The Madness of King George

Though it predates THE KING'S SPEECH by 15 years, the similarities are clear: both tell of a King's struggle--George III vs. George VI--to overcome a debilitating condition with the help of a tough but sympathetic specialist. The focus here is spread a bit thin and some of the supporting cast are given short shrift, but Nigel Hawthorne is a wonderful George, convincingly unhinged without slipping into ham or losing our sympathy. The Oscar-winning sets and lavish costumes hold up the visual end.

It successfully strikes a balance between comedy, depicting mental illness, and historical accuracy into a very watchable film which is no mean feat. The only trouble is that none of the characters resonated strongly enough with me to make me really care.

An admirable production, with some humor lightening the mood, but it's far from my cup of tea.

I thought this was a decent little mildly comedic costume drama elevated by an astonishing performance from Hawthorne. I don't often engage in Oscar complainery, but it's a massive injustice that he lost Best Actor to Tom Hanks winning a second consecutive Oscar for that "Forrest Gump" thing. Helen Mirren is also really fine as Queen Charlotte.

Reminded me somewhat of The King's Speech. Great performances and writing, but not a particularly intriguing story.

Hawthorne is just about perfect, Holm and Mirren are superb, in spots it's genuinely very funny, and some of the cinematography is beautiful (some really neat tracking shots). But it has too many characters for its own good, lacks focus, can't really settle on a tone, and in general all these things make for a very superficial movie that never really lets us into what's going on. A respectable but cautious and unremarkable film, saved from tedium and irrelevance by a great lead performance.

a really good period piece, extremely entertaining and well written. hawthorne does a great job in the lead roll. the insanity of george III is an excellent topic for a movie.

Amusing opening and genuinely tense (will he/won't he hold it) finale bookend what is unfortunately a rather unremarkable period piece. Watchable but only just, and much of that is down to Hawthorne's performance, what-what.

While the acting is certainly adequate, especially on Hawthrone's part, however the movie is relatively unfocused in many parts and it has way too many characters for its own good. For a good deal of the time I felt that they didn't really know how to set the tone properly and I never really felt the mental disorder that King George was going through was anything totally intriguing or necessary to solve when just throwing the heir to replace him would have solved the issue.

Not a big deal

What what, hey hey. It's a good film, though maybe it has a bit too much comedy to have the dramatic parts truly horrify.

What's going on with the king is unsettling but the film never makes you think so - it's all done in such a silly and one-note manner. Disappointing.

Decent, but so very dull.

Good

Excellent.