Product Description

Katharine Hepburn delivers an amazing (Variety), OscarÂ(r)-winning* performance 'that must be seen to be believed (Boxoffice) in this dazzling (Los Angeles Times) all-star film that is not to be missed. Behind the great stone walls of an English castle, the world's most powerful empire is in crisis. Three sons struggle to win their father's favoras well as his crown. King Henry II (Peter O'toole) and his queen, Eleanor (Katharine Hepburn), engage ina battle of royal wits that pits elder son Richard (Anthony Hopkins) against his brothers, while the cunning King Philip of France (Timothy Dalton) takes advantage of the internal fracturing in his bid to destroy their kingdom. *1968: Actress

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #1568 in DVD
• Released on: 2001-06-19
• Rating: PG (Parental Guidance Suggested)
• Aspect ratio: 2.35:1
• Formats: Anamorphic, Closed-captioned, Color, DVD-Video, Subtitled, Widescreen, NTSC
• Original language: English
• Subtitled in: French, Spanish
• Number of discs: 1
• Running time: 135 minutes

Amazon.com
In this 12th-century version of Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, Henry II of England (Peter O'Toole) and his wife, Eleanor of Aquitaine (Katharine Hepburn), meet on Christmas Eve to discuss the future of the throne. These two are having slight marital problems, as she is kept in captivity most of the year for raising a rebellion against him, and he flaunts his young mistress. Then there are the problems raised by their three treacherous and traitorous sons.

James Goldman won an Oscar® for the brilliant screenplay, based on his Broadway play. It is a tad wordy, as the action is kept to a minimum, but those words are sharp as daggers. The humor is wicked and black and delivered with very dry, dead-on precision. Sparks fly and the screen sizzles whenever Hepburn and O'Toole tango, which is often. Both were nominated for Academy Awards® for their vigorous performances. (She won; he didn't.) There's also an infamous homo-erotic exchange between Philip of France (Timothy Dalton) and Richard the Lionhearted (Anthony Hopkins). Both actors were making their feature-film debuts. --Rochelle O'Gorman

Customer Reviews

Even better the fourth time!
I saw the stage play forty years ago, and it was great. And every ten years or so, I watch the movie and enjoy it more every time.

But I have a question...

Why did James Goldman portray Henry II as a bisexual and pedophile ("Alais, in my time I've known...contessas, milkmaids,
courtesans...and novices, whores, gypsies, jades...and little boys..."), and his son Richard the Lionhearted as a homosexual?

Couldn't the story have been just as interesting and compelling, or even more so, without the homosexual fabrications? There was no historical or artistic reason to include any of that.

So, why? Could it be that Goldman was himself homosexual? Was he a closeted forerunner of today's hollywood writers, who include a homosexual character in nearly every television show and movie, to advance their own social agenda?

What other reason would there be?

Well-acted but depressing; historically doubtful
This is a great movie to watch once. But while it is clever, it is not a feel-good film. One could sum up the plot as "scheming humans making themselves and others as miserable as possible".

As a period film, it is a mix of accuracy and inaccuracy. Henry II washing his face with ice water is a good touch, but the rest of his surroundings are unrealistically primitive. 12th century life was far richer than we give it credit for. The castle should have been teeming with servants and retainers. The clothes are too simple and drab: trade routes imported materials and food as far afield as China. Henry II was arguably the most powerful man in Europe at the time--he controlled more land in modern France alone than the King of France did--and his surroundings would have reflected his status.

Henry II, Eleanor, and their three living sons did indeed meet for Christmas in 1183. But while the issues addressed--the question of succession and lordship of the Aquitaine--were real issues, the playwright has combined over 15 years of family strife into a couple days.

Henry II's fondness for his youngest son John is exaggerated: Henry wouldn't have dreamt of leaving the kingship to a younger son. The film shows John as having the IQ of a doornob, while administrative records from his reign indicate he was quite intelligent.

The film's portrayal of Richard is out of date: his weakness of character is entwined with his alleged homosexuality. Also, primary sources indicate Richard was heterosexual; the theory that he was homosexual or bisexual is based on a modern interpretation of 12th century social norms. To add insult to inaccuracy, the film shows Richard as a thick-skulled stubborn jock, while the primary sources I've read indicate he was a remarkably savvy politician and diplomat.

For a balanced, historiographically thorough treatment of Richard, read Richard I by John Gillingham It is a play-by-play history of his life, so the casual reader may want to skip parts, and refer to the index for specific issues. For a well-researched, highly readable cross-section of Anglo-Norman life in the 12th and early 13th centuries, read 1215: the Year of Magna Carta

While it is historically misleading, The Lion in Winter provides a gripping interpretation of Plantagenet family dynamics, and is a worthwhile buy for anyone who appreciates talented stage-acting and acerbic dialogue.

The Lion in Winter
This is one of the best movies made! As close to Shakespeare as you can get in modern times. The dialogue is incredible,especially in the interaction of Hepburn and O'Toole. They also seem to be having such a good time with it.The whole cast couldn't have been chosen more perfectly.The tension between the brothers as they back stab at the machinations of their parents is palatable.For lovers of historical drama this is a must. For lovers of great dialogue and charisma between actors this is a must. For lovers of great film making in general this is a must!