Rating: 
Summary: Funny, poignant, exhilarating: A test on your emotions
Review: The Madness of King George is simply the best movie I have seen in many years. The first thing that attracted me to the movie was the costumes: they are impeccable. The set, costume, and makeup: there is no cause for complaints there and many, many reasons for praise. But the most remarkable thing about this movie is how well each actor fits his or her part, and the pace of this drama. First of all, the acting is wonderful, but this movie was also wonderfully casted. Nigel Hawthorne blew me away with his hilarious, deep and believable portrayal of George III. His madness was heartbreaking and painful for the audience and his sane George the Third was funny in such a way that you couldn't help but root for him. Rupert Everett was simply so detestable that by the end of the movie I couldn't watch any movie with him in it without feeling a little hostile. Helen Mirren is, as always, pitch perfect in her portrayal and absolutely beautiful as Queen Charlotte. The environment created by this wonderful ensemble cast makes the movie exciting and the kind of film that elicits a real emotional response. Who knew that you could feel suspense, pain, happiness and exhilaration from a costume drama about a dead king? As soon as you put this movie in your DVD player you will be hooked, entranced and entertained. If you are even a mild fan of historical dramas, give this movie a chance. It'll only take a few moments for you to love it.
Rating:
Summary: The Madness of King George
Review: The one star of my review goes solely to Nigel H., or Sir Humpy, as he's better known. He's great, of course and as always. But unfortunately that's it! There are no other redeeming qualities whatsoever in this inaccurate and rather uncomfortable close-up of the 18th century medical torture.The doctors appear more like Nazi camp torturers possessing both limitless and evil authority over their poor victims as well as the most blood curdling taste for random and most unusual cruelties. The rest of the royals come across as powerless rabble subject to every perverted whim of the political schemers that seem to conspire, to beyond excess, in almost every scene, carrying out puzzling, self-conflicting, and of course totally unexplained agendas. This bit reeks of that undenyably impeccable Hollywood touch adding to the already dismal pointless ambiance of the film that necessary touch of extra nightmare for the coke-guzzling, action-thriller-eating, and mind-lazy yankee viewers. The parliament is shown as a kniving mob of back stabbing, closet monarchy haters, and country traitors. Perhaps, most astonishingly of all, the queen is portrayed as a loving, gentle, so woman-like hapless creature somehow caught up, against her will, in the lavish opulence of the throne. In fact, the film goes as far as having the viewer believe that what little power the queen had seemed to wield was completely razed by the somehow emerging, apparently nationwide, plot to simply give the king a good torture. She is shown pathetically helpless and forced to abandon the crown for the psychotic torments. The less said about the depiction of the supporting cast, the better, as, for instance, all the ladies of the court are shown as nothing else but immoral call girls. The movie, instead of showing the dynamics of the emergent chasm between the politically weakening crown and the momentum-gaining parliament, indulges itself in hours of truly hard-to-watch and emotionally exploiting scenes of agonising cruelty. Most shockingly, the film ends with a statement of retrospective diagnosis which dares to blame some very rare medical condition for the hours of horrid entertainment instead of the director, the screenwriter, and the producers of this flop. It is hard to figure out the point of it. Why watch evil doctors torture a man for 90 minutes? The diagnosis statement perhaps sheds some light on this, as it makes a thought cross one's mind. It seems very unlikely since blue urine discharge can only point to poisoning, not any known disease.
But could George III have been poisoned? Yes, you see, a very touchy subject indeed. It's the same as asking today whether Lady Di could have been murdered in the motorway tunnel in France or whether Lady Di could herself have tried poisoning her husband's squeeze, as some royal sources suggest today? The monarchy will have none of it! It must exonerate itself by any means possible! Maybe, that's the point of it all. Even if it means boring and pointless movies for the subjects. You're well advised to save your time and money. If you want to see Nigel H., which you should, watch the Yes (Prime) Minister series.
