these people sound to us as they would have sounded to each other - normal.

The acting is brilliant - it would have been very hard to find any other actor who could share a screen with Hepburn without fading away to nothing, or an actress who could have done the same with O'Toole - only two of such power could stand up to one another. And this was absolutely right for these characters - as best we know, Henry and Eleanor were both that kind of person - brilliant, witty, strong-willed powerhouses. Then the supporting cast: Hopkins, Castle, Terry, and Dalton. Granted, they weren't known at the time, so Harvey, the director, may not have realized right off the bat that he had the cast of a lifetime, but he surely must have realized it fast.

Then there's the script. Like most of Oscar Wilde's plays, you could pick it up, open it to any page, and find at least half a dozen quotable lines. No, people aren't normally that witty in real life, but a) these were VERY bright people as historical fact, and b) it's a play/movie! People don't speak in real life as they do in Oscar Wilde either, but it's enjoyable as hell to watch. Get over it!

Some things I love about the movie are that it's made clear that no matter what Henry tells Alys, Eleanor, or himself for that matter, his real love and true equal is always Eleanor, just as he is hers. Also that, despite the at least a dozen apparent power shifts in the course of the movie, at the end, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING has changed. And you can tell that with this bunch, nothing ever will change unless it's due to factors out of their control, like death.

A matter of slight historical correction to other user comments: Alys was legally betrothed to Richard; that's why she'd been raised by Eleanor.

A historical correction to the script is that John, while thoroughly detestable personally, was not at all stupid, sniveling, or whining; his actual character was actually far closer to that of Geoffrey's in the script. Very little is actually known about the historical Geoffrey except that he was actually, if anything, more of a warrior than Richard, and of course, he died quite young, leaving behind two children, the son being the legal heir to Richard, and who died at the age of twelve or so, ostensibly of disease, possibly in reality of John. This wasn't considered that bad a thing, btw, as no one wanted a child as king, and John was the only one of the whole bunch who'd spent most of his life in England itself. The English nobles had seriously resented both Henry's (in his later years especially, as he tried to carve an inheritance for John out of Europe in general, France in particular) and Richard's neglect (Richard had barely set foot in England in his entire life, and was utterly indifferent to it except as a source of revenue). Also, of course, there's no historical evidence for an affair between Henry and Alys EXCEPT that I've read at least one source suggesting that Richard used this as an excuse to not go through with the marriage itself. And there's CERTAINLY no historical suggestion that Richard and Philip had an affair, although it seems highly likely that Richard was gay insofar as he was sexual at all. Bastards of royalty were a dime a dozen in those days, but NONE are attributed to Richard, nor a whiff or rumor of any affairs he ever had. Both Henry and John, on the other hand, would chase anything wearing a dress, and this was considered perfectly normal and even admirable in a "bad boy" sort of way. However, John took it too far, resorting to rape and starvation of wives of political enemies, and this was one of numerous driving forces for the imposition of Magna Carta on him by his rebelling nobles. Ironically, by contemporary standards, at a national level John was a far better king than Richard (Henry at his best was better, but was too often not at his best, being too bent on conquest to bother to rule effectively what he already had). However, John was nonetheless personally a rather nasty man (to put it mildly), once again proving that the best men don't necessarily make the best rulers. His personal character and actions, more than his policies, drove his own nobles into nearly successful rebellion, resulting in Magna Carta, one of the great steps in English history.

Sorry for boring you silly with the history commentary - it's a period I've always found particularly interesting. You can wake up now; I'm finished.

Anyway, great movie in every sense - script, acting, score, cinematography, editing; it just doesn't get better than this.

Magnificent cinematic medieval chess game, with every intricate move superbly thought out.

[gbrumburgh · 10/10 · 1 March 2001]

"The Lion in Winter" is a crowning achievement in cinematic story-telling. Adapted by Oscar-winning James Goldman from his witty, triumphant 1966 Broadway play that originally starred Robert Preston and Tony-winner Rosemary Harris, the story evolves around aging King Henry II mulling over a successor to the Plantagenet throne among his male progeny, while bringing his estranged, hateful clan together for the Christmas holidays.

Sparks really do fly in this wickedly elaborate chess game as the family player pieces weave thick webs of deceit and hatch insidious plots against each another, forming unholy, protean alliances that put those "Survivor" contestants to shame. The pure joy comes from seeing all of them try to outmaneuver each other with every new and different playing piece put on or taken off the board, hatching alternative schemes as fast as one can say "Long live the King!"

Robust, boisterous Peter O'Toole is a raging marvel as the battered but not yet beaten monarch, agonizing over the untrusting, Machiavellian-like brood he's sired, yet relishing the absolute power he holds and dangles over them. The glorious O'Toole is alternately barbarous and bombastic in one of the best roles of his career, and his loss of the Academy Award over, of all people, John Wayne, remains a travesty of justice.

