The Madness of King George

English

العربية

Filipino

Français

हिन्दी

Indonesia

বাংলা

اردو

123movies search icon

muted

The Madness of King George - 123Movies

The Madness of King George

7.2

/10

19882 rating

1994•1 h 50 m•United Kingdom

When King George III goes mad, his Lieutenants try to adjust the rules to run the country without his participation.

Biography

Comedy

Drama

Rekomendasi

Ulasan

Hassam Ansari

21/03/2026 23:09

The Madness of King George

Tsietsi Mawillis Myb

29/05/2023 13:36

source: The Madness of King George

Kaz-t Manishma

23/05/2023 06:11

Watching this film, I couldn't help but think how better it could have been. I wished Stanley Kubrick had made a film of this material (rather than wasting his talent on EYES WIDE SHUT, but of course, Kubrick was such an auteur, had to control all aspects of a production and would not deign to stoop to actually using another man's material) as he would have created a real film, with a real feeling of time and place. This movie is not cinematic enough; it is too close to being a filmed play (and a mediocre one at that). It is actually mediocre, despite the good, but unspectacular acting. There is nothing in the dialogue that is interesting, or poetic, or transcendent, or makes you think. What Bertolt Brecht could have done with this material! Another thing that was irritating was the continual reference to the Prince of Wales as fat (historical, he was fat, and several courtiers paid the price of commenting on this fact), but the character was played by Rupert Everett (in a ho-hum performance that bordered on caricature at times), who clearly was not only NOT fat but not even remotely overweight. Such a lack of attention to detail is typical of mediocrity. (A very chubby Peter Ustinov played the Prince and played him well in BEAU BRUMMEL, which also addresses this period and the madness of King George, played by good old Robert Morley.) None of the acting was particularly outstanding; the performances have been vastly overrated. The interiors were nice, but the direction was so uninspired, the film just escaped becoming an egregious bore! And I never really believed that the history was right (I must look it up in my HISTORY OF ENGLAND). All in all, you can do much worse, but beware and be wary!

Silvia Uachane

23/05/2023 06:11

Based on the play, this is quite a good period drama of a new king of England that has an almost unexplainable madness. I did fall asleep somewhere, probably when Sir Ian Holm was helping cure the king, but what I did see of this film, based in the time of The French Revolution was good. Basically George III (BAFTA winning, and Oscar nominated Nigel Hawthorne) has recently been crowned, and not long after starts a dementia, and becomes more alive and more politically marginalized. All are concerned, especially wife Queen Charlotte (Oscar and BAFTA nominated Dame Helen Mirren), well, unless you count the stupid Prince of Wales (Rupert Everett). The only person who may be able to help the king return to normal "what-what" is Dr. Willis (BAFTA nominated Holm). Also starring Rupert Graves as Greville, Amanda Donohoe as Lady Pembroke, Green Wing's Julian Rhind-Tutt as Duke of York, Julian Wadham as Pitt, Jim Carter as Fox and Geoffrey Palmer as Warren. I can see why Blackadder picked on this period with Prince George in Blackadder the Third. It won the Oscar for Best Art Direction-Set Decoration, and it was nominated for Best Writing, Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium, and it won the BAFTAs for Alexander Korda Award for Best British Film and Best Makeup/Hair, and it was nominated for Anthony Asquith Award for Film Music for George Fenton, Best Cinematography, Best Costume Design, Best Editing, Best Production Design, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Sound, David Lean Award for Direction for Nicholas Hytner and Best Film. Rupert Everett was number 39 on The 50 Greatest British Actors, Amanda Donohoe was number 38, and Dame Helen Mirren number 7 on The 50 Greatest British Actresses, and Mirren was number 5 on Britain's Finest Actresses. Very good!

🔥BIPIN SUBEDI🔥🇳🇵

23/05/2023 06:11

From the moment that this film started, it had me totally captivated. It chronicles King George III's gradual slip into what was thought to be madness, (but was later discovered to be another disease), and, perhaps one of the most impressive things, does so without bending and mangling history. Granted, (now I'm American born and raised and live here so don't think I'm bashing them or anything), many parts of this film might be hard for American audiences to grasp, but if you have the brain cells to sit through it, it's absolutely wonderful. The shining star, to me, is English-born Helen Mirren. Talk about a robbed Oscar! She portrays the originally-German Queen Charlotte incredibly well. The costuming in the film are what add to not only Mirren's, but the entire film's, historical accuracy. Granted, Mirren's German accent didn't stay exactly on key the entire time, but someone who had lived in England long enough, the accent could have begun to fade, no? Nonetheless, a flawless performance by Mirren. The other reason this film is so incredible is its star, Nigel Hawthorne. Every scene he portrays the King in is perfect. He makes you feel like you're part of the movie; the interaction between Hawthorne in Mirren is great, as well. Others who add to the film's quality are Everett (as the Prince of Wales), Donohoe (Lady Pembroke), and Holm (Dr. Willis). A truly great ensemble cast makes this my #1 movie of the 90s. Overall: Just absolutely incredible! Go watch it! 5/5 Stars.

