 |
The Madness of King George
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
DVD detailsActor: Amanda Donohoe, Helen Mirren, Ian Holm, Nigel Hawthorne, Rupert Graves Brand: Sony DVD: Region Code 1 Audio: English (Unknown), Dolby Digital 2.0 Stereo; Spanish (Subtitled); French (Subtitled); English (Original Language), Dolby Digital 2.0 Stereo Format: Anamorphic, Closed-captioned, Color, DVD, NTSC, Subtitled, Widescreen Picture Format: 1.85:1 Running Time: 107 minutes Published: 2001-06-01 DVD Release Date: 2001-06-05 Audience Rating: PG-13 (Parental Guidance Suggested) Studio: MGM (Video & DVD)
DVD Reviews of The Madness of King GeorgeDVD Review: Warning: Rent Or Watch On TV Before You Buy Summary: 1 Stars
I had never seen this movie, so I purchased a copy of it based on the multitude of glowing reviews describing it as a "marvelous period piece", "exhilarating", and "a masterpiece". No doubt these reviewers sincerely loved this movie. But be warned that most of the glowing reviews have left out some vital details, and they in no way prepare you for the assault that you will be subjected to when you watch this movie. This is not a particularly well done movie, nor is it an easy or pleasant viewing experience. I hope the missing details I fill in here will help others avoid the same mistaken purchase I made.
I was interested in this movie because of the star, the late Nigel Hawthorne, who also co-starred in "Yes Minister", my favorite British TV sitcom of all time. Hawthorne was so marvelous in that sitcom that I wanted to see more of his work. Unfortunately, Hawthorne died shortly after making "The Madness of King George", and this movie is so bad that it tarnishes his acting legacy and leaves one scratching one's head as to why he did it. Hawthorne's performance here is not very strong, and relies mostly on crude gimmickry to propel it forward. Many reviewers described this movie as a comedy. That may leave you with the wrong impression. It is by no means a comedy. It tries to insert some comic relief here and there, but most of that is so heavy-handed that it falls on its face. This is a heavy and ponderous movie, with very little genuine levity.
In this movie, a relatively sane King George lapses into madness shortly after the movie begins, and with very little transition. One moment he's normal, and the next moment he's totally bonkers with no warning. He starts with a mad rampage through the castle, during which he busts into a woman's bedroom and demands that she hand him her "pish pot". The startled woman complies, and King George proceeds to hike up his night shirt and urinate into the pot. The folks in attendance note that his urine is blue. From here the movie takes a long and relentless descent into an obsession with excrement and other bodily functions. In fact, if this movie is to be believed, King George's madness consisted mainly of his inability to control his bodily functions, much to the embarrassment of the other members of the King's court. One early doctor who attends to the mad King is himself obsessed with bowel movements, and constantly banters joyfully about "fetid stools" and the like. At one point, the mad king is outdoors on another mad rampage and suddenly gets the uncontrollable urge to defecate. He drops his drawers and defecates against a wall while those in attendance watch helplessly. In far too many scenes there is the frequent handing off of pots of the King's urine samples to various people in attendance, and the director played this up by making sure the sloshing sound of the urine was front and center in the audio mix. Not realistic at all. In reality, if there had actually been this much sloshing about, there wouldn't be a drop of urine left in the pot. Phony effects like this one give this movie a hokey quality. One has to wonder whether all of these sensational public potty activities actually happened in the prudish royal court of the time. One gets the sense that very little historical research was done prior to writing the script. For example, there was one conversation between several courtly ladies in which they were complaining about the "bathroom noises" that men make. The blooper in that scene is that there was no such thing as a "bathroom" back in those days. There are many similar historical bloopers in this movie. One of them was that it was never explained just what was the purpose of collecting all of the King's excretions. This was taking place during the period of the American Revolution. There was no biochemistry or medical science as we now know it, and no way to analyze the samples to determine whether there was a physiological cause to the King's madness. Unfortunately for this movie, the hokiness doesn't end here. It keeps getting worse.
