BroadcastChic Excellent, a Must See

Organnall Too much about the plot just didn't add up, the writing was bad, some of the scenes were cringey and awkward,

Jenna Walter The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

Kaydan Christian A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

SnoopyStyle British King George III has just recently lost his American colonies. At home, he is treated as a cross between a feared dictator, and a petulant child by his handlers. While politically, he is being marginalized and beset by ambitious self promoters on all sides. He is suffering from mental deficiencies, and his doctor is hopeless.It's a fascinating look at the royal court. Nigel Hawthorne is terrific instilling power and energy in the manic regent. Helen Mirren is Queen Charlotte. Mostly this is great acting from interesting Brit actors. And Ian Holm is funny as the clueless doctor. It's a piece of history rarely shown on film.

asc85 Maybe seeing a 1994 film in 2013 changes perceptions on things. Maybe because I'm American and not British I didn't "get" what they were trying to do. All I can say is that this film shockingly wasn't very good. I wanted to turn it off my DVR after about 45 minutes or so, but because I thought the critical acclaim had been so great at the time (which I verified on IMDb after I saw the movie), I watched it all the way through to make sure I didn't miss anything. I was expecting to see a phenomenal performance by Nigel Hawthorne, who won the BAFTA Best Actor Award for this. Instead, I saw an over-the-top, overly theatrical performance, which while appropriate for this mostly-theater actor, didn't work in the film. I actually thought the film wasn't too bad UNTIL he was in the scenes. It also took me about half way through the picture to realize that Helen Mirren was supposed to be doing a German accent for her role.I'd like to think that maybe if I saw this in 1994 that I might have thought it was better. But for whatever reason, this was a huge disappointment.

SimonJack I'm writing these comments about "The Madness of King George" because of the singular outstanding performance by Nigel Hawthorne. This is one of the most versatile roles in films in decades. It surely ranks among the very best of all time. As King George, Hawthorne covers a range of emotions, personalities and temperaments not often found in film roles. His character is a study in transition from the serious to the serene to the silly. It's a role of drama, of hilarity, of ego and stuffiness, of pathos, of sorrow and regret, and of gentleness and kindness. What an exceptional acting job.Most often I watch a movie for the whole experience, taking in the plot, characters, acting, scenes and scenery, location, action, intrigue, comedy, tragedy, as a blend of the whole product. All of these weigh in and affect how much I enjoy the film. But half way through this film, I became aware that I was more engrossed in the lead character himself, and the great diversity and excellence of acting on display. Others have commented that Hawthorne should have won the Best Actor Academy Award for his role in 1994. While I like Tom Hanks as an actor, I agree that his role in Forrest Gump wasn't anything exceptional. Certainly not on the order of "Mr. King" in "The Madness of King George." Indeed, Hawthorne must have had to work on his role -- even as a consummate actor, if not for the variations of mood and portrayals, at least for the vast amount of lines he had to speak in the film. By comparison, the Forrest Gump role had a very small amount of lines, and those were far less taxing to an actor. Hanks' was a role that seemed more fun and easygoing than a challenge or demand. I'm not one to complain about Hollywood (except for the low quality and volume of attempts at humor in the past 20 years), but once in a while I think that many others who make the same observation are right on. Hollywood flops big time in its Oscar choice of an actor, actress or film once in a while. It seems to me that the California-based Academy at times doesn't look as objectively and honestly at films produced outside the U.S. Nothing else produced in 1994 even came close to the outstanding acting by Hawthorne in this first rate film.

sddavis63 I want to say right off the top that there is a lot about this movie that was impressive. As a political statement, the movie makes valid points about the problems of hereditary monarchies. The performances of Nigel Hawthorne (as George III), Helen Mirren (as Queen Charlotte), Rupert Everett (as the Prince of Wales) and Julian Wadham (as William Pitt, the Prime Minister) were excellent, the portrayal of the era's manner of dealing with "madness" seemed very realistic, the sets were wonderful, and the closing caption left one wondering about the current royal family, since they are direct descendants of George III! So, there was a lot that I liked. Unfortunately, in rating this movie I also found that it was a difficult movie to really sit down and be drawn into.One of the things that kept coming into my head the entire way through was that there just didn't seem to be anything really vital at stake here. I know that sounds unusual when you're talking about the Throne of England, but it's true. Even in the 1790's, when this seems to have been set, the power of the English monarch was increasingly possessed by Parliament, and the monarchy was well on the way to becoming the figurehead it is today. (George III's grandfather, George I, didn't even really want to become King in 1727 because of the limited powers the King of England possessed.) Whether George III or the Prince of Wales was on the throne didn't matter much more than whether Elizabeth II or the current Prince of Wales is on the throne. The Prince may have wanted the trappings of power, but that was all he would get, because there was no real power to be had by being King. I realize that, at least in the movie, the Prince promised the office of Prime Minister to Fox (Jim Carter) in place of Pitt, but this had more to do with the dynamics of Parliament than it had to do with the King (or regent) being able to choose the Prime Minister. If the bill to make the Prince of Wales Regent had passed it would have meant that the majority in Parliament was now in the hands of the opposition, and a transition of power would occur. So the Prince wouldn't make Fox Prime Minister; Fox would make the Prince Regent. I also went through the whole movie not really being sure what my reaction to George's predicament should be. On the one hand, as you watch him being subjected to the grotesque "treatments" of the day, you want to feel sorry for him. Even in history, George III truly was a tragic, King Lear-like figure. On the other hand, the whole movie had a rather overt "anti-monarchy" feel to it, and it was hard to feel sympathy for any of them. I was unclear where the movie was going on that point. The repeated "joke" about the former American colonies - "they're gone, just let them go" - also started to bug me after a while. (As an aside, thinking about those former American colonies, it's always intrigued me that there seems to be far greater fascination with the Royal Family in the United States, which rebelled against the monarchy, than there is in Canada, which remained loyal. That, however, is another story!) As to the movie? It's a middling movie - certainly not a disaster, but nothing to write home about, and I certainly wouldn't watch it again. 5/10.