-- ALL THUMBS, FINGERS AND TOES DOWN --
R. Friedman
Rating: 
Summary: A Rather Poor Attempt To Exonerate The Royalty
Review: The one star of my review goes solely to Nigel H., or Sir Humpy, as he's better known. He's great, of course and as always. But unfortunately that's it! There are no other redeeming qualities whatsoever in this inaccurate and rather uncomfortable close-up of the 18th century medical torture. The doctors appear more like Nazi camp torturers possessing both limitless and evil authority over their poor victims as well as the most blood curdling taste for random and most unusual cruelties. The rest of the royals come across as powerless rabble subject to every perverted whim of the political schemers that seem to conspire, to beyond excess, in almost every scene, carrying out puzzling, self-conflicting, and of course totally unexplained agendas. This bit reeks of that undenyably impeccable Hollywood touch adding to the already dismal pointless ambiance of the film that necessary touch of extra nightmare for the coke-guzzling, action-thriller-eating, and mind-lazy yankee viewers. The parliament is shown as a kniving mob of back stabbing, closet monarchy haters, and country traitors. Perhaps, most astonishingly of all, the queen is portrayed as a loving, gentle, so woman-like hapless creature somehow caught up, against her will, in the lavish opulence of the throne. In fact, the film goes as far as having the viewer believe that what little power the queen had seemed to wield was completely razed by the somehow emerging, apparently nationwide, plot to simply give the king a good torture. She is shown pathetically helpless and forced to abandon the crown for the psychotic torments. The less said about the depiction of the supporting cast, the better, as, for instance, all the ladies of the court are shown as nothing else but immoral call girls. The movie, instead of showing the dynamics of the emergent chasm between the politically weakening crown and the momentum-gaining parliament, indulges itself in hours of truly hard-to-watch and emotionally exploiting scenes of agonising cruelty. Most shockingly, the film ends with a statement of retrospective diagnosis which dares to blame some very rare medical condition for the hours of horrid entertainment instead of the director, the screenwriter, and the producers of this flop. It is hard to figure out the point of it. Why watch evil doctors torture a man for 90 minutes? The diagnosis statement perhaps sheds some light on this, as it makes a thought cross one's mind. It seems very unlikely since blue urine discharge can only point to poisoning, not any known disease.
But could George III have been poisoned? Yes, you see, a very touchy subject indeed. It's the same as asking today whether Lady Di could have been murdered in the motorway tunnel in France or whether Lady Di could herself have tried poisoning her husband's squeeze, as some royal sources suggest today? The monarchy will have none of it! It must exonerate itself by any means possible! Maybe, that's the point of it all. Even if it means boring and pointless movies for the subjects. You're well advised to save your time and money. If you want to see Nigel H., which you should, watch the Yes (Prime) Minister series.
-- ALL THUMBS, FINGERS AND TOES DOWN --
R. Friedman
Rating:
Summary: I'm here, but I'm not all there
Review: The year--1788. The loss of that place that must not be mentioned by England has gradually sent King George III down the slope to insanity, so some ministers say. His emotional rantings, rushing out in the early morning in bedclothes with his attendants in tow, and even an imagined flight from a flood causes tumult within the Royal household. Some actions in his "catalog of regal nonconformities" are harmless, as he plays cricket with a group of peasant children, and visits a farmer, admiring the pigs. This causes a political struggle between the Whigs and Tories. Prince George, the future George IV, wants the take advantage of his father's deterioration to be named Regent, translation: "king in all but name and all the power, subject to Parliament... and certainly all the funds." He also wants his secret marriage Maria Fitzherbert, a Catholic widow, to be recognized in the open. In this, he has enlisted Charles James Fox, former foreign secretary under Rockingham and now an opposition leader who supports America to the point of saying, "If a few ramshackle colonists can send him packing why can't we?", Doctor Warner, and later, the Lord Chancellor, Edward Thurlow, 1st Baron Thurlow. Supporting the king is William Pitt the Younger, prime minister (1783-1801), who advocates parliamentary procedure and insists that Parliament has the right to decide who should be regent and under what terms. Queen Charlotte and Lady Pembroke, the king's mistress, are also on the king's side, as is his new