Benutzerrezensionen

A great performance from Nigel Hawthorne makes this movie very enjoyable. His portrayal of the 'Mad King' is in turns entertaining, poignant, sharp, and commanding. The rest of the cast back him up well. The conversion from stage play to screen works well here... the production design is excellent, and the direction is dynamic enough to ensure that the movie never drags. Best of all though is Alan Bennett's script which is full of wonderfully comic and intelligent soundbites. This is a sumptuous period drama which is never too intense, but at the same time never too pithy, and it makes for very pleasant viewing. The film never takes itself too seriously or gets bogged down - after all, what other 18th century costume drama can boast such lengthy discourse regarding the constitution of a British monarch's fetid stools?

A moving exploration of mental illness masquerading as a costume drama. THE MADNESS OF KING GEORGE tells the story of George III, Britain's 'Mad King', whose life was beset by repeated ill health until his son, the Prince Regent, finally ruled in his stead.

This is far from your usual costume drama (something like THE YOUNG VICTORIA), because it's written by and based on a stage play by Alan Bennett, who immediately brings events closer to home. He focuses on characters, personalities and feelings throughout, and isn't so interested in the pomp and splendour that other directors might have favoured. Instead, this is a glorious rebellion put on film, showing with childlike glee the way one man fought back against the social constraints of his era.

Of course, that's not to say that this isn't an authentic-looking film; the costumes are splendid, the locations even more so, and the cast of British thesps are all very good. Nigel Hawthorne, in particular, gives one of his best-remembered performances (he'd played the same role on stage many times, which is why he's so confident in the part).

THE MADNESS OF KING GEORGE shows us how mad the ruler of England became at some point in time due to an illness doctors knew little about.

How his illness is treated is at the core of this story, when King George III is assigned a doctor (IAN HOLM) to use whatever means are necessary to restore sanity. All the while, court intrigue has everyone in parliament conspiring about appointing a Regent to take over the King's duties. His son, the Prince of Wales (RUPERT EVERETT) is more then willing to replace his father on the throne.

Much of it is played for fine comic effect with many nuances and comic timing in spite of the seriousness of the central character's illness. NIGEL HAWTHORNE recreates his London stage role, playing the part of the mad king to perfection. HELEN MIRREN is highly satisfactory as his wife who wants nothing more than to see him make a complete recovery and RUPERT GRAVES is fine in one of the more low-key roles as one of the King's supportive aids.

As usual in all of these British historical pieces, the settings, costumes, photography, art direction--all are exquisite. The photography is a marvel at suggesting that only candlelight illuminates many of the scenes so that it's like watching a series of fine paintings come to life. Effective use of Handel's music provides solid support throughout.

THE MADNESS OF GEORGE III (called MADNESS OF KING GEORGE in the States because of reported studio concern, probably not apocryphal, that most Americans would wonder why they missed MADNESS I and II) begins with an act of lese majesty, a look behind the scenes as the family and ministers of George III prepare for the ceremony to open Parliament in 1788. We see the confusion of an equerry who has no idea of what his duties are, a royal attendant hurriedly spit on and cuff-polish a jewel on the kingly crown, the boredom of the king's eldest sons who would rather be just about anywhere else than waiting for their father in the chilly anteroom. ("Colder in here than a greyhound's nostril," mutters the Lord Chancellor.) It's a theme that will carry through the entire film. Kingship and royalty are shams, it seems - magic acts that require faith on the part of the audience. A peek behind the curtain of noblesse oblige and it's all likely to fall to pieces.

The story remains fairly true to the facts. Late in 1788, George III is taken by a mysterious illness (lately surmised to be porphyria) that strongly resembles the then-popular conception of madness. Chaos ensues, mainly in the desperate efforts of the Government (headed by William Pitt - Julian Wadham) to hush the whole matter up lest the forces of the Whig Opposition (led by Charles James Fox - Jim Carter) use the power vacuum to place the king's eldest son, the Prince of Wales, at the head of a regency sympathetic to their political cause. But Alan Bennett, who originally wrote the script for the theatre, is wise enough to treat the potentially tragic story as essentially comic even while raising the question of the basic insanity behind all pretensions to royalty. ("Some of my lunatics fancy themselves kings," notes the "mad doctor" who undertakes the case. "But he IS the king. Where shall his fancy take refuge?")