The king's "brood" includes eldest son and heir-apparent, Richard (known as The Lion-hearted) whose fierce courage and burly warrior stance masquerades a forbidden tenderness detrimental to his standing as a king. Anthony Hopkins, in an auspicious screen debut, embodies these tortuous complexities within Richard perfectly, especially in his scenes as "mummy's favorite." The youngest and pruniest of the three princes is John, a rumpled, drooling, inane man-child impossibly spoiled as the King's favorite, played to pathetic amusement by a terrific Nigel Terry. Neglected middle son, Geoffrey, excellently portrayed with jaded, sliver-eyed cunning by John Castle, is a human blueprint of treachery and deceit. Resentful at being overlooked as even a possible contender, he's willing to sell his parents and brothers down the river for exact change.

Also invited to Christmas court is King Phillip II of France, on a revenge mission himself, who locks horns with Henry over lost lands and becomes a willing participant in these under-handed games. Timothy ("007") Dalton drips with smug, venal charm as the slender, softer, inexperienced king who can only battle Henry with words and wit, not weight. The only unblemished pawn here is Alais, the King's adoring young mistress, who is maliciously thrown to the lions by all as lady-in-waiting bait for the dueling princes. Demure, fragile Jane Merrow is the perfect choice for this innocent songbird with nothing and everything to lose

I have saved the best performance for last. As the King most duplicitous irritant, the inimitable Katharine Hepburn portrays Henry's duly banished Queen Eleanor of Aquitaine with all the unparalleled skill and inspired passion imaginable. Handed on a silver platter the lion's share of the best lines, Hepburn more than delivers the goods here, stealing the ripe proceedings from her talented co-stars. To watch her consummate Eleanor is to see the art of acting in its most passionate form. She is a revelation of perks and prods, of vibrant colors and shadings. She inhabits the passion, the power, the breeding, the deceitfulness, the desperate longing owed this character. Imprisonment (for inciting rebellions against her husband), has not dampened the fighting spirit nor dulled the sharp, calculating mind of this Queen. As in chess, this player is the game's most venturesome and versatile piece, and Hepburn more than lives up to its reputation, a worthy opponent with the best odds to check-mate her King. I have been known to say that the four-time Oscar winner was awarded for all the wrong movies -- excepting this one. She is unforgettable.

Topped with a glorious, inspiring, sometimes furious score (Oscar-winner John Barry), "The Lion in Winter" makes up for its stark, one-note surroundings with its bold, rich characters and ingenuous plotting. It is a hallmark of Gothic temperament and tone. As the old adage goes, "it's not who wins, it's how you play the game." 'Tis so true. So let the games begin!

This film makes a great educational tool!

[KidRalph · 10/10 · 27 October 2004]

I am a high school history teacher, and I use this film to give students insight to the way Medieval kings, queens, and princes plotted and schemed with and against one another, how marriages were arranged with political motives, and how the relationships between these self-important royals shaped the history of the time. When I first introduced the films plot to my student, I was met with apathy and predisposed boredom, but they quickly were caught up in the intrigue and plot twists. At each major turn (an impromptu wedding, a surprise revelation about one of the character's sexuality, etc.), the students were often literally gasping.

As for the film itself, I can not think of a movie with more solid acting from the headliners (O'Toole and Hepburn) to the other principal players (Hopkins, Dalton, Terry, and especially Castle), and even the other characters are well cast (Merrow as Alais is not especially solid, but she is at least adequate in her portrayal as "the only pawn" in this game of kings, queens, and knights).

It is, of course, not to be seen as wholly accurate historically, as it would be near impossible to achieve such for events that took place 800 years ago, but the major themes are true to form, and the film is wonderfully engrossing. Highly recommended!

Possibly the best dialogue ever written for a film... ever.

[A-Ron-2 · 10/10 · 11 July 2000]

I love this film. I love this film. I am not sure that I can say that phrase enough when describing this movie. Lion in Winter is quite simply one of the strangest and most beautiful movies that I have ever seen. It is some wierd amalgam of a 'home for the hollidays' type family drama, and Machiavellian political intrigue.

The essential plot is that it is 1183 and Henry II must declare his successor to the Plantagenet throne. He invites his wife, Eleanor of Aquitaine (played by Katherine Hepburn), who is in exile, and his sons to along with king of France, to Christmas dinner. Over the course of the evening truths are told and arguments are had, the film rolls over all of the conventions of the many genres that it plays with and turns them into something new and beautiful.

The film could have been written by Machiavelli himself, and often smacks of the Mandragola. The film demonstrates family disfunction within a very interesting, medieval paradigm. While the film is about issues such as family, loyalty and love, ultimately is most gratifying as a vehicle for O'Toole and Hepburn to chew the scenery and dig into a few truly juicy roles.

It is fantastic film that any lover of dialogue driven drama-comedy should rent and watch over and over again.

More TRUE than a factual documentary could accomplish

[mazonis · 10/10 · 7 December 2002]

It's been eight years since I first saw this movie, and it is still my personal live-action gold standard (Lilo & Stitch being my animated film gold-standard). It combines drama, tragedy, razor-sharp comedy, great performances, and the best dialogue that has ever been spoken on film, period.

