Kirpianuscus
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.
tangochan85
This movie was something I wanted to see when it came out in 1994 and I was only nine years old, so of course Mom didn't allow it. I remembered the movie tonight and got a hold of it. I think that had I watched the movie that young, ratings aside, I would probably have appreciated Rupert Graves' handsomeness more than the tale the movie was trying to tell me, so I'm glad I waited. The movie was horribly slow-paced at times. It could have used a rewrite and a tightening up of the script. However, the acting from everyone was wonderful and anyone else playing King George III might not have saved the movie from its script. I also felt moved by the predicament of having a nervous system condition that IMDb claims I'm misspelling when I'm not misspelling it in an age where modern medicine thinks that giving you boils will cure something and modern psychiatry is locking people (some of who aren't actually legitimately mentally ill) in an asylum. If you're looking for something that is somewhat thought provoking, has wonderful acting, and is set during the Regency, this would be a movie to consider. On that note, if you do not have patience for a slow script, occasional too much dumped on you at once before meandering again, then reconsider.
Lee Eisenberg
I had never known about King George III before "The Madness of King George" came out, but what I saw in the movie sure blew me away. I would say that George's mental state, more than anything, is an example of what happens when these monarchs refuse to marry outside their boundaries: they end up with all sorts of problems.But even ignoring that, the movie does a fine job showing what happened. And they know that even when dealing with a serious topic, there's always room for a joke or two (and not particularly clean ones). Through their performances here, Nigel Hawthorne, Helen Mirren, Ian Holm, and the rest of the cast all reaffirmed themselves as some of the greatest actors of our era.As for what I wrote in the 5th grade history class. We were studying the American Revolution (you may recall that George III was king at that time in history, and some people blamed his mental state for the loss of the 13 colonies). I wrote a story about two brothers in Virginia arguing about whether or not to break away from England. One of the brothers called referred to "good King George", and the other called him "mad King George". A lame joke, I admit, but that's what I wrote.
david-2603
Watched this again yesterday & once more was enraged at the injustice of Nigel Hawthorne missing out on the Oscar to Tom Hank's Forrest Gump that year.An absolutely masterful performance from Hawthorne, matched by Ian Holm's doctor. The scene where the two of them meet for the first time is one of my favourites of all I have ever seen & always moves me.The film never takes itself too seriously, and the cast is a veritable who's who of great British actors that Hollywood largely ignored. If you haven't seen this film, then I'd urge you to do so. Not many of you will fail to be impressed.......
AD