equerry, the eager and loyal Captain Greville. The political struggle is another type of madness, as it has torn at the fabric of the government that is the envy of all nations. The king's contempt for doctors is shown when he rants at Dr. Baker, who has given him senna, a mild purgative. "Mild? Forteen motions and you call it mild? I could have manured the whole palace." His views on sleep are amusing, as he wakes his handlers at four AM. "Six hours is enough for a man. Seven for a woman, and eight for a fool." That places me between a woman and a fool, then. The role of the royal family as the symbol of England is also an issue. Prince George wants to do something, like handle some things in government. A line from his mother as they wave to their public is telling. "Smile, you lazy hound. It's what you're paid for. Smile and wave." I wonder Prince Charles has heard that from his mum. The classical music score includes Handel's Water Music, adding to the splendour of the Georgian court. And this is based on Alan Bennett's play, Bennett of course being a collaborator of Dudley Moore, Peter Cook, and Tim Brook-Taylor in the 1960's. However, the sobering lack of knowledge of porphyria, which is the modern diagnosis of what ailed the king, and is a hereditary metabolic disorder of which George suffered acutely and intermittently, is also a kind of madness of the ignorance of 18th century medicine. Yet, Dr. Willis does the best he can in avoiding the usual pronouncements and recommendations of the court physicians. Nigel Hawthorne should've gotten a Best Actor award from some ceremony for playing the monarch, displaying the manic ups and downs, and sufferings of George III with great aplomb. Ian Holm gets the next honours as Dr. Willis, who stubbornly defies convention and sees the king nor as the king, but as a patient, and dares to look him in the eyes. Helen Mirren of Prime Suspect is Charlotte and Rupert Everett does a good turn as the Prince. However, Julian Wadham plays Pitt with great dignity and honour. And Geoffrey Palmer (As Time Goes By) is Warner. Also, the petitioner who attacks the king is played by Janine Duvititski (Jane in the Waiting For God series). Interesting look at one of the most misunderstood monarchs of England, what what?
Rating:
Summary: LONG LIVE THE KING!
Review: This is a marvelous period piece that deals with an intriguing subject: the apparently intermittent madness of King George III. Nigel Hawthorne brilliantly plays the role of the King, creating a benevolent personage, a sort of aristocratic populist, who is, at heart, a family man. Yet, he understands, all too well, his role as King. His Queen, a loving and caring wife, is played to perfection by Helen Mirren. Rupert Everett wonderfully plays the part of their eldest son, the indolent Prince of Wales. The King begins his strange journey along the highway of dementia by shouting obscenities and behaving in a shockingly unseemly fashion towards his Queen's gorgeous lady-in-waiting, Lady Pembroke, played to ice maiden perfection by the always stunning Amanda Donohoe. He undergoes a total personality change. His doctor is mystified by these mental, as well as physical changes, which are broken up by moments of lucidity. The Prince of Wales see this weakness in his father as an opportunity for him to make a bid for control of the crown, and he rallies a slew of supporters. The ensuing palace intrigues depict the gamesmanship in which the King's supporters involve themselves in order for the King not to lose his crown in addition to his wits. The only question is whether the King will succeed in recovering his wits in a timely enough fashion in order for them to prevail. This is a wonderful film with a first class supporting cast. The production values and cinematography are also first rate, and the film won an Oscar in 1994 for its art direction. The film also addresses an issue which did, in fact, arise during the reign of King George III. It is now believed that the King may have suffered from a hereditary illness of the nervous system known as Porphyria. In any case, this is a brilliant, award calibre film that lovers of historical dramas and period pieces will, no doubt, enjoy.
Rating:
Summary: a Fantastic Bittersweet film!
Review: This is a triumph of acting. Nigel Hawthorne and Helen Mirren shine in this movie. While it has been criticised that Helen's German accent comes and goes, I think it was acceptable. Accents are just funny that way. And Mirren's acting makes up for it, especially in the "Do you think you are mad" scene after the Handel concert.
Ian Holm gives a superb performance as the determined little "mad doctor".
The costumes are stunning, the music (all Handel, George's favorite) gorgeous and brilliantly adapted, the story is bittersweet, at times painful, other times painfully funny! This movie is an underrated little gem.
