Rating: 
Summary: "Chop, Chop the King, the King!!!"
Review: Born in 1738, George III went on to become England's second-longest-ruling monarch, clocking in at nearly 60 years (only his grand daughter, Victoria, ruled longer). In 1788, however, the King took ill with severe stomach pains followed by severe mental instability and derangement. One of the dominant characteristics (amongst other things) was an uncontrollable (and often obscene), unstoppable, delusional, rapid, rambling speech which often went on for hours on end. The illness lasted only a few months, but it is this period that is the subject of the film. Although George III certainly had his faults (not to mention the odd peculiarity), he was nonetheless a conscientious, responsible, and uncommonly down-to-earth monarch and a very honourable, morally upright man who was devoted to his family. His eldest son, the Prince of Wales, could not have been more different, however. He was a gambler, a womanizer, and a spendthrift who was chronically short of money. For him and his like-minded cronies, a Regency would be a godsend. So they attempted to have Parliament pass a bill to that effect. One has here all the elements necessary for a ripping good story, and although liberties have necessarily been taken both for the sake of art and entertainment and in order to squeeze the story into 110 minutes, the film does a better job than many with the facts. As for the acting, it is quite simply unsurpassed. The performance by the late Nigel Hawthorne (Yes Minister/Prime Minister, Mapp & Lucia) as George III is simply breathtaking--sheer perfection. Hawthorne (who sadly died on Boxing Day 2001) was even nominated for an Academy Award for his role. Helen Mirren (Prime Suspect) is splendid as his wife, Charlotte; while Rupert Everett effortlessly evokes our loathing as the dissolute Prince of Wales. George III has, in the 20th century, been posthumously diagnosed as likely having had porphyria (a rare hereditary disorder). For those unfamiliar with his reign, although he did indeed recover from his illness and go on to have many years of good health, the illness eventually caught up with him. In 1801, he suffered a relapse and was dogged with recurring bouts of illness over the following few years, not to mention failing eyesight. The final blow was struck in 1810 when his youngest daughter took ill and died. The King's health and sanity deteriorated to the point where he could no longer rule and a Regency was established in February 1811. He died in 1820. I enjoy English history and historical biographies immensely, and I enjoyed this film. I would certainly recommend it to others with a similar interest, but I would also recommend it to anyone who simply enjoys a good period drama. I would also recommend, for those looking for a more in-depth treatment of the life of George III, the biography entitled George III--A Personal History by Christopher Hibbert.
Rating: 
Summary: An Excellent Historical Film!
Review: Born in 1738, George III went on to become England's second-longest-ruling monarch, clocking in at nearly 60 years (only his grand daughter, Victoria, ruled longer). In 1788, however, the King took ill with severe stomach pains followed by severe mental instability and derangement. One of the dominant characteristics (amongst other things) was an uncontrollable (and often obscene), unstoppable, delusional, rapid, rambling speech which often went on for hours on end. The illness lasted only a few months, but it is this period that is the subject of the film. Although George III certainly had his faults (not to mention the odd peculiarity), he was nonetheless a conscientious, responsible, and uncommonly down-to-earth monarch and a very honourable, morally upright man who was devoted to his family. His eldest son, the Prince of Wales, could not have been more different, however. He was a gambler, a womanizer, and a spendthrift who was chronically short of money. For him and his like-minded cronies, a Regency would be a godsend. So they attempted to have Parliament pass a bill to that effect. One has here all the elements necessary for a ripping good story, and although liberties have necessarily been taken both for the sake of art and entertainment and in order to squeeze the story into 110 minutes, the film does a better job than many with the facts. As for the acting, it is quite simply unsurpassed. The performance by the late Nigel Hawthorne (Yes Minister/Prime Minister, Mapp & Lucia) as George III is simply breathtaking--sheer perfection. Hawthorne (who sadly died on Boxing Day 2001) was even nominated for an Academy Award for his role. Helen Mirren (Prime Suspect) is splendid as his wife, Charlotte; while Rupert Everett effortlessly evokes our loathing as the dissolute Prince of Wales. George III has, in the 20th century, been posthumously diagnosed as likely having had porphyria (a rare hereditary disorder). For those unfamiliar with his reign, although he did indeed recover from his illness and go on to have many years of good health, the illness eventually caught up with him. In 1801, he suffered a relapse and was dogged with recurring bouts of illness over the following few years, not to mention failing eyesight. The final blow was struck in 1810 when his youngest daughter took ill and died. The King's health and sanity deteriorated to the point where he could no longer rule and a Regency was established in February 1811. He died in 1820. I enjoy English history and historical biographies immensely, and I enjoyed this film. I would certainly recommend it to others with a similar interest, but I would also recommend it to anyone who simply enjoys a good period drama. I would also recommend, for those looking for a more in-depth treatment of the life of George III, the biography entitled George III--A Personal History by Christopher Hibbert.