I found this movie quite by accident--I was a sixteen-year-old with a Katharine Hepburn fixation. She mesmerized me; I wanted to BE her--smart, beautiful, sexy, and unwilling and unable to take anything off of anybody (except for Spencer Tracy, but that's another story). Honestly, I had no idea that there really had been such a person as Eleanor until I saw this movie. After watching my heroine portray her, I was determined to find out, though...so I have Katharine Hepburn to thank for my discovery of a new personal hero, and for my passion for medieval history.

It is true that this movie is not 100% factually accurate, not only because movie making dictates tinkering with history to create an interesting film, but also because, unfortunately, not too much is known about Eleanor herself. In the middle ages, women, even powerful, intriguing women like Eleanor, were not considered "important" enough to merit full biographical treatment. Most of Eleanor's history is recorded in the context of her sons and husbands. A good deal of this history was written by her detractors--people who disliked or disapproved of her for one reason or another. The simple explanation is that they felt that as a woman, she overstepped the bounds of what was considered "acceptable behavior" for a woman of the period.

That being said, this movie is 100% spiritually accurate. It perfectly captures the intrigue, the complexity of emotions and relationships, and tone of the age and the situation at hand. Though the sharp and witty dialogue is often considered a historical anachronism, this is not strictly true. Contrary to popular belief, people WERE educated in the middle ages, even women, if they were fortunate enough to be brought up in noble households, as Eleanor was. She was a brilliant woman, raised in a household where poetry and intelligent conversation were staples (her grandfather, after all, was one of the first troubadours). Henry was an intellectual powerhouse as well--he was a voracious reader who was often caught reading in church instead of paying attention to the sermons! It is unthinkable that these two minds would have produced stupid children, and the notion that the entire family should have only spoken in grunts and simple phrases is equally ludicrous.

Though not historically accurate, as other reviewers have noted, the strength of this movie lies in it's perfect portrayal of some of the most fascinating and complex personalities in recorded history. Henry, Eleanor, Richard, et al., make today's political and royal figures seem like low-rent bumbling hucksters.

Well-acted but one-note

[moonspinner55 · 6/10 · 9 April 2005]

Sniping, caustic screen-adaptation of James Goldman's tempestuous play concerning the 12th century marriage battles between King Henry II of England and his wife, Duchess Eleanor of Aquitaine, whom Henry has let out of prison after 10 years for the holidays. Medieval talk-fest becomes "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" in robes and crowns! Some acerbic, amusing exchanges are nearly lost in the blustery den; director Anthony Harvey must love a good shouting match--he has Katharine Hepburn and Peter O'Toole growling and spitting at each other for over two hours. As Eleanor, Hepburn won the Best Actress Oscar (in a tie) for her performance, but she does more for the part than it does for her. O'Toole (bearded and puffy, but still a few years shy of being the proper age for the King) keeps up with Hepburn and, at times, is her acting equal. Goldman's Oscar-winning screenplay is a needling tug-of-war with claws concealed but at the ready; very often, however, Harvey and his leads mistake all the ranting and swagger for high drama. Still, it's an effective acting piece, though one with brackish color and a dreary presentation. Three Oscars in all, including for John Barry's bold music score. **1/2 from ****

Good and bad!

[hemisphere65-1 · 5/10 · 4 November 2021]

The sets and costumes were excellent, especially the dreary and dirty castle.

The acting, mainly from O'Toole and Hepburn, appeared to be "acting". It's amazing how much leeway Katherine Hepburn gets by simply playing the same character in various roles. If that's great acting, shouldn't Rob Schneider also be a legend?

The movie should have been marketed as a comedic satire, but instead it is determined to be a drama. Way to melo... The screenplay may be the most overrated in history, since the great lines are buried amidst useless refuse.

One King's Family: 1183

[theowinthrop · 10/10 · 22 April 2006]

It is very rare to find an actor who has played the same historical figure twice. Charleton Heston was Andrew Jackson in THE PRESIDENT'S LADY and THE BUCCANNEER (1958). Edward Arnold was Diamond Jim Brady in DIAMOND JIM and LILIAN RUSSELL. Reginald Owen was Louis XV in VOLTAIRE and MONSIEUR BEAUCAIRE. Raymond Massey was John Brown in SANTA FE TRAIL and SEVEN ANGRY MEN. But only Peter O'Toole played the same historical figure in two major productions that were made only four years apart, and that showed the character seriously aging.

O'Toole had played King Henry II of England in BECKET (1964) as a young, vibrant monarch who makes the serious mistake of appointing his best friend to the one post that will make them enemies. The period that BECKET encompasses was roughly 1165 to 1171 (when Henry allowed himself to be whipped for the murder of Becket the year before - apparently at his orders). In THE LION IN WINTER (1968) he was King Henry some twelve years later. Henry is now the most powerful monarch in Western Europe, but he has problems of dynastic and political natures.

