Hellen I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

Salubfoto It's an amazing and heartbreaking story.

Zandra The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

Logan By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

smatysia As an under-educated American, I was totally unaware of the Regency crisis of 1788, or for that matter any information about the health of the tyrant George III. (Although to be sure, he fell far short of modern tyrants, the Stalins, Husseins, and Pots of the world.) And since I do not get my history from feature films, it may not be true. (Take that, Oliver Stone) There was a lot of nice acting in this historical drama however, particularly from the inimitable Nigel Hawthorne. Would that Helen Mirren had a larger part, as she is always superb. One of the things that most struck me was how everyone of that period, even royalty was held hostage to the ignorance and barbarism of medieval medicine. I wonder what people will think of current medicine two hundred years hence.

poj-man 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.

L. Denis Brown This film is based on a totally frivolous but delightful stage romp which depicted the political machinations in London in the late eighteenth century when King George III first showed signs of mental instability. The ruling Tory government did not want to see him replaced by his son acting, in accordance with the constitution, as Regent (i.e. as King in everything but name) because the Prince tended to be a political supporter of the opposition Whigs. Conversely the Whig leaders recognised that if they could force through a Regency Bill to effect this replacement, the grateful Prince should give them a great deal of support. They made every effort to draw attention to the king's problems and simultaneously introduced the Regency Bill into Parliament. The Tories countered by stalling tactics on this bill combined with attempts to bring the King into public view at times when he would do nothing to suggest possible mental instability; and later with drastic attempts to provide medical support to correct or minimise the King's problem. Little was understood medically about insanity at this time but history shows that the very unconventional treatments devised by the appointed Court Physician finally proved successful, and the King recovered for quite a long period, although his insanity eventually returned to become clearly evident to all, so that his son did finally become Prince Regent for the last nine years of his father's life. The play, and this film on which it is based, portray events during the Kings earlier period of mental instability from which records show that he appeared to make a fairly complete recovery. The comedy lies mainly in the re-creation of the political manoeuvring of the period, and the way in which this was accepted by London Society, although many sequences showing courtiers and other attendants relaxing after the king left a room were also very amusing.. This may not sound a great deal, but I found it made a most satisfying film. There were also moments of real pathos and drama which showed the Queen (played by the superlative actress Helen Mirren) supporting her husband in every way she could, and I for one became sufficiently involved in the story to experience real pleasure when the king won his struggle and resumed his normal duties. The film itself is inconsequential, but, if comedies of manners and situations appeal to you, you should not miss any chance to see it.The comedy is not limited to the actual film but extends also to its title. It has been reported that the Studio planned to release this film under the title "The Madness of King George III"; but at the last minute they were advised that this title might drastically reduce the audiences in the United States where viewers who had not seen "The Madness of King George I" or "The Madness of King George II" would probably decide to give it a miss, and it was therefore decided not to identify which British monarch was the subject matter for this delightful romp.Nigel Hawthorne starred as the King and Rupert Everitt played the Prince of Wales. Dr Willis, the unconventional physician who had such an important role in the events, was beautifully played by Ian Holm. This film avoided the common trap of transcribing a stage play to film so literally that many of the sequences become unduly lengthy and much too static. The original play by Allan Bennett was very successful in England and he was fortunately (but unusually) asked to prepare the film script from it himself. On the basis of this example I would recommend that the authors of most plays intended as the basis for a film should be given the opportunity to have a much greater say in the preparation of the film-script. The several awards won by this film were all well deserved, but it remains dominated by the superlative performance of Nigel Hawthorne. (This was also the general verdict on the original London stage production and it will be a brave theatre manager who brings the play back there with a different lead actor.)

lord woodburry Certainly the American tradition casts "German Georgie" in a far different light than the real life English King who for all his foibles was much loved at home. George III enters upon his mania to the dismay of the royalist faction but the very threat of losing the throne to his erratic son the dissipated Prince Regent and future King George IV (the English King George IV to be distinguished from His Majesty's weakling American knock-offs George IV The Bush and George IV jr) prompts a recovery."I seem more myself," remarks old King George introspectively as he puts aside a reading from Shakespeare, "I think I've learnt how to seem." Yet George III did much to shape the American image of what a ruler should be. He's so moral that the Queen blames the regrettable illness on his refusal to take mistresses. "There are model farms and factories," George Rex tells the Royal Family, "we must be a model family." On American independence, George IV decides, "It's an idea we must get used to." Will that ever happen? See the film!