Rating:
Summary: A Splendid Period Film
Review: I found Madness to be one of the very best period pieces I have seen. The insights into the working of British government at a time when the Monarchy was in its last stages of real day to day power were very enlightening. Similarly, the parliamentary maneuvering between Pitt the younger's Tories and Charles James Fox's radical Whigs, and their tie ins to competing factions of the Royal Family was simply fascinating. Americans are generally unaware of what a critical point in history this was, as the Foxites were very much in sympathy with the Jacobin regicides in France and the absence of England's opposition to the nouvelle regime there would likely have led to a French republican hegemony in Europe with untold consequences. I disagree with some of the reviewers here who view George III as a great and good king, but he was certainly not the monster viewed in America either. To the contrary both the film and history demonstrate that he was a rather stodgy, unimaginitive man of mediocre talents but great force of will. When his physiological/psychological disease takes grip, the consequences are shocking, if not quite tragic. The real dramatic impact of the film comes with the effect of changed circumstances on the supporting characters, who take stances on one assumption and wind up surprised and vulnerable when those assumptions are no longer true. The more altruistic that a nonroyal character's behaviour has been, the harder the fall or disillusionment that results. Conversely, the more cynical a character's approach is, the better he or she comes out in the end. This one is really not to be missed, not only for all of these reasons, but also for the wonderful soundtrack of Handel pieces.
Rating:
Summary: The king is tortured by bumbling doctors¿ and its fun!!!
Review: I saw this movie on a business trip in London when it first showed in the theaters and again recently on DVD. I enjoyed it very much both times and I recommend this DVD. While I read a great deal of history, I don't read enough on this period to comment on the accuracy, but this book certainly FELT accurate. The costumes, scenery, bumbling doctors, scheming politicians and scrambling servants set a historical mood that's half the fun in this very enjoyable movie. Of course, the screenplay is written for a modern audience, so we would, naturally, see irony in the bumbling doctors. Particularly ironic is one doctor's protestation that a doctor's work is of careful observation and should not be swayed by the color of the King's urine. The scenes of Prime Minister Pitt in Parliament defending his king certainly reminded me of watching Tony Blair in action on CSPAN. I was also left with the impression that it's a lot more fun to be in British Parliament than in U.S. Congress. One may expect to dislike the King, but in the end, one can't help but feel great sympathy for the man and not just because of the maltreatment he receives from his doctor's. Overall, the movie was as enjoyable as I remembered it. Unfortunately, other than the trailer, the DVD did not give us any extras to enjoy.
Rating:
Summary: What What?
