The Madness of King George (1994) - IMDb IMDb There was an error trying to load your rating for this title. Some parts of this page won't work property. Please reload or try later. X Beta I'm Watching This! Keep track of everything you watch; tell your friends. Error The Madness of King George ( 1994 ) PG-13 | A meditation on power and the metaphor of the body of state, based on the real episode of dementia experienced by George III [now suspected a victim of porphyria, a blood disorder]. As he ...

See full summary » Director: From $2.99 (SD) on Amazon Video ON DISC a list of 30 titles created 08 Jul 2012 a list of 26 titles created 07 Feb 2013 a list of 33 titles created 01 Jul 2013 a list of 34 titles created 12 May 2015 a list of 33 titles created 28 Nov 2015 Title: The Madness of King George (1994) 7.2/10 Want to share IMDb's rating on your own site? Use the HTML below. You must be a registered user to use the IMDb rating plugin. Won 1 Oscar. Another 15 wins & 18 nominations. See more awards » Photos Edit Storyline A meditation on power and the metaphor of the body of state, based on the real episode of dementia experienced by George III [now suspected a victim of porphyria, a blood disorder].

As he loses his senses, he becomes both more alive and more politically marginalized; neither effect desirable to his lieutenants, who jimmy the rules to avoid a challenge to regal authority, raising the question of who is really in charge. Written by Dan Hartung <dhartung@mcs.com> His Majesty was all powerful and all knowing. But he wasn't quite all there. Genres: Rated PG-13 for thematic elements | See all certifications » Parents Guide: 28 December 1994 (USA) See more » Also Known As: La folie du roi George See more » Filming Locations: Did You Know? Trivia There had been some question as to whether Nigel Hawthorne should be cast in the movie, since he was 65 at the time of filming and King George III was only fifty at the time of his first bout of insanity. See more » Goofs The servant Fortnum states that he is leaving royal service to open a provisioner's shop in Piccadilly ("a step up from emptying piss-pots"), a comical allusion to the Fortnum & Mason's establishment.

The film takes place in 1788, 81 years after F&M was founded in 1707. In fact, the company's co-founder's grandson entered royal service in 1761, which led to an expansion of the company's business. See more » Quotes George III : By your dress, sir, and general demeanor, I'd say you were a minister of God. Dr. Willis : Oh, that's true, Your Majesty, I was once in the service of the Church. Now I practice medicine. George III : Well, I'm sorry for it. You've quitted a profession I've always loved and embraced one I most heartily DETEST. Dr. Willis : Our Savior went about healing the sick. George III : Yes... but He had not seven hundred pounds a year for it.

[laughs] Referenced in Borderlands (2009) See more » Soundtracks (USA) – See all my reviews THE MADNESS OF GEORGE III (called MADNESS OF KING GEORGE in the States because of reported studio concern, probably not apocryphal, that most Americans would wonder why they missed MADNESS I and II) begins with an act of lese majesty, a look behind the scenes as the family and ministers of George III prepare for the ceremony to open Parliament in 1788. We see the confusion of an equerry who has no idea of what his duties are, a royal attendant hurriedly spit on and cuff-polish a jewel on the kingly crown, the boredom of the king's eldest sons who would rather be just about anywhere else than waiting for their father in the chilly anteroom. ("Colder in here than a greyhound's nostril," mutters the Lord Chancellor.) It's a theme that will carry through the entire film. Kingship and royalty are shams, it seems magic acts that require faith on the part of the audience. A peek behind the curtain of noblesse oblige and it's all likely to fall to pieces.

The story remains fairly true to the facts. Late in 1788, George III is taken by a mysterious illness (lately surmised to be porphyria) that strongly resembles the then-popular conception of madness. Chaos ensues, mainly in the desperate efforts of the Government (headed by William Pitt - Julian Wadham) to hush the whole matter up lest the forces of the Whig Opposition (led by Charles James Fox - Jim Carter) use the power vacuum to place the king's eldest son, the Prince of Wales, at the head of a regency sympathetic to their political cause. But Alan Bennett, who originally wrote the script for the theatre, is wise enough to treat the potentially tragic story as essentially comic even while raising the question of the basic insanity behind all pretensions to royalty. ("Some of my lunatics fancy themselves kings," notes the "mad doctor" who undertakes the case. "But he IS the king. Where shall his fancy take refuge?") The power of the film radiates from neither history nor comedy but from performances, and Nigel Hawthorne, who sharpened his characterization of George III over months of playing it on stage, dominates a roster of top-notch actors.