The power of the film radiates from neither history nor comedy but from performances, and Nigel Hawthorne, who sharpened his characterization of George III over months of playing it on stage, dominates a roster of top-notch actors. Whether brow-beating his older children with admonitions of "Do not be fat, Sir! Fight it! Fight it!" or, freed from his self-imposed strictures of kingship by illness, slipping the reins and pawing under the stays of Lady Pembroke (Amanda Donahoe), Hawthorne is both maddeningly and appealingly autocratic. Perhaps his Farmer George, England's prime example of husbandry both in his knowledge of horticulture and in his brood of 15 children, is more sympathetic than the historical personage, but in the end that matters little. It's a superbly nuanced performance.

And he's given able support by Helen Mirren as his faithful Queen Charlotte, who's devoted her life to supporting the man who rescued her from the obscurity of a small Germanic kingdom and married her despite her rather spectacular lack of good looks. Mirren's accent is variable; her etching of Charlotte's desperate groping at every straw in order to see her husband cured is not.

The rest of the cast is impeccable as well. Ian Holm is all steely religious conviction turned to medical practice as Dr. Willis, who undertakes to treat the king. Rupert Everett, despite the double handicap of an obviously false stomach and the silliest wig in the film, does a creditable turn as the Prince of Wales, though the script treats Prinny unfairly, mainly for the comic potential of doing so. Ministers of state and Parliamentarians Wadham, Carter and John Wood handle their lines with a panache and wit that would do credit to any authentic 18th-century gentleman. Some of the best lines go to Wood, who as usual gives his unsurpassable style and timing, as when he growls out in church, "I'm praying, goddammit!"

The costumes are both faithful and sumptuous, the cinematography is luminous and the sets, borrowed at low cost from various castles and colleges, are lovingly handled. Of special note is the music of Handel, adapted so cleverly by George Fenton that one would swear the old boy in the knee breeches wrote the score himself for every scene.

British King George III has just recently lost his American colonies. At home, he is treated as a cross between a feared dictator, and a petulant child by his handlers. While politically, he is being marginalized and beset by ambitious self promoters on all sides. He is suffering from mental deficiencies, and his doctor is hopeless.

It's a fascinating look at the royal court. Nigel Hawthorne is terrific instilling power and energy in the manic regent. Helen Mirren is Queen Charlotte. Mostly this is great acting from interesting Brit actors. And Ian Holm is funny as the clueless doctor. It's a piece of history rarely shown on film.

I'm writing these comments about "The Madness of King George" because of the singular outstanding performance by Nigel Hawthorne. This is one of the most versatile roles in films in decades. It surely ranks among the very best of all time. As King George, Hawthorne covers a range of emotions, personalities and temperaments not often found in film roles. His character is a study in transition from the serious to the serene to the silly. It's a role of drama, of hilarity, of ego and stuffiness, of pathos, of sorrow and regret, and of gentleness and kindness. What an exceptional acting job.

Most often I watch a movie for the whole experience, taking in the plot, characters, acting, scenes and scenery, location, action, intrigue, comedy, tragedy, as a blend of the whole product. All of these weigh in and affect how much I enjoy the film. But half way through this film, I became aware that I was more engrossed in the lead character himself, and the great diversity and excellence of acting on display.

Others have commented that Hawthorne should have won the Best Actor Academy Award for his role in 1994. While I like Tom Hanks as an actor, I agree that his role in Forrest Gump wasn't anything exceptional. Certainly not on the order of "Mr. King" in "The Madness of King George." Indeed, Hawthorne must have had to work on his role -- even as a consummate actor, if not for the variations of mood and portrayals, at least for the vast amount of lines he had to speak in the film. By comparison, the Forrest Gump role had a very small amount of lines, and those were far less taxing to an actor. Hanks' was a role that seemed more fun and easygoing than a challenge or demand.

I'm not one to complain about Hollywood (except for the low quality and volume of attempts at humor in the past 20 years), but once in a while I think that many others who make the same observation are right on. Hollywood flops big time in its Oscar choice of an actor, actress or film once in a while. It seems to me that the California-based Academy at times doesn't look as objectively and honestly at films produced outside the U.S. Nothing else produced in 1994 even came close to the outstanding acting by Hawthorne in this first rate film.

"The Madness of King George" is far from an excellent movie and a must see but nevertheless it's still both fun and wonderful to watch. The costumes and sets are great and Sir Nigel Hawthorne really carries the movie with his wonderful performance.

The movie is more of a comedy than a drama really. The movie is filled with some humorous moments, dialogs and characters.

Only problem I had with the movie was that it focused on way too many and unneeded characters. Also because of this, Sir Ian Holm's character gets seriously underused. A bit of an ungrateful role for Sir Ian Holm. They could have used his acting skills in a better manner.

Basically the movie is just a little bit over 1 hour and 40 minutes of fun entertainment with some nice humor and an impressive Sir Nigel Hawthorne.

