Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Recommended Posts

This is one of my all time favorite films. I don't know how many times I've seen it or care. I watch it every time I find it playing. The acting is some of the finest you will see anywhere. For me everything works in this film because of the dynamics of its two stars. O'Toole and Hepburn are at the top of their craft, the script is marvelous , the supporting players are outstanding along with the score,photography,sets, and direction. everything works.

The first time I ever saw "Lion" was on a flight from New York to L.A. and I watched about 5 minutes and took off my headset thinking "What a lousy movie". The next time I saw it was a few months later on a double bill, "Lion" was the first film and I sat there awe struck, I couldn't believe this was the film I partially watched on the plane. I don't even remember what the other film was, I don't remember staying for it. To watch O'Toole and Hepburn duel with words is a thing of beauty, both are at their best and watching them is a joy. I always though "what a great way to make your movie debut in a film with O'Toole and Hepburn" as Anthony Hopkins and Timothy Dalton did. I was so disappointed that O'Toole lost the Academy Award for acting to Cliff Robinson that year. He has lost so many times before or since. That was the year Katherine Hepburn tied with Barbara Streisand for the win At least he won the Golden Globe for Best Actor.......

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with everything you said about this fine film, and especially, its exemplary cast. Some of best dialogue I've ever seen. I've seen it on stage twice and, believe it or not, it plays even better as theatre. Except, of course, that it doesn't have O'Toole and Hepburn.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed it is a great film. Whenever I catch a glimpse of it on TCM, it draws me in and I can't stop watching. I know the film's director, Anthony Harvey, pretty well. He's English but now makes his home way out on Long Island. In addition to his amazing career as film editor and director, he is a charming, humorous, and extremely decent man.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I caught the beginning of this one about a year ago and just sat there mouth agape at O'Toole and Hepburn playing off of each other so well. Great cast and unreal dialogue in this one. O'Toole HAD to have a sore throat, he screamed through the entire movie. lol

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have y'all heard Kevin Spacey on Peter O'Toole? He does a nice little impersonation and gives a few thoughts on him on this Letterman clip. Start it at about 4:40 & it goes till about 6:50, I think it's hilarious! :)

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=fredbaetz wrote:}{quote}

>I was so disappointed that O'Toole lost the Academy Award for acting to Cliff Robinson that year. He has lost so many times before or since. That was the year Katherine Hepburn tied with Barbara Streisand for the win At least he won the Golden Globe for Best Actor.......

 

No one's ever lost an Oscar, but there are lots and lots of nominees who've failed to win one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well now,for your information, Angelina Jolie actually "LOST" her Oscar for "Girl Interrupted" and has no idea where it is.So I guess your statement is incorrect "No one's ever lost an Oscar"....

 

Edited by: fredbaetz on Apr 29, 2010 3:24 AM

Link to post
Share on other sites

One of my favorite films of all time too! Love the dialogue, sets, costuming, the interplay and chemistry between O'Toole and Hepburn...the only thing I'm not entirely sure of was Anthony Hopkins as Richard. Or possibly Timothy Dalton as Phillipe. There was no chemistry between them--couldn't see them as friends, let alone as lovers.

 

Has anyone ever seen the 2003 version of this film? I think it's every bit as good as the original ::ducks:: It's interesting to me to see how the actors play scenes differently from the original.Just an example--the scene in the courtyard between Eleanor and Richard. In the Hepburn/Hopkins version, there's a sort of twisted vibe, as though they want to hurt each other. When Eleanor tells Richard about the first time she met his father, it's as though she's trying to make him jealous. In the later version, they seem much more relaxed and comfortable and the same lines come across as affectionate and teasing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=fredbaetz wrote:}{quote}

> The first time I ever saw "Lion" was on a flight from New York to L.A. and I watched about 5 minutes and took off my headset thinking "What a lousy movie". The next time I saw it was a few months later on a double bill, "Lion" was the first film and I sat there awe struck, I couldn't believe this was the film I partially watched on the plane.

 

Just reinforces my theory that films need to be seen in a theater with an audience on a BIG screen.

A small screen on a plane can't do justice to even the finest movie.

Link to post
Share on other sites

this is by far the worst movie Hepburn ever made, it is just stupid, boring and who cares?

 

it is a ridiculously too English movie for me!

 

Hepburn is better in Bringing Up Baby, A Bill of Divorcement, but this film is real junk!

Link to post
Share on other sites

A Christmas card from Hell, *The Lion in Winter* is perhaps one of the most perceptive views of family, manipulation, and the art of verbal fencing ever to grace the screen, dealing with dysfunctional ties in a humorous, but realistic sense. Perhaps the reason I?m drawn to the movie is the fact that it?s so different from other Christmas films.

 

In most holiday movies, change comes from the outside and solves a crisis. Whether it?s angels getting their wings (or helping build a church), a man pretending injury, an interloper with a train set, etc. In King Henry?s household, nothing is solved or wrapped up neatly. Life will go on as it has before, but Christmas has brought them a sense of reflection that makes all the world's difficulties easier to face. As Henry says to Eleanor: ?We?re both alive and for all I know, that?s what hope is.?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I guess it is a matter of taste. Not liking something doesn't make it 'junk' in my view. Anyhow, my wife feels the same way about the movie as you do mainly because she feels everyone is always yelling. I enjoy the movie for its great acting but I can see why it would get on ones nerves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=traceyk65 wrote:}{quote}

> Has anyone ever seen the 2003 version of this film? I think it's every bit as good as the original ::ducks::

 

With Patrick Stewart and Glenn Close, made for Showtime cable network. Two fine actors, but it simply doesn't work: it's utterly un-cinematic and just sits there like a brick; everything seems to go on forever, which isn't surprising since the cable version is 19 minutes longer than Anthony Harvey's 1968 film. The 2003 version also doesn't have composer John Barry's fine score to help move things along. Lastly, I'm quite a fan of Patrick Stewart, but he and Glenn Close utterly miss the elegantly sadistic joy that O'Toole and Hepburn brought to their verbal fencing, and the emotional subversiveness inherent in James Goldman's play.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched the Stewart / Close version of "Lion" and was very disappointed in the entire production. I am a fan of both actors and have always enjoyed their work. But every time they opened their mouths all I could do was compare them to O'Toole and Hepburn and there was no comparison. Their performance is so ingrained in my mind that I only see Peter and Kate in those roles and never anyone else. I know that is foolish but that's how I feel and I can't help it..It would be like watching some other actor as Ethan Edwards in "The Seachers" other then John Wayne.That part is also deeply ingrained in my mind. Now I can see Jeff Bridges as Rooster Cogburn in "True Grit" and I hope to enjoy it, but that's how I feel , there are just certain roles I can't watch and enjoy except for the originals....

Link to post
Share on other sites

"it is a ridiculously too English movie for me!"

 

johnbabe........You are certainly entitled to your opinion but you do realize that it's supposed to be English right? As far as calling it "junk", I recall you getting very upset at folks saying they thought Garbo was "junk".....We can't get upset at others for what we ourselves do can we?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very good point. Yes, there are movies, music, and other forms of Art that I don't enjoy but that doesn't mean they are 'junk'. It often just means that I'm not willing to be in the energy to enjoy these art forms (e.g. opera for me or for many people jazz, both which are developed tastes in my view like fine wine). And yes some art might just be of lesser quality but to call something that is respected and value by so many 'junk' is over the top.

 

But, yea, I now remember that Garbo discussion. Like I said I can see why Lion might get on one nerves since there is little action and the movie is mostly just a verbal sparing between Kate and Peter. I happen to get a kick out of it but hey I liked Virginna Woolf also!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...