His power structure in 1183 is dependent on his hold of the marriage dower of his wife Eleanor of Aquitaine. In BECKET, Pamela Brown played Eleanor as a sharp tongued and jealous woman who arranged the murder of her rival Gwendolen (Sian Phillips), on the night Henry was going to have sex with her. Henry (who hates the sight of blood) has a nervous collapse upon seeing the results of Eleanor's activities. In THE LION IN WINTER Eleanor was played by Katherine Hepburn. Now older, she is still a match in terms of political abilities to her husband. He has let her out of her castle prison to visit him and their three surviving sons (Richard, Geoffrey, and John) as well as Princess Alais of France and her brother King Phiip Augustus of France.

Henry's family get-together is not for holiday reasons (although it is occurring at Christmas). He has taken a dower from King Philip's father King Louis for Pincess Alais (Jane Merrow) to marry his oldest son Richard (Anthony Hopkins). But Alais has become the mistress of the monarch, who is considering divorcing Eleanor and starting a "proper" family with his second wife Alais. Richard and his two brothers (John Castle and Nigel Terry) are not happy with this prospect - nor with dynastic ambitions of each other. Of the three sons, Henry favors John (Terry) over Richard, although Richard is the better fighter. The reason is that Richard is the favorite of his mother, and has been implicated in some of her attempts to stir up civil war against Henry. Geoffrey (Castle) has brains but he is untrustworthy and finds that he is constantly dismissed by both parents. And King Philip (Timothy Dalton) is furious that due to the highhanded actions of Henry his father was reduced in power in Europe, and he is forced to report to a man who is technically his vassal due to the French lands that Henry controls.

THE LION IN WINTER had been a Broadway success in the middle 1960s, starring Robert Preston as Henry. The film is a successful transition, with the elderly monarch and his elderly consort tearing at each other in a kind of medieval WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF. O'Toole is wonderful as the still intelligent, vigorous, and bullying monarch he was in BECKET, except now he is facing his own mortality. Hepburn (who won her third Oscar for this film - one year after winning her second for GUESS WHO'S COMING TO DINNER and tying this time with Barbara Streisand for FUNNY GIRL) is able to display a woman capable of any political damage be it encouraging her sons to revolt or threatening future harm to Alais and any child she and Henry may have to torturing Henry with the suggestion that she (Eleanor) slept with Henry's father before they met.

Hopkins' hapless Richard is the most sympathetic of the three sons, with his humiliation when Philip maliciously reveals that Richard is a homosexual (the first time this trait was revealed in any film about Richard the Lion Hearted). Terry's John is properly "pimple faced" and immature on the surface, but showing when he betrays his father that two-faced ability that would lead to his disasters as King. Castle is properly sinister throughout - one realizes that both parents will not suggest him as heir because he'd kill them as soon as he could safely plan it out afterward. Dalton's Philip is galling to O'Toole, as he keeps showing that unlike his father he knows how to harm the British monarchy - by disgracing it's leading hero (Richard), and by simply waiting for time to take it's toll on his enemy Henry. And Merrow is the most sympathetic figure in the film, genuinely loving Henry but finding even he regards her as a dynastic pawn in the end. The movie was that rarity, a sequel as thoughtful and intelligent as the first film had been, and filling in the results of that first film's background and story very well indeed.

THE film of 1968!

[gerry-russell-139 · 10/10 · 20 December 2002]

What were those Academy fools thinking?! They ignore a powerhouse performance by Peter O'Toole and trounce Anthony Harvey's inspiring direction! But the final indignity was in giving the best picture award to an over-praised, undeserving, insignificant musical called OLIVER! If they had a least half a brain in their heads they could've given to FUNNY GIRL but they only shoot themselves in the foot when the deserving go unrecognized. It only goes to show the Academy's just jealous. The script and Kate's performance at least were given the royal treatment but it still leaves bitter resentment when Cliff Roberston, one of Hollywood's most less-than-adequate actors cops the best actor away from O'Toole... possibly Hollywood's most underrated, not to mention unrecognized actors of the highest caliber. Hepburn's Eleanor of Aquitaine had witty lines, quiet but still present anger and fire underneath the surface but O'Toole as Henry II gave the more powerful performance... an aesthetic that echoed Taylor and Burton for WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF? only Taylor was the gutsy performer and Burton doled out the cut-lows and the intellect. To coin a phrase from the British... "he (O'Toole) was bloody robbed!"

The story is set in Britain, 1183. Henry II is on the throne and has ten years earlier imprisoned his wife Eleanor of Acquitaine after co-conspirating a civil war against him. She and their three sons (Richard, the eldest, a brave warrior on the battlefield, whom Eleanor wants to succeed Henry as king; Geoffrey, the quietly vicious, unappreciated middle son of whom neither of them love with a plot for every occurrence and John, the piggish, dirty, thieving brat is their youngest whom Henry for some unknown reason wants on the throne) are all requested to appear at their palace of Chinon for the Christmas holidays. Also invited is young King Philip II of France whose elder sister Alais is the treasured and much-loved mistress to Henry. Philip wishes to have Alais mearried off to one of Henry's sons (preferably Richard) in order to form an alliance between England and France made between Henry and Philip's father, the late King Louis. But meanwhile, Philip is also plotting with all three boys and Eleanor to tear Henry's kingdom apart. Eleanor is merely in on it to get back at Henry for loving Alais (whom she had raised as a surrogate daughter) and the late Rosmund, an old rival of Eleanor's whom Henry replaced her with.