7/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

He was our last King, and the one we are raised to hate the memory of. And he was actually a hard working monarch, wrong headed at times, who had the longest reign (for any monarch - until Queen Victoria) in English history. He was George III (reigned 1760 - 1820 - the last nine years incapacitated by insanity and blindness). It was while he was ruling Great Britain that the American Revolution occurred, the French Revolution occurred, Napoleon rose and fell, and the industrial revolution hit Western Europe and the Americas. His is a key reign of modern history.

We are taught he was a tyrant. Actually he was a conscientious supporter of the British Constitution, but he believed the colonists were disobedient children who should have been punished for their own good. Once it was obvious that they had won on the battlefield, George offered to abdicate. He was talked out of it, and eventually faced up to accepting the papers of the new Minister from the United States, Mr. John Adams. But he never really fully accepted it, and in his last decade the two countries fought a second war (the War of 1812).

George III was a good, but strict family man. He and his wife Charlotte had seven sons and six daughters. But his sons were disappointments (the best one, Frederick, Duke of York, was a second-rate army commander who got involved in a scandal when his mistress, Mrs. Clarke, sold army commissions "in the name of the Duke of York" to undeserving men). The German Georges had a tradition of hatred between the Kings and their sons and heirs. George I was hated by George II because the former had imprisoned his wife (George II's mother) for life for infidelity (see SARABAND FOR DEAD LOVERS). George II was hated by his son, Frederick, Prince of Wales, and kicked the son out of the royal palace. Frederick died prematurely in 1758, so his son George III succeeded in 1760. His son, known as Florizel or "Prinny", had a long standing relationship with Mrs. Fitzherbert, a popular actress who happened to be Catholic. It was actually known by King George III that Prinny had an illegal marriage with Mrs. Fitzherbert. As head of the Church of England, George III resented this act. He also disliked Prinny's support of Whig politicians Charles James Fox and Richard Sheridan (and sometimes Edmund Burke). The King was a good Tory - he never realized that Prinny's politics were a way of annoying him, and Prinny was even more reactionary than the King was. Prinny's gambling and drinking debts also annoyed the King.

George was able to support the wise government (to 1789 anyway) of William Pitt the Younger. So supportive was he, that Pitt would reciprocate. For one day, in 1788, King George got out of his carriage in a forest, walked over to a tree, and had a long conversation with it. The tree, you see, was not a tree, but actually the now dead King Frederick the Great of Prussia. George III was showing signs of dementia. He was the first really certifiable monarch since Henry VI back in the 15th Century. George's son Prinny was ready to back a bill to remove his father and lock him away. Pitt saw Fox ready to replace him, and fought a long delaying action on the Regency bill. It worked, as Dr. Wills managed to bring the dementia under control.

It would only be in 1811, when Pitt was dead for five years (and Fox for four) that a Tory Government passed a Regency bill, but by then Prinny was openly anti-Whig. It was politically allowable for the Percival Ministry to chance Prinny as Regent by then. After George III died he would become George IV and reign until 1830.

This film has followed the tragic illness that incapacity (and eventually) destroyed George III, but only to the conclusion of it's first appearance in 1789. Nigel Hawthorne had performed the role to international acclaim on stage. He repeats it here, showing a thoughtful monarch (witness why he is upset about the errant colonies gaining independence - the valuable natural resources are lost, and he is aware of this). He is puritanical when normal, but with a son like Prinny who could blame him for being sorely disappointed. From the start you find yourself rooting for Hawthorne's monarch, who was not the evil tyrant that Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson painted.

Rupert Everett shows the callousness of the Prince of Wales, who is so selfish that at one point (when safely alone) Pitt and Fox wonder if their American cousins were right about abolishing the monarchy. Ian Holm, as Dr. Wills, is properly a mixture of early pioneer of psychology and tyrant. A wonderful film of how a national crisis was met and overcome peacefully. And timely too. Within weeks of the recovery of George III in 1789 the Bastille fell in Paris.

Fantastic music by Handel and great acting by Hawthorne and cast. The pace is good, for a historic drama it doesn't drag on and it has a good flow. Takes a generally complex historical context and simplifies it for the audience in such a way that you get the gist.

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.......

A little like Keith Michell in "Henry VIII and his Six Wives"; this was a role Nigel Hawthorne had perfected earlier (he won an Olivier award for the stage play) and so he took to the cinematic version like a duck to water. This telling of his "madness" is superb - ably reflecting the unpredictable and vacillating behaviour of the King in a plausible and engaging manner. Rupert Everett, Helen Mirren and Ian Holm lead a very capable supporting cast and the incorporation of Handel's wonderful, rousing, Georgian themes adds to this sumptuous, if at times a little overly theatrical, production that pays great attention to detail.