abir ab

23/05/2023 06:11

I positively loved Hawthorne in this movie, thanks to him King's madness is quite palpable, emotional rather then clinical. Ian Holm charms as always - this time as a rather driven/bordering on sadism "doctor", whose elaborate system of punishment was impressed on King George by sadistic and yet so well meaning party of the King. Nice thing about this movie is the absense of the clear-cut villains - even the Prince ain't that bad. It's rather a story of one's power slipping away from everywhere but the very surface, a fable of the King in no more than the name, driven to the edge of misery by intrusive politicians and abusive doctors. As such it has it's depressing moments - don't expect a Hollywoodish romp of the Iron Mask or Musketeers.

Mouhamed Tv

23/05/2023 06:11

Perhaps historically correct, but dull and uninteresting. Couldn't care less about the British monarchy.

nzue Mylan-Lou

23/05/2023 06:11

According to the history books, George III of England went hopelessly mad by 1811. This film, which appears largely historical to this non-Brit, begins in 1788, and King George (Nigel Hawthorne) is still indignant over losing the "colonies", now known as The United States. He has already begun to display unbalanced behavior, and his oldest son, Prince of Wales (Rupert Everett)is plotting, along with his cronies, to have a bill passed which makes him Regent, basically acting as king without being king. The tagline at the end of the film asserts that George III was suffering from a particular illness, as evidenced by references to blue urine in the script. In the film, a doctor who has established some reknown as a healer of "mad" people is retained, and forceably takes the King to his compound. There, every time the King acts unseemly, he is bound to a chair and gagged. Eventually, right before the bill is to be passed, he returns to his subjects, and exhibits normal behavior. He begins adding "what-what" to the end of his sentences, as he had done before he became incapacitated. I wonder if that is where it came from for the movie, "Chicken Run?" A very good movie, done in good style with appropriate humor. Nigel Hawthorne and Rupert Everett are both great in their roles.

Reitumetse ❤

23/05/2023 06:11

The late Nigel Hawthorne received his only Oscar nomination for his outstanding role of King George III of England who developed a mental disorder that created chaos for the the nation's leader in the 1700s. His wife (Helen Mirren in an Oscar-nominated role) cannot cope and it turns out that no one can really help the king as the medical profession just lacked the modernism necessary to assist. Ian Holm is a genuine scene-stealer as the physician who uses some unorthodox methods to try and cure the titled character. Nigel Hawthorne, who sadly passed away recently, was one of the truly great actors of his time and this was his finest role. 4 stars out of 5.

Karelle Obone

23/05/2023 06:11

This is an exquisitely made film about a sad figure in British history, King George III, who spent much of his reign locked away in a private mental institution. Now, researchers and historians believe that the "madness" was caused by the effects of Porphyria--a rare condition in which a person becomes allergic to sunlight. This film concerns only a very small portion of his long reign. You see George at first as a capable and decent man, but slowly he becomes tough to manage and irrational. What is very interesting but tough to watch are the ways that the barbaric doctors try to treat his malady. Ultimately, by the end of the film, George seems to have recovered and the audience is left to assume everything was peachy from that point on, but this was NOT the case. His mental condition continued to wax and wane for decades and ultimately, his son George IV became ruler long before he was actually crowned because his father was too incapacitated to rule or even be trusted to care for himself. A very sad true story that was too briefly explored in this film. However, I must also admit that the acting was very good, the sets lovely and the film fascinating throughout...but incomplete. An interesting post-script. While George was reasonably rational when the Revolutionary War began, his mental impairment must have affected his reasoning even then. You wonder if maybe the whole situation might have been dealt with much differently if the king had truly been in his right mind. For example, when the Prime Minister, Pitt the Younger wanted to show leniency towards the colonies and reconcile, he was not supported in this by the King. In fact, the King said some rather imprudent things about needing to teach Colonists a lesson. Who knows...and an interesting question for historians.