Wish the DVD held more features such as behind the scenes or actors bios or something! It's seriously lacking in that department, but doesn't detract from a wonderful film!
Recommended for all Anglophiles.
Rating:
Summary: The Madness of King George
Review: This is a wonderful source for a term paper and a wonderful movie for history buffs too. NOT one to see with anyone under thirteen (this is aptly rated) because of certain scenes with questionable topics discussed and demonstrated.
Rating:
Summary: Witty and Comical, Sad and Poignant
Review: This marvelous film, THE MADNESS OF KING GEORGE, was adapted from the stage play, THE MADNESS OF GEORGE III and takes place in 1788. It centers around King George III (of course) and his battle with, what doctors thought at the time, was insanity. (Today, it is generally thought that George was suffering from porphyria, a physical, rather than an emotional, illness.) As the film opens, George, who's been ruling for thirty years (and lost the American colonies, by the way), is beginning to show sings of definite irritability, belligerence and instability as well as gastric distress. Although his wife, Queen Charlotte, is concerned (she is the mother of his fifteen children, after all), the Prince of Wales looks upon his father's seeming insanity as a chance to finally emerge from limbo and take over as regent. Although THE MADNESS OF KING GEORGE is often satirical and comic, it's also a sad film as almost everyone at court does everything they can to exploit poor George during his darkest hour. George is a comic, but, at the same time, a very sad figure. He may seem to be leading everyone on a merry chase but in reality, he's miserable. He's losing control of both his body and his mind and the "cure," in this case, seems to be every bit as bad as is the disease. THE MADNESS OF KING GEORGE is a film that works on many levels. On one hand, it's an exploration of King George's descent into madness (whatever the cause) and on the other it's a witty and satirical study of court politics and intrigue. The tragedy of George's illness and the satire of court intrigue work wonderfully well together. The acting in THE MADNESS OF KING GEORGE is flawless. Nigel Hawthorne as George, gives a superb and demanding performance that must cover a wide range of emotions from competent king to incorrigible patient. The fact that he's so very unlikable, yet still manages to evoke sympathy from the audience is a tribute to Hawthorne's powers. Helen Mirren as Queen Charlotte is also wonderful and she portrays the deep love and devotion between George and Charlotte very convincingly. Ian Holm as the rigid Dr. Willis and Rupert Everett as the Prince of Wales are also excellent. Sometimes pathos, and even tragedy, can best be portrayed with wit and comedy and this is the case in THE MADNESS OF KING GEORGE. Despite its dark subject matter, it's not a film that delves deeply into any of the many topics it explores. And, that's definitely not a criticism. The period costumes and the locations shots add much to this film and are perfectly chosen. And, I don't think one can properly comment on THE MADNESS OF KING GEORGE without commenting on its score. Rather than composing something entirely original for this film, period selections, such as Handel's "Water Music" have been used, adding to the film's authentic feel. THE MADNESS OF KING GEORGE is, in my opinion, a flawless film, but, although everyone in it (and behind it) shines, the film really belongs to Nigel Hawthorne. He's so good, his performance alone is worth the price of the DVD.
Rating:
Summary: Royals Embroiled
Review: You think Queen Elizabeth II had it bad when she referred to her "annus horribilis"? Nothing compared to poor King George. A divided parliament, religious intolerance, the colonial uprising (that's us Americans)and a slimy son plotting to overthrow dear old Dad and gain the throne. Add to that a physical ailment being diagnosed as mental disease, throw in the torturous treatment of mental illness in that era, sprinkle with royal protocol and intrigue, and you have the Madness of King George. Spectacularly played by Nigel Hawthorne as George, and Helen Mirren as Queen Chrlotte, who give performances that are both royal and touchingly human, demonstrating both a country and a family in crisis. This movie boasts an excellent supporting cast and authentically detailed period costumes and settings, it's a feast for Anglophiles, history buffs, costumers, and those who appreciate good cinematography. "Madness" goes down as one of my all-time favorite movies.
|