If I'm honest with you, than I must say that I had some serious doubts about watching this movie. I knew it was a comedy and normally I'm always in for a good laugh, even (or perhaps especially) when it means laughing with some royals. But the main problem that I had with the movie was the fact that it was situated in the eighteenth century, a time period for which I don't really care. Still I gave the movie a try, hoping the best.

Apparently the story was not only based on a play, but also on some actual events. That of course makes it all more interesting, because a king who goes mad isn't something you'll experience every day. And this movie does more than showing why and how King George III started to loose his senses (he had just lost America to independence), it also shows how the man became the victim of political and royal back stabbing, because not only the members of parliament, but even one of his own sons wanted to see him removed from power. It also shows how marginal and primitive the medical practices in the eighteenth century actually were and how it almost was a miracle that the King conquered his disease...

What surprised me after seeing this movie, was that it was more a drama than a comedy. Sure it offered some good laughs, but in the end this was a very serious movie with a serious subject. It was more 'normal' than I expected from it at first. That doesn't mean that I didn't like it of course, it was just something different. The decors and the costumes however were exactly the way I imagined them to be. They are really good and make sure that you know what time period this story is set in. But what I liked most were the performances by the different actors. Especially Nigel Hawthorne is not to be missed as King George III. He's interesting to watch, as well as when he is the 'normal' king, as when he's playing the madman. Perhaps I enjoyed him even more when he acted like a crazy man, even though it's hard to tell when he was at his best. Other people like Helen Mirren and Ian Holm did a very nice job as well and make this movie worth watching.

So, even though I had my doubts about this movie, I must admit that it wasn't bad at all. It wasn't as much a comedy as I had hoped for, but even the more dramatic parts were nice to watch. I give this movie a 7/10.

I want to say right off the top that there is a lot about this movie that was impressive. As a political statement, the movie makes valid points about the problems of hereditary monarchies. The performances of Nigel Hawthorne (as George III), Helen Mirren (as Queen Charlotte), Rupert Everett (as the Prince of Wales) and Julian Wadham (as William Pitt, the Prime Minister) were excellent, the portrayal of the era's manner of dealing with "madness" seemed very realistic, the sets were wonderful, and the closing caption left one wondering about the current royal family, since they are direct descendants of George III! So, there was a lot that I liked. Unfortunately, in rating this movie I also found that it was a difficult movie to really sit down and be drawn into.

One of the things that kept coming into my head the entire way through was that there just didn't seem to be anything really vital at stake here. I know that sounds unusual when you're talking about the Throne of England, but it's true. Even in the 1790's, when this seems to have been set, the power of the English monarch was increasingly possessed by Parliament, and the monarchy was well on the way to becoming the figurehead it is today. (George III's grandfather, George I, didn't even really want to become King in 1727 because of the limited powers the King of England possessed.) Whether George III or the Prince of Wales was on the throne didn't matter much more than whether Elizabeth II or the current Prince of Wales is on the throne. The Prince may have wanted the trappings of power, but that was all he would get, because there was no real power to be had by being King. I realize that, at least in the movie, the Prince promised the office of Prime Minister to Fox (Jim Carter) in place of Pitt, but this had more to do with the dynamics of Parliament than it had to do with the King (or regent) being able to choose the Prime Minister. If the bill to make the Prince of Wales Regent had passed it would have meant that the majority in Parliament was now in the hands of the opposition, and a transition of power would occur. So the Prince wouldn't make Fox Prime Minister; Fox would make the Prince Regent. I also went through the whole movie not really being sure what my reaction to George's predicament should be. On the one hand, as you watch him being subjected to the grotesque "treatments" of the day, you want to feel sorry for him. Even in history, George III truly was a tragic, King Lear-like figure. On the other hand, the whole movie had a rather overt "anti-monarchy" feel to it, and it was hard to feel sympathy for any of them. I was unclear where the movie was going on that point. The repeated "joke" about the former American colonies - "they're gone, just let them go" - also started to bug me after a while. (As an aside, thinking about those former American colonies, it's always intrigued me that there seems to be far greater fascination with the Royal Family in the United States, which rebelled against the monarchy, than there is in Canada, which remained loyal. That, however, is another story!) As to the movie? It's a middling movie - certainly not a disaster, but nothing to write home about, and I certainly wouldn't watch it again. 5/10.

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.

The madness of king george is a commendable piece that ambles along quite nicely without actually hitting the right notes. Call me a masochist but i was expecting the king to be a little more potty than he was. It was ok as period drama's go but much over rated i think. One very funny point is that this film was going to be called the madness of king III but it was thought the American's would not watch it because they hadn't seen part I or II !!!!.

