Comparing 'The Lion in Winter', Films from 1968 and 2003

Two Versions of the first meeting between Henry II and Phillip II, from James Goldman's "The Lion in Winter"

In order:

The Lion in Winter (1968), with Peter O'Toole as Henry II, and Timothy Dalton as Phillip II.
Directed by Anthony Harvey.

The Lion in Winter (2003), with Patrick Stewart as Henry II, and Jonathan Rhys Meyers as Phillip II.
Directed by Andrey Konchalovskiy.

See more comparisons at http://www.jkenfisher/comparisons/index.html

Category:

Film & Animation

Tags:

• The Lion in Winter
• Patrick Stewart
• Timothy Dalton
• Peter O'Toole
• Jonathan Rhys Meyers
• James Goldman

[Th3Tr1ppyH1ppy]

make moar these these r really cool!!!!

[JohnKFisher]

@Th3Tr1ppyH1ppy @Th3Tr1ppyH1ppy Heh, there's a few more like this at the site listed in the clip description (won't let me paste urls in comments), and every once in a while I throw one together :-) Glad you like!

[jerico641]

The difference is painful; Stewart sounds like he's instructing the role, O'Toole inhabits it. Stewart shows emotion, O'Toole revels in it. Stewart is perfectly presentable as Henry, O'Toole is damn near perfect.

[vgb42222]

the 1968 version IS the best. hands down!

[MmeLEnfer]

I haven't seen either of these movies, but based on the comparison... imho, the first is by far the better, mainly because it has a uniformly incredible cast. O'Toole plays his part to the hilt, and Dalton was surprisingly good as Philip. The new movie just doesn't have the same tension or energy, but I did think Rhys Meyers was as good as Dalton in his own way. He has an arrogance and a cold otherness about him while easily selling the teenager aspect.

[yllienverdes]

it's curious: o'toole play Henry ii two times within a relatively short time span. first, in "becket" (with r. Burton) and here in "lion." both plays were so different and both kings were so different, respectively. in both case, though, you really believed o'toole. he is a master. love this comparsion clip, btw. speaks volumes about so much!

[jerico641]

@Stryder687

Oh, I don't know; every thirty years or so, some producer just gets it in his head that he has to remake a classic, usually with disappointing results. I disliked Stewart as Ahab as well, although he was better than he was in this role.

[Stryder687]

@jerico641 And I agree with what you said! Why would they remake this movie?! It was good on its own!

[jerico641]

@Stryder687

Well, I certainly agree.

[Stryder687]

@jerico641

Stewart is presentable. O'Toole IS Henry!

[Stryder687]

@Th3Tr1ppyH1ppy

AGREED

[MsNotzi]

I agree that the '68 version is better than the '03 version, but I wouldn't put down the performances of the actors in the latter. And for the folks that said that Jonathan Rhys Meyers was bland and boring, with all due respect, you must've never seen "Elvis," "Gormenghast," or "The Tudors."

[Ennio444]

I love Peter O'Toole as Henry II. He's petulant, arrogant, sure, authoritary... he looks, sounds and feels like a real king would look, sound and feel. Especially a king so powerful and reassured as Henry II...

Patrick Steward is good. but O'Toole is just perfect.

[Stryder687]

Peter O'Toole. Comes second. After NO ONE