Honestly, most historical movies are kind of a slog. You get the heavy costumes, the slow-motion sword fights, and actors speaking in that weird, "thee-and-thou" stage voice that nobody actually used in the 12th century. But then there is The Lion in Winter. Released in 1968, it feels more like a modern, high-stakes dysfunctional family therapy session than a dusty history lesson. It is loud. It is mean. It is incredibly funny in a dark, twisted way. If you haven't seen it, you’re missing out on what basically amounts to the medieval version of Succession.
The plot is deceptively simple. King Henry II of England—played by Peter O'Toole at his most feral—summons his wife and three sons for a Christmas court in 1183. This isn't a happy holiday reunion. He’s let his wife, Eleanor of Aquitaine, out of prison just for the weekend. He wants to name an heir. Everyone wants the crown, everyone hates everyone else, and the knives come out before the first course is served.
The Casting Miracle of Peter O'Toole and Katharine Hepburn
You can’t talk about The Lion in Winter without talking about the sheer firepower of the leads. Katharine Hepburn won an Oscar for this, and she deserved every bit of it. Her Eleanor is a masterpiece of "polite" cruelty. She can tell her husband she wants to watch him rot while wearing a smile that looks like it belongs on a Christmas card.
O'Toole is her perfect match. He had actually played Henry II years earlier in Becket, but here he’s older, messier, and much more dangerous. They scream at each other. They whisper. They trade insults that would make a modern screenwriter weep with envy.
Then there’s the "new" guy: Anthony Hopkins. This was his big film debut. Long before he was Hannibal Lecter, he was Richard the Lionheart. He plays Richard not as a shining hero, but as a brooding, deeply insecure warrior with some serious "mommy issues." Watching a young Hopkins hold his own against O'Toole and Hepburn is like watching a rookie athlete dominate a Hall of Fame game. It shouldn't work, but it does.
Why the Script Feels So Modern
James Goldman wrote the screenplay based on his own play. He didn't care about making it sound "old-timey." He wanted it to sound sharp.
📖 Related: Alfonso Cuarón: Why the Harry Potter 3 Director Changed the Wizarding World Forever
"I’ve got to have a son," Henry bellows at one point.
Eleanor’s response? "You have three."
"I’m not sure," Henry snaps back.
It’s brutal. It’s snappy. The dialogue moves so fast you almost need to watch it twice to catch all the subtle digs. The movie understands something that most historical epics miss: people in the Middle Ages were still people. They were petty. They were jealous. They didn't spend all day thinking about "The Great Chain of Being." They spent it thinking about how to screw over their siblings.
The stakes are massive—we are talking about the future of England and France—but the movie keeps the focus on the dinner table. It’s intimate. It’s claustrophobic. By the time the movie reaches its climax in a wine cellar, you feel like you’ve been trapped in a room with your own worst relatives for ten hours.
Real History vs. Hollywood Drama
Is it 100% accurate? No. But it’s closer than you’d think.
The Christmas Court of 1183 did happen, though it wasn't quite the bloodbath the movie portrays. Henry II really did keep Eleanor of Aquitaine under house arrest for years because she helped their sons rebel against him. John really was the favorite, and he really was a bit of a disaster.
👉 See also: Why the Cast of Hold Your Breath 2024 Makes This Dust Bowl Horror Actually Work
The movie focuses on the "Angevin Empire," a massive stretch of land that covered England and half of modern-day France. Henry was obsessed with keeping it together. His sons—Richard, Geoffrey, and John—were obsessed with tearing it apart to get their piece.
One thing the movie gets very right is the political tension with France. Timothy Dalton (another future star!) plays King Philip II of France. Philip is young, calculating, and looking to destroy Henry’s family from the inside. The dynamic between Philip and Richard is one of the most daring parts of the film, hinting at a past romantic relationship that most 1960s movies wouldn't have dared to touch.
The Aesthetic: Cold, Hard, and Real
Most 60s movies look "set-y." You can tell where the plywood ends and the matte painting begins. The Lion in Winter looks cold. You can almost feel the dampness of the stone walls.
The director, Anthony Harvey, used a lot of natural-looking light and shot in actual medieval locations in France and Ireland. There are no golden filters here. The castles look like what they were: giant, drafty refrigerators. This grounded aesthetic makes the heightened drama of the acting feel more believable. If they were in a bright, colorful Hollywood set, the screaming matches might feel campy. In these dark, muddy ruins, it feels like survival.
John Barry’s score also does a lot of the heavy lifting. It’s liturgical and haunting, filled with choral chants that remind you that while these people are acting like monsters, they still live in a deeply religious world. It provides a weight that balances out the fast-paced, witty dialogue.
✨ Don't miss: Is Steven Weber Leaving Chicago Med? What Really Happened With Dean Archer
Why You Should Watch It Today
We live in an era of "prestige TV" where shows like House of the Dragon or The Crown dominate the conversation. The Lion in Winter is the blueprint for all of them. It proved that you don't need a thousand extras or CGI dragons to make a historical period feel epic. You just need a room, a few people who hate each other, and a script that cuts like a knife.
It’s also surprisingly relatable. Strip away the titles and the land disputes, and it’s a story about a marriage falling apart and kids trying to live up to their father’s impossible expectations. Everyone can relate to a tense holiday dinner. It just so happens that in this family, the carving knife is three feet long.
How to Experience the Movie Properly
- Watch the 1968 version first. There was a remake with Patrick Stewart and Glenn Close in 2003. It’s fine, and they are great actors, but it lacks the raw, unhinged energy of the original.
- Pay attention to Geoffrey. He’s the "middle child" played by John Castle. He doesn't get the big speeches that Richard or Henry get, but he is the smartest person in every room. Watching him navigate the chaos is a masterclass in subtle acting.
- Look for the humor. It is marketed as a drama, but it’s a comedy. Treat it like a dark sitcom. When Henry says, "I've snapped my thumb at kings," and Eleanor replies, "I've snapped my thing at many more," you’re supposed to laugh.
- Check the credits. It’s wild to see how many people involved went on to become legends. From Hopkins to Dalton to the cinematographer Douglas Slocombe (who later shot the original Indiana Jones trilogy), the talent pool was insane.
If you’re looking for a film that combines intellectual depth with pure, visceral entertainment, this is it. It’s a reminder that the past wasn't just a series of dates on a timeline; it was a mess of human emotions, bad decisions, and really, really sharp tongues.
To get the most out of your viewing, try to find the 4K restoration. The texture of the costumes and the grain of the stone walls pop in a way that the old DVD versions just couldn't handle. After you finish, look up the real history of the "Great Revolt" of 1173. It gives a lot of context as to why Henry is so paranoid about his family in the movie. You’ll find that as crazy as the film is, the real Plantagenets were actually even more dysfunctional than Hollywood could ever portray.