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.

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

There are few actors who made a bigger impact on film than the likes of Peter O'toole and Katharine Hepburn. When you get the chance to see them both grace the screen together, you have to take it. Both of them have very memorable scenes and give legendary performances. Unfortunately the film as a whole isn't their best, but the dialogue and performances are enough of a reason to give this film a look.They play king and queen, but in reality they are very far from being a happily married royal couple. Throw in Anthony Hopkins and Timothy Dalton, who launched their career with their roles and you get a cinema classic. Hepburn plays an emotionally unstable queen who always seems to have something new up her sleeve. Not only does she plan against King Henry, but convinces her sons to do the same. Its refreshing to see Hepburn in a role other than her earlier roles where she simply throws herself at every man. In this movie, you don't want to mess with her, she threatens with words but the look on her face just shouts power. She shares some of the most memorable scenes, in particular with Henry.But the craziest and must gut wrenching scene involves Henry, his three sons, and King Philip. The film suffers a bit by not having any fast moving scenes. The finale does deliver on the thrill of how much these people would do for power. Its quite ridiculous to think that people in this time period would put their family and closest friends in danger to secure royalty. But there are still times that the sons feel a bit comical. Anthony Hopkins is good but the other sons don't feel like real people. Doesn't take away from the tremendous lead performances in what is a pretty good film.+Hepburn and O'Toole give legendary performances+dialogue and script is top notch-sometimes comical characters-long running time7.6/10

King Henry II (Peter O'Toole) learns the lesson of King Lear refusing to divide his kingdom in three for his three sons. He wants to leave it to his youngest John (Nigel Terry) and have him marry his mistress Alais. His estranged wife Queen Eleanor of Aquitaine (Katharine Hepburn) is imprisoned wants the oldest Richard the Lionheart (Anthony Hopkins) to take over. During Christmas 1183, King Henry II calls together all the players including King Philip II of France (Timothy Dalton) as everybody schemes to take the throne.The great actors are showing their skills in this movie adapted from the play. The historical drama has been fictionalized. The acting is strong especially Katharine Hepburn. There isn't a weak performance except maybe Jane Merrow as Alais. However her character is nothing but a pawn. The production is fair. The camera work doesn't take full advantage. The scale looks smaller than the movie needs. There are a few too many long distant shots by director Anthony Harvey. If there is truly a weak spot in the film, the visual style comes closest. There is a reasonable number of people there, but the movie just doesn't look it. And it's hard to root for anybody in this movie which makes it harder to watch.