The Madness of King George is a good movie. It is enjoyable to watch and you will no doubt come away glad that you did. Though the Madness of King George is a movie about political struggles, there is a lot of light hearted comedy that adds a very colourful flavour. The comedy is quite good and the story is quite interesting.The Madness of King George is set in 1788 in England. Britain has just lost its American colonies and this plays a major part on the health on the King. Though it is difficult to see due to the King's behaviour throughout the movie, the blurb says that he is beginning to act strangely. Nigel Hawthorne plays a rather cheerful and eccentric king but as the movie progresses the eccentricity becomes more and more extreme. It is at this stage that the king is believed to be mad and the movie turns into one of a political struggle. Yet right from the beginning of the movie one does sense desire coming from the kings eldest son so it is not surprising that he wants to take the throne.The acting in the movie is extremely good and Nigel Hawthorne plays the role of the king brilliantly. The film makers have managed to capture the atmosphere of the aristocracy and have portrayed the era and the customs accurately. One aspect that I was particularly impressed with was the allusions to Shakespeare's King Lear, which is another story of a king gone mad. Unfortunately it seems that the movie probably followed the plot of King Lear a little too closely. Though the play and the movie do end differently, there is a number of simulates. The movie does though acknowledge King Lear near the end. The plot of the ambitious prince wanting to take the throne of the king is also an overused plot point but that happens.

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 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.)

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.......