Aiden Melton
The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.
Jonah Abbott
There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.
Guillelmina
The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.
Enchorde
Recap: It is soon Christmas and Henry II decides to hold court at Chinon. There he intends to enforce his wish to crown his youngest son John as his heir and to make John marry Alais, a French princess and Henry's lover. Unfortunately, he is not the only one with interests in the succession. Both Richard and Geoffrey, John's elder brothers, want to be king. And the queen Eleonor, imprisoned by Henry since hers (and Richards and Geoffreys last uprising) has her own intentions. And then there is the young French king Philip that intends to enforce Henry's deal with Philip's father Louis that Alais should marry Richard. The game is set and there are too many players. The only thing to be sure about is that everyone looks out for themselves.Comments: Set in the middle ages you almost think that they will solve every quarrel with swords, but this movie has almost none of it. Instead it his an entrenched battle of the wits with too many combatants so that no one never can be sure of who's trench they're in. Alliances are made and broken on a whim and everyone evolves around one thing. The throne. There are two main combatants, Henry and Eleonor, but the other has schemes of their own.That makes for an interesting story. Everything is in motion. So even if it is long (originally a two piece series) it is never dull.With no action to speak of, and the intrigue being all in words it is important that the characters is believable and all the pressure is on the actors. And they come through with flying colors. Both Stewart and Close are solid veterans, but they get strong support from all the others. No character, except for one, and that is the major flaw of the movie, is shallow or simple. All characters are deep, complex. There are secrets and hidden motives that evolve and surface during the movie. It is only John, Henry's favorite, that doesn't come through. If that is the directors intention or not I can't say but it is the weak point of the movie. Because John is too dumb and unfit to be king in almost any way conceivable. How he can be the intended heir is a conundrum. However, it is not only rational reasoning that command the players here, too much of it is emotions. Ant that, is another strength of the movie, because it builds to the unpredictability.Well, I could go on, but the comment soon would be as long as the movie. In short, this was a nice surprise. Highly recommended for those that appreciate a battle in words and don't need explosions in every movie.7/10
cjp49
The original film version starring Katharine Hepburn and Peter O'toole is my favorite film of all time simply because of the two brilliant actors who take the starring roles and the witty dialog that they exchange. This remake was not only sad, it was pathetic. I am glad that it was only a TV release so it will not scar the image of the original with moviegoers.This version not only had problems, it was a problem. To begin with the script that made the original sparkle was dimmed for this revamp. Evidently it was felt that "dumbing down" was needed in order for new audiences to comprehend the dialog. So instead of the exchange of mighty wits that they first was built on this film presents a battle between idiots who can barely speak. Close attempts to take on the character of Eleanor but fails when compared to Hepburn who seemed to become Eleanor. As for Patrick Stewart, whom I admire as an actor, he was possibly the best part of the film although his part suffered from being brought down to the level of a supposed audience of idiots. As for the actor who played John, words cannot express such disgust for bad acting or unseemly display of stupidity.The only thing this film had going for it, and I am not sure it was a plus, was that it was slightly more historically sound than the original, but in order to be so I am sure the original play had to be changed in some way.
Laura
I've never seen the original ALIW with Hepburn, so I wasn't able to make comparisons there. I did see a stage version, years ago at my old university, so I was familiar with the plot and characters.Patrick Stewart and Glenn Close have wonderful chemistry. I freely admit that I could watch Stewart sit on a chair and read from the phone book, but he makes an absolutely commanding Henry II. Close is alternately domineering and fragile, but always riveting. Their separate scenes are elegant, but they shine most when they play off of each other; Henry and Eleanor have a fascinating dynamic, and the interaction between husband and wife is dazzling.I was less enamored with the performances of the three English princes. Andrew Howard's Richard was done well enough, particularly the scenes where he was portraying softer emotions. John Light's Geoffrey didn't seem quite right to me, but that may not be his own fault; the actor who played Geoffrey in the stage version I saw was a friend of mine, so my opinion of the character will forever be biased. Rafe Spall's John was utterly appalling -- but he was supposed to be, so does the fact that I absolutely loathed him mean he was brilliant? Yuliya Vysotskaya was a luminous Alais. She has a splendid range and presence, and I wish she would do more acting projects that would let her be seen in the U.S. She has a charming ethereal quality when the script calls for it, yet can be equally hard as needed.For me, though, the best performance was that of Jonathan Rhys-Meyers, who I found utterly captivating as King Philip of France. He steals every scene in which he appears, and gives the young King just the right balance of anger, slyness, contemplation, and humor. (And let's be honest, he's not really hard on the eyes either.) On the whole, I couldn't bring myself to stop watching the movie until it was over, and it's definitely one I would be happy to watch again.
tom_mack
The craft of acting is often unseen to the casual observer. I say this because I find it hard to believe that any one would have anything bad to saw about the remarkable performances of Glen Close and Patrick Stewart. I walked away from watching this film thinking that a special Emmy should have been created for Glen. Riveting, powerful, nuanced, Close's performance astounded, showing depth in the character, and building up to the emotional explosion at the end of the film. I still have chills. And for someone to say there was no chemistry between her and Patrick I just have to say- huh? What were you looking for? The way they collided in the scene toward the end of the film revealed how much they LOVED one another...not how much they hated one another. Those angry sparks in the air had their birth in their status as soul mates.As for comparisons to Kate Hepburn? Come on now...Kate was a movie star, not an actor, and has no where near the range of Close.See this film.
