Just what I expected

While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.

Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

Blistering performances.

across political life secrets, about a case who reminds "Exit the King" by Eugene Ionesco, who gives a different portrait of royalty and power and the status of a king who becomes refugee in his self universe. more than a lesson of history, more than remember of English modern history episode, the film has the virtue to propose a delicate theme of reflection. and one of the most inspired supports are the admirable performances, the solid script and, sure, the costumes. a film about a crisis and the images of it for the each part of this crisis. maybe, a film about family relations than a political film. because, one of its fine virtues remains the science of detail. and the right way to explore the result of a dramatic change of history.

THE MADNESS OF KING GEORGE shows us how mad the ruler of England became at some point in time due to an illness doctors knew little about.How his illness is treated is at the core of this story, when King George III is assigned a doctor (IAN HOLM) to use whatever means are necessary to restore sanity. All the while, court intrigue has everyone in parliament conspiring about appointing a Regent to take over the King's duties. His son, the Prince of Wales (RUPERT EVERETT) is more then willing to replace his father on the throne.Much of it is played for fine comic effect with many nuances and comic timing in spite of the seriousness of the central character's illness. NIGEL HAWTHORNE recreates his London stage role, playing the part of the mad king to perfection. HELEN MIRREN is highly satisfactory as his wife who wants nothing more than to see him make a complete recovery and RUPERT GRAVES is fine in one of the more low-key roles as one of the King's supportive aids.As usual in all of these British historical pieces, the settings, costumes, photography, art direction--all are exquisite. The photography is a marvel at suggesting that only candlelight illuminates many of the scenes so that it's like watching a series of fine paintings come to life. Effective use of Handel's music provides solid support throughout.

This film is based on a totally frivolous but delightful stage romp which depicted the political machinations in London in the late eighteenth century when King George III first showed signs of mental instability. The ruling Tory government did not want to see him replaced by his son acting, in accordance with the constitution, as Regent (i.e. as King in everything but name) because the Prince tended to be a political supporter of the opposition Whigs. Conversely the Whig leaders recognised that if they could force through a Regency Bill to effect this replacement, the grateful Prince should give them a great deal of support. They made every effort to draw attention to the king's problems and simultaneously introduced the Regency Bill into Parliament. The Tories countered by stalling tactics on this bill combined with attempts to bring the King into public view at times when he would do nothing to suggest possible mental instability; and later with drastic attempts to provide medical support to correct or minimise the King's problem. Little was understood medically about insanity at this time but history shows that the very unconventional treatments devised by the appointed Court Physician finally proved successful, and the King recovered for quite a long period, although his insanity eventually returned to become clearly evident to all, so that his son did finally become Prince Regent for the last nine years of his father's life. The play, and this film on which it is based, portray events during the Kings earlier period of mental instability from which records show that he appeared to make a fairly complete recovery. The comedy lies mainly in the re-creation of the political manoeuvring of the period, and the way in which this was accepted by London Society, although many sequences showing courtiers and other attendants relaxing after the king left a room were also very amusing.. This may not sound a great deal, but I found it made a most satisfying film. There were also moments of real pathos and drama which showed the Queen (played by the superlative actress Helen Mirren) supporting her husband in every way she could, and I for one became sufficiently involved in the story to experience real pleasure when the king won his struggle and resumed his normal duties. The film itself is inconsequential, but, if comedies of manners and situations appeal to you, you should not miss any chance to see it.The comedy is not limited to the actual film but extends also to its title. It has been reported that the Studio planned to release this film under the title "The Madness of King George III"; but at the last minute they were advised that this title might drastically reduce the audiences in the United States where viewers who had not seen "The Madness of King George I" or "The Madness of King George II" would probably decide to give it a miss, and it was therefore decided not to identify which British monarch was the subject matter for this delightful romp.Nigel Hawthorne starred as the King and Rupert Everitt played the Prince of Wales. Dr Willis, the unconventional physician who had such an important role in the events, was beautifully played by Ian Holm. This film avoided the common trap of transcribing a stage play to film so literally that many of the sequences become unduly lengthy and much too static. The original play by Allan Bennett was very successful in England and he was fortunately (but unusually) asked to prepare the film script from it himself. On the basis of this example I would recommend that the authors of most plays intended as the basis for a film should be given the opportunity to have a much greater say in the preparation of the film-script. The several awards won by this film were all well deserved, but it remains dominated by the superlative performance of Nigel Hawthorne. (This was also the general verdict on the original London stage production and it will be a brave theatre manager who brings the play back there with a different lead actor.)

The Fat one....what what..The greatest performance I have ever seen. Nigel was the finest actor of our time, and his performance in The Madness Of King George, along with the rest of the cast is nothing short of Brilliant. Amazing Film a must see....If there were more then 10 stars to give I would... I give it a 15 out of 10. 5 points higher then Excellent. Truly a work of art. Also Ian Holms performance is truly incredible.I could watch this movie over and over and over. The Dialouge is also one of a kind and I can't remember a more believable performance to date."When felons were induced to talk, they were shown first the instruments of their torture. The King is shown the instrument of His... to induce Him NOT to talk."