Whether brow-beating his older children with admonitions of "Do not be fat, Sir! Fight it! Fight it!" or, freed from his self-imposed strictures of kingship by illness, slipping the reins and pawing under the stays of Lady Pembroke (Amanda Donahoe), Hawthorne is both maddeningly and appealingly autocratic. Perhaps his Farmer George, England's prime example of husbandry both in his knowledge of horticulture and in his brood of 15 children, is more sympathetic than the historical personage, but in the end that matters little. It's a superbly nuanced performance. And he's given able support by Helen Mirren as his faithful Queen Charlotte, who's devoted her life to supporting the man who rescued her from the obscurity of a small Germanic kingdom and married her despite her rather spectacular lack of good looks. Mirren's accent is variable; her etching of Charlotte's desperate groping at every straw in order to see her husband cured is not. The rest of the cast is impeccable as well. Ian Holm is all steely religious conviction turned to medical practice as Dr. Willis, who undertakes to treat the king.

Rupert Everett, despite the double handicap of an obviously false stomach and the silliest wig in the film, does a creditable turn as the Prince of Wales, though the script treats Prinny unfairly, mainly for the comic potential of doing so. Ministers of state and Parliamentarians Wadham, Carter and John Wood handle their lines with a panache and wit that would do credit to any authentic 18th-century gentleman. Some of the best lines go to Wood, who as usual gives his unsurpassable style and timing, as when he growls out in church, "I'm praying, goddammit!" The costumes are both faithful and sumptuous, the cinematography is luminous and the sets, borrowed at low cost from various castles and colleges, are lovingly handled. Of special note is the music of Handel, adapted so cleverly by George Fenton that one would swear the old boy in the knee breeches wrote the score himself for every scene. 26 of 30 people found this review helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Yes Perspective: How true is 'The King's Speech'?

- latimes YOU ARE HERE: LAT Home → Collections → Movies Perspective: How true is 'The King's Speech'? Screenwriter David Seidler did some tweaking and telescoping to tell his tale, a history professor writes, but it was done to advance the story, plus explore the relationship between the stuttering royal and his commoner therapist. February 13, 2011 |By David Freeman, Special to the Los Angeles Times Britain's Prime Minister Winston Churchill, center, looks on as… (Associated Press ) If any best-picture contender was going to face questions about taking liberties with the facts this Oscar season, it seemed likely it would be "The Social Network." But now that screenwriter Aaron Sorkin and Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg have tactfully retreated a bit from their initially contentious stands, the accuracy debate has shifted to "The King's Speech." "The King's Speech" is being sold as a feel-good tale of how a friendship between a royal and a commoner affected the course of history.

But some commentators are complaining, among other things, that the film covers up Winston Churchill's support for Edward VIII, the playboy king who abdicated to marry an American divorcee, and that the movie fails to acknowledge that the once tongue-tied George VI supported Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's appeasement of the Nazis. (Writing last month at slate.com, Christopher Hitchens blasted the film as "a gross falsification of history.") As a specialist in British history, I agree that screenwriter David Seidler certainly has tweaked the record a bit and telescoped events in "The King's Speech" — but for the same artistic reasons that have guided writers from Shakespeare to Alan Bennett, who wrote the screenplay for "The Madness of King George" (and the play on which the movie was based). While historians must stick to the facts, dramatists need to tell a good story in good time. It also helps if they can explore the human condition in the process. Seidler's script opens with Colin Firth as Prince Albert (the future King George VI, but then the Duke of York and known to his family as "Bertie") facing the ordeal of making his first radio broadcast.

To add to the strain, the duke must deliver the address in a stadium before a large crowd. However, his words come only haltingly, causing embarrassment for all present. Not shown but later referenced in the film is the fact that in the crowd was Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush), a speech therapist recently transplanted from Australia. All this took place in 1925, but Seidler brings the speech disaster forward 10 years to the eve of the abdication crisis, which resulted in the duke unexpectedly being transformed into a king when his brother Edward VIII stepped aside. The compression of events, although understandable, requires a slew of historical alterations to explain the back story. The duke's stammer derived in part from the verbal abuse he received as a child from his father, King George V (Michael Gambon). To indicate this, Seidler concocts a scene showing the adult Bertie still being hectored by his father, and it is only after this that he agrees to see Logue. Much of the early part of the film is taken up with Logue's struggle to win the duke's trust.