This film has it all: infidelity, betrayal, family dysfunction and a script that crackles with venom, wit and plot-twisting motivation. See it if only for O'Toole and Hepburn's first-rate performances.

the lion is king of the jungle, and of England

[lee_eisenberg · 10/10 · 27 December 2005]

Katharine Hepburn won her third Oscar for "The Lion in Winter", playing brassy queen Eleanor of Aquitaine. Her role is sort of an interesting counterbalance to Peter O'Toole, as King Henry II. That is, she's elderly and he's young. Maybe it was an allusion to the growing generation gap in the world at the time.

But anyway, this is what epic tales of royalty are supposed to be. It shows Henry's conflicts in wondering who will succeed him. Never dragging, the movie truly gives one the feeling of being with these people and understanding their lives. One of the most interesting scenes - in my opinion at least - is when Eleanor says something about sex. I usually wouldn't expect someone of Katharine Hepburn's generation mention sex in a movie. But she does a great job here (well duh). Also starring are a very young Anthony Hopkins and an even younger Timothy Dalton. All in all, "The Lion in Winter" is a perfect movie in every way, and affirmed 1968 as one of the best movie years ever, with "2001: A Space Odyssey", "Funny Girl", "The Odd Couple", "The Planet of the Apes", "Romeo and Juliet", "Candy", "The Night of the Living Dead" and "Bullitt".

Christmas in the Lion's Den

[OttoVonB · 10/10 · 21 August 2006]

King Henry gathers his three son, wife and mistress for the Christmas holidays. This allows the family not only to exchange gifts, but also a host of venomous insults and elaborate on their individual plots to gather status, remove opponents and move closer to the crown.

Based on a play - as most classic character and dialogue-centric movies tend to be - The Lion in Winter's main delight is in watching this vicious family in-fighting, chiefly the parents using their children as chess pawns in a deadly game. But who's playing whom? And when are they actually playing, and when they are, do they always know it? This is first-class writing of the highest order, and, very wisely, the director largely stays out of the way once his cast is tuned. Because as he and we all know, the first question most people ask when a film is mentioned is, "who's in it"?

The cast is a parade of titans on career-best form: Kathrine Hepburn often gets most of the credit for her smooth and calculating Queen Eleanor, but as the raging King Henry, Peter O'Toole is just as good, throwing tantrums and mood-swings, half of which are complete simulations designed to throw enemies off guard, like an aging Hamlet with more agency and the power to behead people. Anthony Hopkins and Timothy Dalton throw in very worthy supporting turns as Prince Richard - the future Lionheart! - and Prince Philip of France respectively.

The Lion in Winter is a film of many pleasures that will appeal to a broad variety of viewers. If you like epic period films, it will compel you with its immersive atmosphere and feel of the world at large with its political intrigue. For the first time in cinematic history, you feel the filth, both physical and moral, of even these regal surroundings. If you like intimate films about human relations, it boasts the most toxic family dynamic this side of Who's Afraid Of Virginia Woolf. Even if you are just curious, it has a score of unforgettable one-liners you'll never forget.

This one deserves all the hype and then some!

a gem

[Kirpianuscus · 13 April 2018]

It seems the perfect film. it has all to be perfect. the story, the director, the magnificent cast. and the need, time by time, to see it. again. because it is the perfect mix of Shakespeare and Oscar Wilde. because a couple like Hepburn O Toole is fabulous. because it is the convincing story about power, hate and love, appearences, parenthood and compromises. because it is a fresco. huge. large, profound. embroidery of illusions and shadows. a film who seems be more convincing than the historical facts. because all is familiar. and a walk on ice bridge. because it is one of films who, behind masks, gives the real image and verdicts about near reality. a masterpiece ? off course. but, more significant, a gem. who gives brilliant dialogues and the force of acting of unique actors.

Fact v.s. Fiction

[harry-76 · 7/10 · 24 July 2001]

The probem I have with "A Lion in Winter" is similar to that of "Ben-Hur." In the case of the latter, writer Lew Wallace subtitled it, "A Tale of the Christ."

Well, it is not that. What Wallace did was to fashion a completely fictious, melodrmatic tale and superimpose it onto Biblical narrative. The result for me was a "neither fish, nor foul" piece of exploitation. I couldn't feel very emotional about this cloned product that was, at best, hybrid.

More recently, James Goldman came along, and wrote a play based on historical characters and events of 1183 AD. These people and actions generally did take place, to go by many historical records. But what did these people actually talk like? Were they as boisterous, catty, camp, and parody-like as Goldman's script?