Review: I was thrilled when Nigel Hawthorne was nominated for the Best Actor oscar for his performance as George III in this film, not only because this was a stunning performance, but because of his history on the stage (which I was privileged to attend often in London) and with BBC productions. Sir Nigel (as he is now fashioned) is perhaps best known by television audiences as Sir Humphrey Appleby, the scheming civil service mandarin from the Yes, Minister and Yes, Prime Minister series. I have admired him for years (and most recently got to see his great performance of Lear in London). This film also starred such British acting heavy-weights as Helen Mirren as the queen (think of the Prime Suspect series on the BBC/PBS Mystery, among others), Ian Holm as the physician (most recently noted for his performance of Lear, now available on video), and Rupert Everett as the chomping-at-the-bit Prince of Wales. The drama was intensified by collapsing or conflating actual historical events (alas, the play and movie would have one think that good king George actually recovered his wits and ruled; the truth is more sad, that he had recurring bouts of delirium and hysteria until finally succumbing to a dementia that lasted for years, and thus the Regency was established). Poor George has gotten a 'bum rap' in America for being the 'tyrant' against whom the colonials rebelled; history shows, however, that far from the being the evil dictator, he was in fact perhaps the kindest and most enlightened monarch in Europe at the time, well loved by the people, and concerned for government more than his own pleasure. Artistic, well humoured and well mannered, George was perhaps the last monarch in Europe who should have been so tarred by the negative history with which he has been saddled. This movie gives a little insight into that character of man. Set after the war with the colonies, George begins a slow process of deterioration. Seen here are the inhumane treatments prescribed for such people (I wonder if our modern medicine with machines and contraptions will look similarly barbaric 200 years from now?). Lavish sets and costumes accentuate the film to give a very royal feel. Political intrigue, disfunctional family dynamics, and social class consciousness all arise in differing measure to make this a truly intricate plot; however, much of the politics and psychology are more for modern audiences than are actual re-creations or representations. My favourite scene has to be the one in which George is reciting, in the gardens at Kew, a scene from Lear, in which Lear is slipping into madness. 'Lear!? Is this wise?'
'I don't know, I'd never read it!' came the doctor's response. To see the king slip into sanity so subtly as his performance of Lear presents a slide into insanity is a treasure. The postscript at the end, a direct criticism of the royal family, in which the king pronounces that their main purpose is to be a model family (and the hint in the closing that the disease of porphyria, George's most-likely ailment, is hereditary) is amusing if not entirely appropriate. In all, a fabulous film.
Rating:
Summary: Terrific film - why isn't it on DVD!
Review: I'm taken aback at those who comment on this being a comedy... while there are a few light moments, this is a very tragic film... seeing how "doctors" attempt to help the king through an illness they don't understand. Ignoring obvious symptoms they don't recognize, they give him barbaric treatments that are harsh and cruel. His own wife, the queen, adores her husband and is forced to watch helplessly as he falls apart from this unknown madness that today would probably be cured with medication. Highly entertaining and some incredible acting... great wardrobes and filming locations.... just an overall masterpiece of historical, yet dramatic film.
Rating:
Summary: A Little Gem
Review: King Lear comes back to life! This time as the demented (or is it all too lucid!) King George III, who shakes up his familly, court and even Parliament with his seemingly absurd antics. This glorious little period piece gives us an accurate slice of 18th century English life, as well as providing laugh after laugh. More than that, this film artfully and subtly examines the serious subject of madness and what it means to see things a little differently. Nigel Hawthorne's performance as George is flawless. He brings to life a very complex and misunderstood historical figure. Whether we follow the Mad George rushing to the rooftops trying to save his family from some paranoic threat, gallop after him darting across the dales, nightgown and all, or snigger while he 'instructs' the Court orchestra on how to 'properly' play their instruments, we feel the profound human spirit of a man trapped within confines not of his own making. Like Lear's, his mad roar is that of a free spirit shackled in chains. And for George, these are the shackles of propriety and royal duty. While the end of the film makes mention of the obscure aliment which supposedly tormented poor George, the film leaves open other possibilities as well. The film poignantly shows how madness and idiocy are far from being synonomous. In rare moments of clarity, George not only seems to know his condition better than his quack doctors do.....'I'm here, but not all there,' but he also shows some keen perception into the limits of the human mind. As he told his beloved 'Mrs Queen,'(the ever professional Mrs. Mirren), 'I just want to talk it all out,' maybe his true problem lies in not being able to accept the limits thrust upon him by his political responsibilities. The film poses some interesting questions not only about the nature of madness and self-control, but about being a leader or public figure. The only doctor who manages to reach the far-gone King(brilliantly acted by Ian Holm), shrewdly states that he who is unable to govern himself is not fit to govern a country. Self-discipline appears to be the lacking ingredient. In addition to the entertaining laughs and hidden questions, the film is supremely well-crafted. All the performances are well above board. The best supporting roles are those of Rupert Graves, as the proper and reserved Mr. Pitt, who valiantly defends his King when all others have abandonned him and the sultry Amanda Donohoe as the loyal Lady Pembroke, capable of making any sacrifice for her Majesty. Rupert Everett's Prince of Wales is the weakest link. Somehow, he seemed out of place in the film. Better stay by Madonna's side. All in all, a great piece of entertainment. Stay in tonight and rent it....or better yet, buy it. A must for any serious collection. Even hardened Anglophobes and anti-royalists (like myself) will find it impossible to hold back the laughs and tears. Well, maybe we colonists shouldn't have sent old Georgie packing after all!