The therapist succeeds partly by trickery and partly because of continued prompting by Bertie's wife, the Duchess of York (Helena Bonham Carter). After achieving a "breakthrough" with his patient and following Edward's abdication in 1936, Logue helps prepare the new king for the ordeal of the coronation ceremony. That hurdle cleared, the film culminates with the therapist coaching Bertie through another historic moment: his broadcast to the British Empire at the start of World War II with an approving Churchill (Timothy Spall) looking on. In reality, the duke first sought treatment from Logue in 1926, and, contrary to the film, the two hit it off immediately. Logue wrote in a note later published in the king's official biography that Bertie left their first meeting brimming with confidence. After just two months of treatment, the duke's improvement was significant enough for him to begin making successful royal tours with all the public speaking that entailed. George V was so delighted that Bertie rapidly became his favored son and preferred heir. In interviews, Seidler has been ambiguous about what sources he consulted in writing the script.

The various biographies of George VI all tell of the king's relationship with Logue. This includes the official biography published in 1958. John Wheeler-Bennett, the royal biographer personally selected by the king's widow, was himself a former patient of Logue's and so wrote about the episode with great emotion. It remains unclear, though, to what extent sources not available to scholars or the public played a role in the final shape of the film. Seidler has said that Logue's son offered 30 years ago to show him his father's notebooks, provided the king's widow agreed. But when Seidler wrote Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother, he was told that she found it too painful to remember the old anguish and begged that he wait until she had passed away. The Madness of King George: The Art Behind Going Mad – Professional Moron The Madness of King George: The Art Behind Going Mad It’s The Madness of King George. The Madness of King George, one of our favourite films, turned 20 earlier this year and we’ve decided to celebrate the fact.

It was adapted from Alan Bennett’s play and is based on the true story of King George III (1738-1820) and his bouts of manic dementia. As the King loses his mind, parliament panics and the conniving Prince George attempts to be made Regent – King in all but name. Central to the whole thing is a quite incredible performance by Nigel Hawthorne as King George III. To put it mildly he encompasses the role to perfection – we’d lay down the claim it’s one of cinema’s all time great performances. As Hawthorne (who also starred in the BBC’s satirical series Yes Minister) died in late 2001, we feel this is a fitting tribute to the man, myth, and legend. The Madness of King George We have to state we’re anti-monarchy here at Professional Moron, as hereditary privilege seems somewhat anachronistic in this day and age. By chance, the Madness of King George is a scathing assault on the absurdity of the monarchy system. We should point out our sycophancy doesn’t derive from this – we thoroughly enjoyed the King’s Speech and that’s a pro-monarchy romp-along. Why do we love the film so?

It’s a rare combination of an endlessly witty and intelligent script (Bennett wrote the screenplay, and also has a momentary cameo at the film’s conclusion) combined with a dream cast. They’re all at the top of their game, whether it’s Helen Mirren as the Queen, Rupert Graves (who’s since found fame in the BBC’s Sherlock TV series), John Wood as Lord Chancellor Thurlow , or Anthony Calf as the slippery Captain Fitzroy. The film primarily centres around four characters. As the King loses his mind, the spoilt and thoroughly bored Prince George (Rupert Everett on fine, flamboyant form) begins to dream of becoming King and tasks MP Mr. Fox to claim him Regency. Prime Minister Mr. Pitt (the now forgotten Julian Wadham delivering a standout performance) becomes concerned, and eager to hold onto his position drafts in the revolutionary Dr. Willis (Sir Ian Holm) to cure the King. Nothing goes smoothly, everything is based around ridiculous pomp and ceremony, and what’s worse is the government is aware of it. “God rot all Royals, give us the wisdom of America!” exclaims Mr.

Fox after one of the Prince’s tantrums, which apparently drew a big roar of approval from American cinemagoers. Talking ‘Bout My Medication A special mention must go to all the doctors in this film. Sir Ian Holm leads the lot and is characteristically brilliant, but you also have Roger Hammond as the hilariously incompetent Dr. Baker, Geoffrey Palmer as the stern Dr. Warren, and Cyril Shaps as the likely senile, stool obsessed Dr. Pepys. The latter three are the first to attempt to cure the King’s often highly entertaining, but inherently tragic episodes. The peak arrives at a public concert where in view of hundreds of guests, he almost sexually assaults the attractive Lady Pembroke, physically attacks Prince George, rambles incoherently, and disastrously joins in with the performance. Dismissively seeking a cure, Dr. Warren arrogantly orders the King to be blistered to drive the evil spirits from his body (scolding hot glass is placed on the King’s extremities to do so), Dr. Pepys insists examining the King’s stools, and Dr. Baker prescribes a batch of senna, failing to realise the King will inevitably consume the lot.

