That was an excellent one.

Fresh and Exciting

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

During the viewing of The Madness of King George I never really felt like I was watching a movie. I was absorbed into the characters and the representation of the factual events. If that does not describe an excellent movie then I do not know what does.The story represents power and power struggle and the concept of subservience. Certain situations and constructs of underlings are built to a fine conclusion to resolve the characters. Befitting power and Royals the end conclusions is not "Disney-esque" for all characters.The sets and characters are fabulously done. There is no sense of egotistical pompousness on the part of the cast and crew (no over the top Johnny Depp-ness here). There is a purpose to the story and the content is more important than the cast and crew.Well worth watching.

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.

I rarely give out praise for a film, but here is one that I have enjoyed watching the second and third time. Excellent story, rooted in reality, well crafted, great acting by the world's best, great and accurate costumes, comportment, sets, historical accuracy.The story guides you to the seminal moment when George is reading King Lear with the Minister from government and regains his sanity in one of the finest moments in cinematography, which could only have been portrayed, ironically enough, by elite stage acting. Why is this so? Because the Royal Family would have carried themselves like stage actors back in the 18th century. Whether the directors and actors knew this or it simply came together, it's absolutely brilliant.In short, kudos. I give only 9 out of 10, because I thought the machinations portrayed in Parliament and of the Prince were a little exaggerated.

I saw this when it first came out, very much enjoyed it but my memory of it had grown foggy so, when it was shown tonight at my public library, I made a point of seeing it again. Good choice and I see why I remembered it as being so good.Hawthorne as the king, Mirren as the queen, Holmes as the doctor are all superb with Hawthorne the star shining brightest. The view of court life, loyalties, disloyalties, hidden agendas, was excellent.For those wishing more background of the era, I commend to you the viewer's comment of theowinthrop's (21 May 2005), "The King Who Talked to Trees..." which concisely summarizes the history of the era; this film is more loyal to the facts than most historical films. Most people seeing this will miss its delineation of the "Moral Treatment" movement in mental health. I'm a retired clinical psychologist and my internship was in the late '50s when psychotropic medicines were just coming in. The techniques of Dr. Willis were consistent with those of the "moral treatment" movement. These were later used at Topeka State Hospital, KS, (and a few others -- in the USA they originated at Pensylvannia Hospital with Dr. Benjamin Rush). This was "state of the art" during a few decades of the late 1800s but it began in Europe more than a century earlier. MT had many variants but generally demanded hard work, appropriate behavior, rewards and consequences, etc., and while its effectiveness was not equal to those of good treatment facilities in the 21st century, it was FAR better than other alternatives of that period -- and of many later periods through the 1940s. While many mental disorders (schizophrenia, bipolar disorders, etc., and the porphyria of King George) have a biological basis, the symptoms can be somewhat ameliorated, sometimes controlled by psychological forces. I found this account completely believable on a temporary basis. For a history of the MT techniques, please Google "Moral treatment" asylums; the Wikipedia article is quite good.This film is listed as a comedy. I view it as a drama with tragic and comedic overtones. I've worked enough years with psychotic patients in hospitals and in private practice that the loss of control of one's mind and its impact on one's family and associates never strikes me as comical. It's not that funny things don't happen -- as sometimes they did in this film -- but that's certainly not the overall arch. This film ends on an apparent upnote, at a point when the king was seemingly restored to his mind but before a later recurrence from which he did not recover.(As an example of briefly "funny" happenings in a tragic life, there was my episode with "Julian", a schizophrenic in his 20s who was in my therapy group. One day he didn't show up and I found he'd been placed in seclusion for groping an attractive (female) nurse. I visited him while he was in seclusion to continue our therapy relationship. When I questioned Julian why the groping had happened, he explained, "Aw, Doc, what's the use of being schizophrenic if you can't get some kicks out of it?" Somewhat funny, yes, right after the moment, but the overall arch of his brief life was closer to the tragic.)