Very little effort was put into making this movie look realistic for the period. The actors have to be sporting the goofiest, fakest looking wigs in the history of movie making. The costumes aren't much better, looking more like what folks nowadays would wear to a garish masquerade ball to stereotype the look of past ages. The movie could have benefited greatly if it had a top notch art director with impeccable aesthetic judgment, such as Cedric Gibbons from the golden age of Hollywood. But I think the weakest feature of this movie is the unrealistic portrayal of the characters. Most of the characters were so bizarre and exaggerated that they came across more as caricatures in a farce or satire than real historical figures. Virtually all of the characters seem silly and pompous, and none of them are allowed to develop and get fleshed-out enough to be believable. Yet this movie was supposed to be an effort to seriously portray the subject matter and the period. Most of the performances are weak. Helen Mirren, who plays the Queen, is unable to realistically portray the range of conflicting and gut-wrenching emotions that a supposedly loving wife would be going through. She just couldn't get a handle on her character. Geoffrey Palmer, who along with Hawthorne is another great British sitcom actor I love (he played Lionel Hardcastle in the TV series, "As Time Goes By") also seems to have no idea what to do with his character. As the movie progresses, he starts to have the look of a deer caught in the headlights. It's as if he realized that he was involved in a real stinker, but by that time it was too late to pull out. In fact, many of the actors have this same look.
This is one of the few movies wherein I experienced a feeling of relief when it was over. The movie ends almost as abruptly as it started, with the King suddenly getting his marbles back. Once again, the transformation is abrupt with almost no transition from madness to sanity. The doctor in attendance seems to take the credit for the cure, but it is never made clear what the cause or the cure was! Even though this movie wasn't made in Hollywood, it seems like modern Hollywood at its goofiest. The entire movie has an aire of the contrived, with little effort to comport with historical fact. It reminds me a lot of the 1984 movie "Amadeus", which made the similar pretense of being a biographical movie about the great composer, Mozart, but was actually one of the hokiest movies ever made. That movie transformed the musical genius into a buffoon who was obsessed with childish pranks such as breaking wind in public. It also concocted the implied murder of Mozart by his contemporary and supposed rival, composer Solieri. Yet there is not a shred of historical evidence. All of the historical information points to the fact that these two composers were good friends, not rivals. The point is, if you liked "Amadeus" and had no problem with the liberties it took in re-writing and sensationalizing history in order to make a quick buck, then you will probably also like "The Madness of King George". They are in the same vein. But if you believe that it takes better judgment and higher standards to produce a movie that is both quality entertainment and an enduring work of art, then I doubt if you will like this movie. In that case I suggest that you tread cautiously and find an inexpensive way to watch "The Madness of King George" before deciding to purchase it.
More The Madness of King George reviews: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Description of The Madness of King GeorgeWritten by Alan Bennett from his stage play and featuring a towering performance by Nigel Hawthorne, and a stunning screen directorial debut (Variety) by Tony Award winner* Nicholas Hytner, this Academy AwardÂ(r)-winning** masterpiece of royal intrigue ispotent, engrossing and thrilling (Los Angeles Times). Just five years after losing the 'rebellious colonies, it appears that England's King George III (Hawthorne) is now losing his mind! Suddenly, the stately monarch is hallucinating, shouting obscenities, behaving lewdly towards the Queen's (Helen Mirren) comelylady-in-waiting and generally becoming a candidate for the lunatic asylum. The palace doctors are baffled, but the Prince of Wales (Rupert Everett), tired of playing the waiting game, conspires to take advantage of the situation. Will the King's supporters be able to restore their monarch's wits before he's stripped of his throne? *1994: Director (Musical), Carousel **1994: Art Direction Nicholas Hytner had an international stage phenomenon with Alan Bennett's play The Madness of King George, starring Nigel Hawthorne as King George III, the British monarch who lost the American colonies. But in this film adaptation, Hytner unfortunately yields to the old temptation to "open up" the piece with lots of arbitrary exteriors, rushed set pieces, choppy editing, and so on, robbing Hawthorne's acclaimed stage performance of coherency and power on the big screen. Viewers are forced to fill in emotional gaps for themselves (and try to imagine what Bennett's work must have looked and felt like originally), and the whole enterprise has a pseudo-cinematic, self-congratulatory air. --Tom Keogh
|
 |