To top it off, the King’s “water” turns blue. When this is pointed out to Dr. Baker, he exclaims: “Medicine is a science, it consists of observation! Whether a man’s water is blue or not is neither here nor there.” Dr. Willis is drafted in by Mr. Pitt in an attempt to bring some order to the chaos, and this initially results in utter carnage. We highlight all of this as it’s central to the plot, but fascinating to behold. This is how medics used to work, and you can read more about this on our Blood and Guts: A Short History of Medicine review of Roy Porter’s medical tome. Where to Watch Okay, you’ll probably have to buy the DVD but it’s a super cheap one and can usually be picked up for about £5 (less than $10). Totally worth it, dears, because this is a timeless slice of brilliance you do not wish to miss out on.

The Madness of King George Reviews & Ratings - IMDb IMDb 17 January 2017 8:34 AM, PST NEWS 51 out of 62 people found the following review useful: The King Who Talked To The Trees - And Claimed They Talked Back from United States 21 May 2005 He was our last King, and the one we are raised to hate the memory of. And he was actually a hard working monarch, wrong headed at times, who had the longest reign (for any monarch - until Queen Victoria) in English history. He was George III (reigned 1760 - 1820 - the last nine years incapacitated by insanity and blindness). It was while he was ruling Great Britain that the American Revolution occurred, the French Revolution occurred, Napoleon rose and fell, and the industrial revolution hit Western Europe and the Americas. His is a key reign of modern history. We are taught he was a tyrant. Actually he was a conscientious supporter of the British Constitution, but he believed the colonists were disobedient children who should have been punished for their own good. Once it was obvious that they had won on the battlefield, George offered to abdicate.

He was talked out of it, and eventually faced up to accepting the papers of the new Minister from the United States, Mr. John Adams. But he never really fully accepted it, and in his last decade the two countries fought a second war (the War of 1812). George III was a good, but strict family man. He and his wife Charlotte had seven sons and six daughters. But his sons were disappointments (the best one, Frederick, Duke of York, was a second-rate army commander who got involved in a scandal when his mistress, Mrs. Clarke, sold army commissions "in the name of the Duke of York" to undeserving men). The German Georges had a tradition of hatred between the Kings and their sons and heirs. George I was hated by George II because the former had imprisoned his wife (George II's mother) for life for infidelity (see SARABAND FOR DEAD LOVERS). George II was hated by his son, Frederick, Prince of Wales, and kicked the son out of the royal palace. Frederick died prematurely in 1758, so his son George III succeeded in 1760.

His son, known as Florizel or "Prinny", had a long standing relationship with Mrs. Fitzherbert, a popular actress who happened to be Catholic. It was actually known by King George III that Prinny had an illegal marriage with Mrs. Fitzherbert. As head of the Church of England, George III resented this act. He also disliked Prinny's support of Whig politicians Charles James Fox and Richard Sheridan (and sometimes Edmund Burke). The King was a good Tory - he never realized that Prinny's politics were a way of annoying him, and Prinny was even more reactionary than the King was. Prinny's gambling and drinking debts also annoyed the King. George was able to support the wise government (to 1789 anyway) of William Pitt the Younger. So supportive was he, that Pitt would reciprocate. For one day, in 1788, King George got out of his carriage in a forest, walked over to a tree, and had a long conversation with it. The tree, you see, was not a tree, but actually the now dead King Frederick the Great of Prussia. George III was showing signs of dementia.

He was the first really certifiable monarch since Henry VI back in the 15th Century. George's son Prinny was ready to back a bill to remove his father and lock him away. Pitt saw Fox ready to replace him, and fought a long delaying action on the Regency bill. It worked, as Dr. Wills managed to bring the dementia under control. It would only be in 1811, when Pitt was dead for five years (and Fox for four) that a Tory Government passed a Regency bill, but by then Prinny was openly anti-Whig. It was politically allowable for the Percival Ministry to chance Prinny as Regent by then. After George III died he would become George IV and reign until 1830. This film has followed the tragic illness that incapacity (and eventually) destroyed George III, but only to the conclusion of it's first appearance in 1789. Nigel Hawthorne had performed the role to international acclaim on stage. He repeats it here, showing a thoughtful monarch (witness why he is upset about the errant colonies gaining independence - the valuable natural resources are lost, and he is aware of this).