Were Prince Richard and King Philip I youthful lovers, reviving their passions in more mature years? Was Princess Alais really a mistress to Henry II, clingingly obedient even though being constantly debased and belittled by Henry? Could almost every sentence between Henry and Eleanor of Aquitaine have been as biting, acidic and cynical as Goldman's dialogue?

More vexing, though, is the eye-winking tone of the script. Even though most of the enactment under Anthony Harvey is played dead-seriously, every now and then a "modern," "hip" bit is tossed out. These "throw-aways" make one wonder about the integrity--or intention--of Goldman (and Anthony). Is the whole thing just one big put-on, after all? The puns get laughs, to be sure, but at what cost: just how sincere really is "A Lion in Winter"?

On the other hand, had late-60s audiences become so jaded as to somehow require some "mod" double entendres and "campy quips" in order to "connect" with the "dusty" medieval setting? Could they not have taken a piece played uniformly "straight?" Does this say something more about people of the 20th than 12th century?

Whatever the case, "A Lion in Winter" cannot be accused of being "creaky." On the contrary, it's a vibrant, explosive, energetic piece of work, acted to the hilt by an exception cast, and headed by Peter O'Toole, Katherine Hepburn and Anthony Hopkins. The film did "connect" with most audience members, and continues to be well-regarded by the mass public--even those who wouldn't be caught dead reading "dry" medieval history.

A flawed but interesting historical drama

[didi-5 · 7/10 · 9 September 1999]

It's 1183 and the English Royal family are holding Christmas court. The agenda being that everyone wants to hurt everyone else. Cue a historical soap opera complete with draughty castles, blustering kings, and scheming queens.

As a historical film, this one pales against its contemporary A Man For All Seasons and the more recent Elizabeth, but it is not without interest. Kate Hepburn and Peter O'Toole are wonderful as the 'gorgon' Queen Eleanor and the unloved and unloving king Henry II, despite a great age gap which I have to say doesn't show.

Anthony Hopkins plays a sensitive Richard Lionheart, in his debut; Nigel Terry's prince John is a whining little bore; and Timothy Dalton plays the spoilt and vain Philip of France with the same aplomb he gave to Darnley in Mary, Queen of Scots a few years later.

Everything is dark and gloomy in 12th century England, and, dialogue aside (some of it is pretty good but doesn't ring true for the period!), not a bad attempt at making a good story out of a few snippets and rumours from history.

Superb film and one of the best films of 1968

[TheLittleSongbird · 10/10 · 17 August 2010]

I didn't see this film until fairly recently, and I am so glad I did, because The Lion in Winter is absolutely superb not only as an adaptation of James Goldman's play about Henry II and Eleanor of Aquataine but as a film. I also firmly believe, and this is my opinion, that it is the second best film of 1968 after 2001. It has everything, wonderful performances, superb dialogue, an intriguing story, a beautiful score and adept direction, in short what more can you ask for?

The story of The Lion in Winter is a great one to work from, and one that works wonderfully. It is set mostly in the austere castle ramparts over the Christmas festival, yet it is also a story of a family squabble that has geopolitical import, in other words the Medieval Dymnastic War. The sets, scenery and costumes are exquisite, and John Barry's score is breathtakingly beautiful and suitably melancholic. The direction is excellent, and while the film is over 2 hours it never feels as though it's dragging.

In fact thanks to primarily the script and performances it is utterly riveting. The dialogue, what can I say? Can I coin the phrase "among the best ever written"? The dialogue is so good, and sparkles constantly, not to mention memorable and incredibly thought-provoking. The performances especially from the two leads are brilliant. Katherine Hepburn is a revelation as the skillful and consummate Eleanor, while a deliciously robust Peter O'Toole gives one of his best performances as Henry II. Everyone else is excellent too, and I have to say for me The Lion in Winter is also notable for the debuts of Timothy Dalton and Anthony Hopkins, both of them great debuts too.

Overall, superb and actually very difficult to fault. 10/10 Bethany Cox

Overdose of conspiracies and turmoil in the one small Royal Family.

[SAMTHEBESTEST · 6/10 · 18 August 2020]

The Lion In Winter (1968) : Brief Review -

Overdose of conspiracies and turmoil in the one small Royal Family. The Lion In Winter is that one film i will remember for number of conspiracies and contradictions in one single family. A father, a mother, a mistress, 3 sons and One Crown. Not a single blood relation in the film is good, not a single character is happy with the partner whether it is Lover, Wife, Husband, Parents or sons. At beginning I was enjoying all those conspiracies every single character was setting against other one and i thought it would end with lot more tricks and lot more Fun but it appeared differently in the second half. It wasn't about tricks but it was about hatred and realisation of Love which felt typical. At first i wondered if it's a true story or what but now i don't even care because character sense was missing badly and even as fiction it looked terrible. The first half sounded vibrating with enough humour and tricks and the second half was more about family drama or should I say the overdose of it. Peter O'Toole as Henry was very good and full of variations in his character and even in his accent. Katharine Hepburn won the Best Actress Oscar Award and i think it was quite enough if not fully. Anthony Hopkins, John Castle, Nigel Terry and Jane Merrow were noticeable in few scenes. I strongly disagree with this film winning Best Writing Award (Adaption). It won Oscar for Best Music too which i didn't even notice. Coming to the direction of Anthony Harvey, it's nice and firmly convincing considering the writing it had. Though, i would have loved to see detailing in characterization. This family fiasco is too difficult to digest and to go by but it is a fine attempt. Overall, it is pretty much watchable film for performances and some fun moments but don't expect intelligence.

