Laikals The greatest movie ever made..!

InformationRap This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

Billie Morin This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

Bob This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

Leofwine_draca A moving exploration of mental illness masquerading as a costume drama. THE MADNESS OF KING GEORGE tells the story of George III, Britain's 'Mad King', whose life was beset by repeated ill health until his son, the Prince Regent, finally ruled in his stead.This is far from your usual costume drama (something like THE YOUNG VICTORIA), because it's written by and based on a stage play by Alan Bennett, who immediately brings events closer to home. He focuses on characters, personalities and feelings throughout, and isn't so interested in the pomp and splendour that other directors might have favoured. Instead, this is a glorious rebellion put on film, showing with childlike glee the way one man fought back against the social constraints of his era.Of course, that's not to say that this isn't an authentic-looking film; the costumes are splendid, the locations even more so, and the cast of British thesps are all very good. Nigel Hawthorne, in particular, gives one of his best-remembered performances (he'd played the same role on stage many times, which is why he's so confident in the part).

Neil Doyle THE MADNESS OF KING GEORGE shows us how mad the ruler of England became at some point in time due to an illness doctors knew little about.How his illness is treated is at the core of this story, when King George III is assigned a doctor (IAN HOLM) to use whatever means are necessary to restore sanity. All the while, court intrigue has everyone in parliament conspiring about appointing a Regent to take over the King's duties. His son, the Prince of Wales (RUPERT EVERETT) is more then willing to replace his father on the throne.Much of it is played for fine comic effect with many nuances and comic timing in spite of the seriousness of the central character's illness. NIGEL HAWTHORNE recreates his London stage role, playing the part of the mad king to perfection. HELEN MIRREN is highly satisfactory as his wife who wants nothing more than to see him make a complete recovery and RUPERT GRAVES is fine in one of the more low-key roles as one of the King's supportive aids.As usual in all of these British historical pieces, the settings, costumes, photography, art direction--all are exquisite. The photography is a marvel at suggesting that only candlelight illuminates many of the scenes so that it's like watching a series of fine paintings come to life. Effective use of Handel's music provides solid support throughout.

TheLittleSongbird I cannot begin to describe how much I loved the Madness of King George. I am very fond of period dramas, and this was a truly great film, funny, moving and pretty much immaculate. George III is married to Charlotte, yet he dallys with Lady Pembroke and fathers 15 children and an empire. The thing is, Farmer George(the king's nickname) is starting to show signs of madness, the rest.. well you'll have to see it for yourself. Nicolas Hytner directs impeccably, and while the screenplay has some sardonic jokes and colloquialisms it ensures that the film is essentially a serious study of 18th century politics and the monarchy. The period detail and art direction is nothing short of sumptuous, exquisite costumes, scenery and settings, and the use of music by Handel was appropriately fitting. Then there is the acting, it was top notch. Nigel Hawthorne's performance here is so exceptional, he pretty much embodies the film, in a performance that is funny, moving and charming. Helen Mirren and Amanda Donohoe both do wonderfully as his wife and mistress, they both are great actresses and both look lovely here. Rupert Everett is suitably detestable as the foppish Prince of Wales, Ian Holm is brilliant as Willis in some of the more harrowing scenes of the film and Rupert Graves is entertaining as Greville. Overall, this is a truly great film, so worth seeing for Hawthorne's performance alone! 10/10 Bethany Cox

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.