He is puritanical when normal, but with a son like Prinny who could blame him for being sorely disappointed. From the start you find yourself rooting for Hawthorne's monarch, who was not the evil tyrant that Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson painted. Rupert Everett shows the callousness of the Prince of Wales, who is so selfish that at one point (when safely alone) Pitt and Fox wonder if their American cousins were right about abolishing the monarchy. Ian Holm, as Dr. Wills, is properly a mixture of early pioneer of psychology and tyrant. A wonderful film of how a national crisis was met and overcome peacefully. And timely too. Within weeks of the recovery of George III in 1789 the Bastille fell in Paris. Was the above review useful to you? 32 out of 35 people found the following review useful: "I have you in my eye, Sir" from San Jose, CA 22 September 2002 A great performance from Nigel Hawthorne makes this movie very enjoyable. His portrayal of the 'Mad King' is in turns entertaining, poignant, sharp, and commanding. The rest of the cast back him up well.

The conversion from stage play to screen works well here... the production design is excellent, and the direction is dynamic enough to ensure that the movie never drags. Best of all though is Alan Bennett's script which is full of wonderfully comic and intelligent soundbites. This is a sumptuous period drama which is never too intense, but at the same time never too pithy, and it makes for very pleasant viewing. The film never takes itself too seriously or gets bogged down - after all, what other 18th century costume drama can boast such lengthy discourse regarding the constitution of a British monarch's fetid stools? Was the above review useful to you? 28 out of 32 people found the following review useful: Faultless from Bracknell, England 14 December 2005 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....... Was the above review useful to you? 25 out of 28 people found the following review useful: A great fun story full of colourful characters and performances from United Kingdom 27 February 2004 Already upset by the loss of America to independence, King George III of England's position is made more difficult by the onset of an illness that causes him to act wildly and babble uncontrollably. While the Prime Minister places him in the hands of Dr Willis to keep him in power, The Prince of Wales and the leader of the opposition both plan to replace the king with the prince by way of a parliamentary bill. Based on the great little play that is historically based, this film went down very well with the awards season since it is very English and well acted. The plot is well written, I'm not sure if it is totally accurate but it is surely based on facts even if it has been coloured for artistic and entertainment reasons.

The film embraces both the internal workings of the royal family and the politics of parliament really well; again, it may not be totally true but it is colourful, dissenting and enjoyably. The film is involving but yet still manages to be enjoyable and funny. It is a great story and it is lavishly brought to the big screen in this great production. The sets and costumes are really good and establish the period and setting of the story very well, but it is the performances that really make it work. Hawthorne is wonderfully cast and delivers a great performance in the lead - both as the cruel monarch or the madman. He is totally believable all the way and never lets his performance become comical or silly even when it is amusing in delivery. Mirren and Donohoe both have less to do but make impacts in their scenes. Everett, Holm, Wadham and Graves support the film to great effect, their performances are colourful, impacting and very enjoyable. Overall, historical films will quite often be viewed as lifeless, dull and overlong. Here this film goes against all those old clichés and is lively, colourful and enjoyable. The rich sets and costumes add value to some great performances in an engaging story that is very enjoyable.

Was the above review useful to you? 26 out of 30 people found the following review useful: Satisfyingly sharp and funny from USA 3 July 2000 THE MADNESS OF GEORGE III (called MADNESS OF KING GEORGE in the States because of reported studio concern, probably not apocryphal, that most Americans would wonder why they missed MADNESS I and II) begins with an act of lese majesty, a look behind the scenes as the family and ministers of George III prepare for the ceremony to open Parliament in 1788. We see the confusion of an equerry who has no idea of what his duties are, a royal attendant hurriedly spit on and cuff-polish a jewel on the kingly crown, the boredom of the king's eldest sons who would rather be just about anywhere else than waiting for their father in the chilly anteroom. ("Colder in here than a greyhound's nostril," mutters the Lord Chancellor.) It's a theme that will carry through the entire film. Kingship and royalty are shams, it seems - magic acts that require faith on the part of the audience.

A peek behind the curtain of noblesse oblige and it's all likely to fall to pieces. The story remains fairly true to the facts. Late in 1788, George III is taken by a mysterious illness (lately surmised to be porphyria) that strongly resembles the then-popular conception of madness. Chaos ensues, mainly in the desperate efforts of the Government (headed by William Pitt - Julian Wadham) to hush the whole matter up lest the forces of the Whig Opposition (led by Charles James Fox - Jim Carter) use the power vacuum to place the king's eldest son, the Prince of Wales, at the head of a regency sympathetic to their political cause. But Alan Bennett, who originally wrote the script for the theatre, is wise enough to treat the potentially tragic story as essentially comic even while raising the question of the basic insanity behind all pretensions to royalty. ("Some of my lunatics fancy themselves kings," notes the "mad doctor" who undertakes the case. "But he IS the king.