RATING - 6/10*

By - #samthebestest

They Might Be Giants

[citizen813 · 10/10 · 21 December 2004]

The great film critic, Pauline Kael, chastised Hepburn in this film version of James Goldman's historical cat fight for exploiting the audience's emotional connection to her; for playing on her frailty. Further proof, that artistry is in the eye of the beholder. Ironically, years later, Hepburn, according to biographer Scott Berg, would criticize Meryl Streep for being too mannered. Of course, neither are the worse for the wear. Hepburn actually emerges triumphant in her portrayal of Eleonor of Acquitane and not least of which because we know the woman behind the artist; and know her to be a royal survivor in her own right.

Other criticism that has dogged this work is that James Goldman's dark satire is muddied by the layer of emotion and even sentiment that the movie develops. But as with the film version of Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, the enhanced emotional core of the story is a strong plus. To this end John Barry's forceful score lends great credibility as does Anthony Harvey's non stop strategic direction. Casting this powerful, writing this intelligent in the hands of a smart director makes this Lion unsurpassable to a stage production and certainly the unfortunate recent remake.

A Tour de Force for O'Toole and Hepburn

[Hitchcoc · 10/10 · 8 December 2016]

This was the most talked about film of 1968. It is the story of an aging Henry II and his efforts to divide his kingdom at the time of his death. He has his queen, Eleanor of Acquitain, locked up in a castle and has released her to help him sort things out. He has three sons, one a petulant little man, full of fire and anxiety; the second, a man with a persecution complex who feels he is the odd man out; and the third, Richard the Lion Hearted, a warrior (who is exposed as a homosexual). This is a movie where the dialogue is fast and furious. Henry has a mistress and she becomes a pawn in this game. He tries to hand the kingdom over to a couple sons, but the conditions they place on his choice cause him to change his mind. Enter the French ruler who is furious that Henry is exerting power that he has no right to, in his opinion. The byplay between the Queen and Henry is marvelous; there is no one who can spar verbally better than Hepburn. There is a kind of dance that goes on. This is the very soul of dysfunction. I had never seen this in its day. It is a marvelous portrayal of the failings of a family. And an actual love story, as strange as that sounds.

Game of Thrones 68

[Quinoa1984 · 9/10 · 31 August 2015]

The Lion in Winter is about the games that people high up in power tend to play with each other when they can, but it's also about parents, their children and how a woman has to act in such a society. This movie is rich with a lot of ideas and concepts, and yet it mostly comes down to the acting - people not exactly of the small-time variety like Peter O'Toole and Katharine Hepburn as the King of England and Eleanor of Aquataine (in other words, the Queen, or once was), and featuring supporting roles for the likes of Anthony Hopkins (his first film, really) and Timothy Dalton. Does a lot of this get stagy? Oh, very much so. It can be a drawback, or maybe just the "Showiness" in quotation marks. I use quotes since that's what other people say, and I do too. But is this necessarily a bad thing? No, but the feeling that this was a play and brought to the screen by its author is never left.

This is all essentially a familial drama with political implications at a lot of turns: the King has to choose his heir, as he is fifty years old and seemingly won't live that much longer (perhaps for the time, the 12th century, it was quite old, albeit Eleanor is supposed to be 61). Who will he choose: super strong but emotionally wounded Richard, the middle-child with his own scheming Phillip, or the lovable but weak-willed and odd John? If he really could have his way he'd want to choose all of them - and, as one might see, the question could arise that none of them is an option - but a lot of these games are complicated by other factors, such as of course Eleanor, the mother of his children and a prisoner for her own scheming over the years; the King of France (Dalton) who is often referred to as "boy", and the king's sister cum mistress for Henry, and a to-be-betrothed to one of the sons (Jane Merrow, underrated among the cast, she's really good here).

In other words, there's some wackiness that ensues, of the sometimes dark, melodramatic and brooding kind. But what I found most interesting were what was behind so much of the drama, what these characters carry with them and continue to do so, some of them as they are facing death sooner someday than others. With Eleanor of Aquataine, this is a character who has had power taken away from her, she really doesn't have anything, and yet she can - or really has to - cut Henry down every chance she can to keep up to his level. She really is a vulnerable character deep down, when she can show it, though when that is exactly is anyone's guess. Like many plays (or the ones that I've seen and heard over the years), the games that people play on each other - think Virginia Woolf, for instance - is what is supposed to make it riveting for the audience. Who is going to plot what next? How will all of this drama (verging on soap opera) unfold?

