The Madness of King George

Starring: Nigel Hawthorne, Helen Mirren, Rupert Graves, Ian Holm, Amanda Donohoe, Rupert Everett, Julian Rhind-Tutt, John Wood, Roger Hammond, Anthony Calf, Adrian Scarborough, Nicholas Irons
Directed by: Nicholas Hytner
Rating: PG-13
Genre: Drama, Comedy
1994

Times Seen:
Tim: 1

Summary: King George (Nigel Hawthrone) seems to lose his mind, which throws the court into chaos and uproar as multiple people try to use the event to position themselves for power.

Review:

Tim: I enjoyed The Madness of King George, but it feels like a movie where individual parts are better than the whole. You can certainly praise the cast, costumes, production design- but the movie never feels like it reaches its full potential. It was good, British, restrained. But, it never fully grabs hold of the audience. It's a movie worth seeing, but probably just once.

I loved that the film was based on a true story, although it obviously takes many liberties to tell its story. The idea of an all-powerful King being struck by sudden mental illness is an intriguing story. What would his lieutenants and his political enemies do in such a situation? How would it affect his family? His ability to govern? The movie certainly touches on those things, but the comedy aspect looms large, so it never fully dives into the details. I didn't find the film especially funny, so I wish it had played up the dramatic aspects more. This was based on a stage play, so I get it- but the translation feels just slightly off. I imagine it makes an even better play than a movie.

The film is helped by a tremendous cast. Nigel Hawthrone is incredible as King George. He gives a powerfully physical and emotional performance- first, of an absolute monarch. And then, as a man who has lost his mind. As the film progresses, he becomes a man struck by madness, trying to find his way back to the light. This is much significantly more difficult due to the wrongheaded and naive medical community. Hawthorne is often mesmerizing as he displays so much raw emotion as he transitions from a stoic head of state to an emotional mess. The tragedy he suffers in the film is immense and you can see it all on Hawthorne's face. It's not surprising that Hawthorne received an Academy Award nomination for Best Actor. I was a bit surprised Helen Mirren received one for Best Supporting Actress- not because she's not good (she absolutely is), but because she's kept on the margins of the film. Maybe this was a product of the 1990s, but you have Mirren- one of the most talented actresses of her generation- and you don't give her nearly enough scenes to showcase that talent. I desperately wanted less of some of the minor supporting characters and more of Mirren. This would have absolutely made the movie better. The film feels just a tad too long at 1 hour, 50 minutes. It would have been better served with fewer small subplots and more of scenes with Mirren. I'm glad she received the nomination, but I can't imagine she would have won without more screen time and bigger scenes.

I loved the casting of Ian Holm as the brutal doctor. Holm is one of the best actors, all time. His role here is limited (it takes a long time for him to show up), but he has a few moments that are simply outstanding. Watching him act is always a delight and while I wish he had more to do, I marveled at what he did with his screen time. I also enjoyed seeing Rupert Graves here in a smaller, but consistent role. He was effective. I don't really like Rupert Everett- there's something too over-the-top about him. I struggled with his performance here. I know he's supposed to be unlikable, but it just felt like he was trying too hard. Nothing really felt natural about his performance. The rest of the supporting cast is solid.

The film was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Adapted Screenplay. I wouldn't say I loved the writing, but it was solid. It did win for Best Art Direction-Set Direction. That makes sense- the Academy loves recognizing this elaborate period films. A number of these kinds of movie have won that award- they usually aren't great films, but the production design is impressive. That's the case here. Good for the film and the work put into making the world around these characters feel believable.

In the end, I liked The Madness of King George. It's a solid film. It's entertaining, features impressive performances and it mostly holds our attention. It offers up a few too many less-than-interesting subplots and it takes a bit too long to get where it's going. Still, I enjoyed my time with these characters and the events depicted on screen. This movie has limitations, but it's still worthwhile.

Rating 1-10
Tim's Rating- 7



If You Enjoyed This Movie, We Recommend: The Bridges of Madison County, The Queen, The King's Speech