Where shall his fancy take refuge?") The power of the film radiates from neither history nor comedy but from performances, and Nigel Hawthorne, who sharpened his characterization of George III over months of playing it on stage, dominates a roster of top-notch actors. Whether brow-beating his older children with admonitions of "Do not be fat, Sir! Fight it! Fight it!" or, freed from his self-imposed strictures of kingship by illness, slipping the reins and pawing under the stays of Lady Pembroke (Amanda Donahoe), Hawthorne is both maddeningly and appealingly autocratic. Perhaps his Farmer George, England's prime example of husbandry both in his knowledge of horticulture and in his brood of 15 children, is more sympathetic than the historical personage, but in the end that matters little. It's a superbly nuanced performance. And he's given able support by Helen Mirren as his faithful Queen Charlotte, who's devoted her life to supporting the man who rescued her from the obscurity of a small Germanic kingdom and married her despite her rather spectacular lack of good looks.

Mirren's accent is variable; her etching of Charlotte's desperate groping at every straw in order to see her husband cured is not. The rest of the cast is impeccable as well. Ian Holm is all steely religious conviction turned to medical practice as Dr. Willis, who undertakes to treat the king. Rupert Everett, despite the double handicap of an obviously false stomach and the silliest wig in the film, does a creditable turn as the Prince of Wales, though the script treats Prinny unfairly, mainly for the comic potential of doing so. Ministers of state and Parliamentarians Wadham, Carter and John Wood handle their lines with a panache and wit that would do credit to any authentic 18th-century gentleman. Some of the best lines go to Wood, who as usual gives his unsurpassable style and timing, as when he growls out in church, "I'm praying, goddammit!" The costumes are both faithful and sumptuous, the cinematography is luminous and the sets, borrowed at low cost from various castles and colleges, are lovingly handled.

Of special note is the music of Handel, adapted so cleverly by George Fenton that one would swear the old boy in the knee breeches wrote the score himself for every scene. Was the above review useful to you? 14 out of 15 people found the following review useful: Singular outstanding acting job in a most complex role from United States 19 January 2011 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. Was the above review useful to you? 11 out of 12 people found the following review useful: Nigel Hawthorne's Crowning Achievement. from United States 4 August 2002 The late Nigel Hawthorne received his only Oscar nomination for his outstanding role of King George III of England who developed a mental disorder that created chaos for the the nation's leader in the 1700s. His wife (Helen Mirren in an Oscar-nominated role) cannot cope and it turns out that no one can really help the king as the medical profession just lacked the modernism necessary to assist. Ian Holm is a genuine scene-stealer as the physician who uses some unorthodox methods to try and cure the titled character. Nigel Hawthorne, who sadly passed away recently, was one of the truly great actors of his time and this was his finest role.

4 stars out of 5. Was the above review useful to you? 11 out of 13 people found the following review useful: A darkly film, not quite your Three Musketeers "history" piece from Mad City, WI 5 June 2000 I positively loved Hawthorne in this movie, thanks to him King's madness is quite palpable, emotional rather then clinical. Ian Holm charms as always - this time as a rather driven/bordering on sadism "doctor", whose elaborate system of punishment was impressed on King George by sadistic and yet so well meaning party of the King. Nice thing about this movie is the absense of the clear-cut villains - even the Prince ain't that bad. It's rather a story of one's power slipping away from everywhere but the very surface, a fable of the King in no more than the name, driven to the edge of misery by intrusive politicians and abusive doctors. As such it has it's depressing moments - don't expect a Hollywoodish romp of the Iron Mask or Musketeers. Was the above review useful to you? 12 out of 15 people found the following review useful: "It's 4 O'clock!

