Absolutely Fantastic

Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny

B*O*R*I*N*G*!!!! this is an incredibly awful representation of the wonderful play and tremendous portrayals of the 1968 film. the acting is dull. stewart and hepburn cannot touch o'toole and hepburn. the role of richard was played as a major wimp, john's portrayal was disastrous, and phillip a joke. only the geoffrey character was interesting, though it does not compare the brilliance of john castle. the script was almost word-for-word, but the deliverance was dull and w/out any passion or inspiration. i cannot say enough bad things about this version...it was entirely a disappointment. stick w/the original,the performances near perfect, and one of the best if not best of the 20th century films. don't waste your time or money on this TV version. see the original, you'll be glad you did.

OK performances but I have to say overall disappointing and utter crap. I usually adore Patrick Stewart and Glenn Close and their performances were quite good, Jonathan Rhys-Meyers was outstanding (didn't have enough screen time). The rest of the cast was nothing special. Maybe they were meant to be mediocre characters and in that case they did well.Yuliya Vysotskaya in her role as Alais was sensational and I hope to see her in future roles but this movie is just not worth the time it takes to see it. I didn't have any expectations when I rented it and it left me feeling unfulfilled. Have seen worse movies but it's in that category.

...not quite as good as the original with Peter O'Toole and Katherine Hepburn. The acting isn't quite up to par for the majority of the cast. The emotional side of the characters did not come through in the performances, even during dialog that one would normally expect to see some sort of outburst. Patrick Stewart and Glenn Close play their parts excellently, as usual. However, their timing and delivery pale in comparison to that of Peter and Kate. Throw in a supporting cast that includes Anthony Hopkins(Richard) and Timothy Dalton(Phillip) and you can see why this film earned Kate an Oscar. All in all a good effort, but I'll stick with the original recipe.

Some films should simply not be remade, and The Lion in Winter is among them. The writer cannot be blamed; after all, it's Goldman's original script, almost word for word. The culprits are the director and the actors, laboring so hard to craft every scene and deliver every line differently than in the O'Toole-Hepburn version that they just lose their way. (The Charlton Heston version of A Man for All Seasons, another remake that should never have been, suffers from the same thing.) There are other problems; on one hand, (in theory, at least), while Stewart and Close could have been perfect casting choices as Henry and Eleanor, the rest of the cast just don't appear comfortable or confident in their roles and it shows. Masterpieces should be left alone; I only hope no one ever gets any bright ideas about To Kill a Mockingbird.