Rating:
Summary: One of the top in a life-time of film viewing.
Review: Nigel Hawthorne is magnificent in one of the few films I would choose to own and watch over and over. The all-star cast (Mirren and Donahoe especially) back Hawthorne magnificently. MADNESS OF KING GEORGE ranks along with ALL THAT JAZZ at the top of my list of all time favorites.
Rating:
Summary: Good Old Farmer George
Review: One star has to be docked for Rupert Everett as the Prince of Wales: he simply isn't fat enough. Couldn't they find someone fatter? If he wasn't so fat in 1788, why does his father keep calling him fat? Hawthorne is wonderful, and Helen Mirren, on the evidence of recent films I've seen her in, is surely the greatest actress now living. I saw this play on the stage in London, with Hawthorne as George III, and the film leaves me a little uneasy. It seems to have been heavily tweaked for the American market, which is a form of cowardly pandering. However, what I suspect is a pretty accurate historical portrait of the king still holds up. George was a fundamentally sound, solid, down-to-earth, well-loved character. But can any king remain totally sane, regardless of whatever lurking physical ailment he may have? What about Presidents? Or film directors? Compare the sanity and wit of this film with Mad Mel's demented, fanatical and screamingly dishonest picture of "The Patriot", so-called. Instead, Bennett's script takes an ultra-cynical view of politics and royalty in general: the sense of unease grows when considering the caricaturish stereotyping of almost everyone else in the film. Ian Holm is rather a strange actor: he is always mesmerizing to watch, but also always turns in a somewhat similar performance. Were the contemporary allusions really necessary? Is Bennett a closet Republican? He's a sly little chappie, that Alan Bennett. Clever, though.
Rating:
Summary: An absolute all-time favorite!
Review: That this tale of regal insanity has a basis in fact is only a tiny facet of its charm. The disease which renders the king temporarily insane is a real one, though modern treatment (thank god!) is a bit less excruciating! The central fascination in this nightmarish little tale is the poor king's absolute helplessness in the face of his diagnosis of madness. Once labelled a madman, it's open season for every highly placed quack in the kingdom, and the vicious tortures that they regard as treatment resonate louder as they are practiced on the sacred person of the king. But the movie comes fully to life in the relationship between the king and queen. "Mrs. King," he calls her, and "Mr. King" she responds. Regarding their public office with balance and humor, their marriage with deep respect, and each other with passionate and devoted love, the couple that happens to be King and Queen are absolutely charming! United in the face of the threat to the King's office by the crown prince, it is the two of them against the phalanxes of politicians as well as their own son. (To each other, they refer to this, their oldest of 13 children, as "the fat one", another humorous touch.) Beyond even this, it is chillingly fascinating to trace the old ways of thought and the hints of developing modern medical science in the treatment of mental illness. This is a fascinating and hugely enjoyable movie that I would watch over and over again, and I am crushed to find that it is presently unavailable!
|