Six hours of sleep is enough for a man, seven for a woman, and eight for a fool." <George III to his attendants> from Houston, Tx, USA, Earth 17 December 2001 *** This review may contain spoilers *** According to the history books, George III of England went hopelessly mad by 1811. This film, which appears largely historical to this non-Brit, begins in 1788, and King George (Nigel Hawthorne) is still indignant over losing the "colonies", now known as The United States. He has already begun to display unbalanced behavior, and his oldest son, Prince of Wales (Rupert Everett)is plotting, along with his cronies, to have a bill passed which makes him Regent, basically acting as king without being king. The tagline at the end of the film asserts that George III was suffering from a particular illness, as evidenced by references to blue urine in the script. In the film, a doctor who has established some reknown as a healer of "mad" people is retained, and forceably takes the King to his compound.

There, every time the King acts unseemly, he is bound to a chair and gagged. Eventually, right before the bill is to be passed, he returns to his subjects, and exhibits normal behavior. He begins adding "what-what" to the end of his sentences, as he had done before he became incapacitated. I wonder if that is where it came from for the movie, "Chicken Run?" A very good movie, done in good style with appropriate humor. Nigel Hawthorne and Rupert Everett are both great in their roles. Was the above review useful to you? 9 out of 10 people found the following review useful: Wonderful, entertaining Britflick from London, UK 18 February 2004 I've recently revisited the third Blackadder series. Nigel Hawthorne doesn't play his George III quite as spoony as that of the Curtis/Elton BBC series who wants his son to marry a pot plant, but it's close. The film works because of three things. First - always first - is Alan Bennett's screenplay which is succinct and hilariously funny. It is also unbearably sad at choice moments.

The actors - the second success story of the project - throw themselves at the pathos as furiously as at the comedy. There's camp and potty humour (literally) juxtaposed with the bare quoting of King Lear and it all works. Thirdly, there is an attention to the detail which goes beyond costume and design. Hytner has got his cast to play out humans inside 18th century character roles - there's no false reverence or mannered acting. Nigel Hawthorne is brilliant, playing out a human despite the vastly inflated ego he has to inhabit either side of sanity. All others aspire to this lead, with only Ian Holm (naturally, as his temporarily domineering doctor) matching it. 7/10 Was the above review useful to you? Page 1 of 6: View All Critic Reviews (44) Audience Reviews for The Madness of King George This film has a top-notch cast and a fascinating true story. The costumes and locations are perfect. I felt as though I had traveled back in time to events in the Age of Enlightenment that may not have been quite so enlightened. Christian C Super Reviewer I saw this on DVD. Interesting look at monarchy. It raises questions about WHY monarchy of course.

It was produced in 1994 and I think there were a lot of questions around then about WHY the monarchy when you had Prince Charles doing make-work waiting for mum to move aside--still waiting--and Fergie and Diana trying to figure out how to be real women while also being every little girl's fantasy--and Prince Phillip looking stern--and well, it's obviously a defunct institution but the Brits love 'em so who am I--an American, or a Colonist as King George would say--to tell them what to do? They're a colorful lot. This movie also really gets into the power behind the thrown--Pitt, Fox--great depictions and not unlike we're going through in 2012./ Bathsheba Monk Super Reviewer It's been nearly a year since the film-going community was whipped up into a frenzy, falling over themselves to praise The King's Speech. People who had not been to the cinema in years went in their droves, audiences spontaneously applauded up and down the country, and the various members of BAFTA and the Academy cast their votes to further cement the place of Bob and Harvey Weinstein as the kingmakers of awards season.

If all of this sounds like sour grapes, then forgive me. Notwithstanding the Weinsteins' involvement, The King's Speech is a damn fine film, Colin Firth is a very good actor, and Tom Hooper is arguably one of the best British directors working today. However, it is arguable that this film would have not achieved such levels of success were it not for some form of royal precedent - which brings us, very nicely, to The Madness of King George. Nicholas Hytner's adaptation of Alan Bennett's acclaimed play The Madness of George III may not have achieved the level of Oscar success accorded to The King's Speech. Despite a good showing at the BAFTAs, its only Oscar came for Art Direction. In a year dominated by Forrest Gump, Nigel Hawthorne had to watch Tom Hanks become only the second man after Spencer Tracy to win back-to-back Best Actor awards. But there are a number of key narrative similarities. Both films revolve around an outsider or commoner coming into royal circles to assist the King (albeit against his will). There is a similar amount of political and philosophical opposition, in both cases coming mainly from Parliament and the royal doctors who seek to discredit said commoner.