Maybe all of this is soap opera. There were certainly times, like when the sons are hiding not totally comically in Dalton's bedchamber when Henry comes in to have a talk, that the staginess of it can't be helped. But what stuck out for me and what made me like the movie so much is that the director Anthony Harvey and writer Goldman takes this material as seriously as they can, and mostly as this family drama first. Again, one may think of Game of Thrones as well (this could just as easily be the Lannister clan, fans of the show will know what I mean). And yet in order for this stuff to work, the actors do have to sell it and not hold back; if one is to do this sort of high-voltage, highly emotionally charged stuff right, get some people who will commit to it completely.

Peter O'Toole gives what could be one of his two or three best performances here. That's a bold statement considering what other work he did in his career, but really when has he been better? Yes, this King has to yell and pontificate in GRAND, BIG ways (in caps) in many scenes. But a lot of this, we are in the know on, is braggadocio, like a much more refined version of Archie Bunker or Ralph Kramden. And yes, a sitcom comparison could be made here, only the laughs had aren't shallow or base: these characters really can't stand one another - that, and, in one of those contradictions people have to keep in their heads one alongside the other, they love each other still. That's what's fascinating about watching O'Toole and Hepburn (in a role far more Oscar-y than 'Dinner' in 67). If you don't buy them as a bitter, wry, deeply wounded married couple, the movie actually doesn't work as well. I bought into them, and many of their scenes carry that electrified air of big, bold dramatic moments, especially in the last act when big claims are made about past familial ties.

I don't know if it's all a great film. Some of the dramatic confrontations here get into that realm of such theatricality that it's hard to take a few times, just in that way of 'Oh, for chrissake, just kill each other and get it over with already!' But it has such a strong script and acting, and the themes of being a woman in that period and what a marriage was in such medieval times, or being a father and sons, that I had a great time watching it. By the end one senses not much has *really* changed for these people, but then why should it? Life goes on, until it doesn't, for these people of royalty and obsessive power

An Amazing Film

[ashowen · 10/10 · 19 August 2005]

This film is one of the great cinematic achievements of the 20th Century. Katharine Hepburn's performance is brilliant, not to mention hilarious in some parts. She captures the personality of Eleanor of Aquitaine perfectly, and creates a smart, yet dysfunctional chemistry with Peter O'Toole that is captivating. Anthony Hopkins' role as the young Richard the Lion-Hearted brings the jealousy and rage of the throne to this film. Also, the performances of John Castle and Nigel Terry are very good. The role played by Castle, Geoffrey, is witty and almost sarcastic in many ways. Terry's role as John is very good portrayal of the historical John I of England being whiny and insecure. The enchantment of royalty and the jealousy of a family feud make this film one to be treasured.

Chinon,my native town!

[dbdumonteil · 28 November 2009]

This is the only movie which entirely takes place in my native town ,Chinon.This town was also the place where Joan of Ark met the king in 1429.

When there was a "Son Et Lumière "show a long time ago,Joan,Henry the Second and Alienor were the heroes.The royal couple was buried in Fontevraud Abbey,not far from Chinon,and their recumbent statues are the only ones in color in France.

The movie is magnificent:shall I have to say Katherine Hepburn thoroughly deserved her AA for her stunning performance (which leaves the co-winner Streisand far behind in 1968),and she is matched every step of the way by Peter O'Toole.Young Anthony Hopkins and Timothy Dalton already show their talent.

The movie was filmed in the south of France ,but the place -although geographically inaccurate - was chosen with care because ,when the boat sails down the river ,I thought for a short while it was MY Vienne valley in a place I used to bathe when I was a child.

like watching an episode of "Mama's Family"

[planktonrules · 6/10 · 19 July 2005]

This movie is very well made and the acting is excellent. It concerns the lives of Henry II, his strong-willed wife (Eleanor) and their three surviving overly-ambitious sons.

The problem I have with this well-respected film is that although it is a relatively faithful to true life account of this family, the level of dysfunction is so high it just turned me off completely. It was sort of like watching an episode of Mama's Family or maybe even Jerry Springer. Many people will forgive this or even be attracted to this, but I felt like turning the movie off again and again. Watching people savage each other just isn't my cup of tea. In fact, EVERY member of this family was about as unlikable as they could possibly be and I wanted all of them to just go away! FYI--Think of how it must have been to have been English in the 12th and 13th centuries and have to put up with them! Henry II--one of the most ambitious and amoral kings ever, Richard the Lionhearted who loved fighting and massacring in the Crusades but could care less about ruling, and John I who was so disliked and miscalculated so badly during his reign (with the barons and the Pope) that no other English king has been named "John" since!

Extremely well done...but also rather awful. I can respect the fine acting and lovely sets...but that just isn't enough for me.