There is also a background of political struggle or brewing crisis, the solution to which lies in the personal story which forms the emotional foreground. The similarities between the two are so close at points that you could accuse David Seidler of plagiarising Alan Bennett. Or perhaps the nature of the British royal family is such that these kinds of conflicts occur regularly, and that their history is one of rampant self-plagiarism. Even the most cursory glance at British history would suggest that such an observation is not entirely facetious. The monarchy's peculiar constitutional role provides a fertile ground for stories about the balance of power and the clash between reason and emotion. While filmmakers may have taken this into the realms of Oscar cliché, it is not entirely the fabrication of an idle screenwriter. The key difference between the two films, is one of tone. The King's Speech may be written by a Briton, directed by a Briton and star the cream of British talent, but as a production it has a transatlantic feel; the involvement of the Weinsteins indicates a desire to appeal to the widest possible audience.

But while Bennett's writing has always been populist and accessible, The Madness of King George is more willing to be whimsical and off the beaten track, at least in its penchant for lingual acrobatics. Both Bennett's play and Hytner's rendering of it are examples of efficient, breezy storytelling. Once the key characters have been established, and the first signs of the King's infirmity revealed, the film really gets on with it, with not a bit of slack or pause for thought throughout its 102 minutes. The very speed at which Hawthorne delivers his speeches, cantering through pages like they were pithy one-liners, makes the whole thing pass very quickly. Unlike many more low-key films, the whimsy of The Madness of King George generally works to its advantage. The King's English of the 18th century, at least as we perceive it, is more pompous, flowery and bizarre than that of his descendants. While George VI was required to be a public figure in the absence of any genuine powers, George III only greets his public at the beginning and end of the story.

Hawthorne is clearly enjoying himself in the title role, spitting out all the insults with immense relish and grinning his way through the "what-what"s. But this is not an example of a great actor mugging, like the late-period Laurence Olivier. The King's unusual utterances, which border on lunacy or delirium, are a witty contrast to the humour-free William Pitt and the puritanical determination of Dr. Willis. This portrayal serves to further reinforce the theme of the detachment and increasing irrelevance of royalty, both politically and medically. The Madness of King George is at its strongest when it ties the central relationship to the political and constitutional struggle going on around it. The illness of the King would be a matter of inconvenience at any time, but it becomes a matter of national security in light of other issues facing Britain. There are calls for reform to the political system, led by Pitt's opponent Charles Fox, and as the King grows worse, Pitt's government seems weaker. America's independence and proclamation of republican democracy is a new and unquantifiable threat to the accepted order. And of course, unbeknownst to everyone, the French Revolution is just around the corner.

All of these events are handled with a light touch, as Hytner seeks to explain why the King's position is emblematic of the country as a whole. Both the doctors and the politicians are meddling with the institution of royalty - manipulating it for their profit and promotion, with no consideration for the fate of the King or the people he governs. Dr. Willis may show more desire and appetite to improve the King's manner, aiming, quite literally, to beat him into shape. But in the end he is as bad as the rest, promoting his values through the needless persecution of others. Likewise, the manoeuvres to install Prince George as Regent are not acts of favouritism; it is a calculated move by the reformists to weaken the monarchy. Replacing a long-serving and popular king with a young philandering upstart would turn the public against the royal family, allowing Fox to seize momentum and reshape the constitution. The King's illness is a symbol of the declining old order, set in motion by people who cannot understand his predicament. If all of this sounds heavy and Machiavellian, then it shouldn't, because The Madness of King George is joyously funny to watch.

It's easy to derive sneering amusement at the absurd levels of propriety involved - for instance, the King's refusal to let anyone sit down in his presence. But there are many moments of genuine comedy which add to the light-hearted atmosphere. The funniest comes during the performance of Handel's 'Water Music', where Hawthorne jumps on stage to play the harpsichord and then beats up his son when the latter tells him to be quiet. There are a couple of problems with the film. It begins to get repetitive about halfway in, as the various cures are found wanting: there's only so many times you can show a man screaming and being restrained. The ending is also a little unsatisfying, being the one point in the film which feels overly tailored to awards season. Its emphasis on the stability of the royal family may be in keeping with the overall theme, but its stability is of such note that it wanders into caricature, and we feel like nothing has changed. The Madness of King George is a thoroughly enjoyable film which has survived the poisoned chalice of awards recognition. Nearly two decades on it remains an intelligent and engaging balance of the personal and political.

Hawthorne carries the piece with great presence, aided by a simpering Rupert Everett, a fearsome Ian Holm, and Helen Mirren on top form in spite of a wayward accent. It's not perfect, but this and The King's Speech together would make a right royal double bill. Daniel Mumby

Question: Who wrote the screenplay for the film 'The Madness of King George'?
Answer: ALAN BENNETT