This is a standout film. If you have not seen it and you consider yourself a lover of movies - go and see it immediately. It is a beautiful depiction of an interesting historical period and the dilemmas faced by countries lead by accidents of genetics. The script is magnificent and the filming gorgeous, but it is the incredible performances of the leading cast that set this film apart. Historical dramatic film at its best. It reminds me of Her Majesty Mrs Brown on a fairly superficial level. TMOKG is a better film although Mrs Brown was also excellent. My vote 8/10 and well deserved.

An outstanding cast and marvellous writer add up to a very entertaining slice of history.Nigel Hawthorne is marvellous as the King who might or might not have been mad.

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.

The cast is of excellent quality, and the plot sometimes makes you laugh, but in history the king really ends up in a terrible state of mind. Not very meaningful movie, but often funny.

A superlative drama. By now, most sophisticated movie-goers are aware that King George III's sickness might very well have been a result of porphyria, a hereditary disease that some doctors have traced back to Mary, Queen of Scots (i.e., George III's great-great-great-great-great grandmother). Whatever the cause, Nigel Hawthorne gives the performance of a lifetime as the tortured king. The conflict between George III and his heir, the Prince of Wales (the eventual King George IV), is brutally and unapologetically portrayed: the director does not spare us in his vivid reenactment of the combative and sour relationship that actually existed between the two men. As an American, one might suspect I'd be unsympathetic to the British monarch who presided over England's attempt to brutalize its colonies -- but George III's almost-wistful resentment of his errant "colonists" generates some sympathy for the man himself - a sympathy which is unexpectedly intensified by Hawthorne's sudden descent into incoherence, his dim, yet aching realization of what he has become, and his eventual recovery. George III was haunted by demons not of his own making; and no human being deserves the fate to which his disease, if such it was, eventually condemned him. "The Madness of King George" enlightened, entertained,and provoked: what more could one ask of a film?

The actors that played the Royal family, especially that of King George, were all excellent. I however wonder of the hairstyles of some of the Nobel & Royal characters. The Prince of Wales looked like a cross between Willy Wonka and an oompah loompah. Why? Was it actually a true likeness!? Was it common in that time period for men to have such goofy hair and appear to wear makeup?

I find it hard to believe that a King could be so tortured, despite being ill, such terrible methods and no one seemed to actually know what they were doing. Such a terrible time for anyone to be ill with an unknown disease.

I cannot begin to describe how much I loved the Madness of King George. I am very fond of period dramas, and this was a truly great film, funny, moving and pretty much immaculate. George III is married to Charlotte, yet he dallys with Lady Pembroke and fathers 15 children and an empire. The thing is, Farmer George(the king's nickname) is starting to show signs of madness, the rest.. well you'll have to see it for yourself. Nicolas Hytner directs impeccably, and while the screenplay has some sardonic jokes and colloquialisms it ensures that the film is essentially a serious study of 18th century politics and the monarchy. The period detail and art direction is nothing short of sumptuous, exquisite costumes, scenery and settings, and the use of music by Handel was appropriately fitting. Then there is the acting, it was top notch. Nigel Hawthorne's performance here is so exceptional, he pretty much embodies the film, in a performance that is funny, moving and charming. Helen Mirren and Amanda Donohoe both do wonderfully as his wife and mistress, they both are great actresses and both look lovely here. Rupert Everett is suitably detestable as the foppish Prince of Wales, Ian Holm is brilliant as Willis in some of the more harrowing scenes of the film and Rupert Graves is entertaining as Greville. Overall, this is a truly great film, so worth seeing for Hawthorne's performance alone! 10/10 Bethany Cox

Almost all reviews here are full of praise and candor worship. Yes, Nigel Hawthorne, Dame Helen Mirrel and great late Ian Holm do amazing jobs, albeit NIgel overdid it a few times, but that alone does not save the movie. What seems to be a problem is a very uneven mixture of very weird very British comedy, dark tragedy, and very sudden, almost jumpy change of light and safe. Rupert Everett is a likable choice for a Prince George, whilst Dame Helen for a Queen. And then - what? Eyes popping in sheer shock and amazement of how much time is spent in the movie talking about such delicate issues as stool. OK< once it may work, twice, it betrays some banality, thrice, it gets really unwanted and low-brow. Sheer exaggeration of some scenes and very thick strokes of paint on a movie canvass produce a sickly sweet and oftentimes bedazzling effect. The movie suffers from this uneven shaky posture and so fails to deliver either a very satirical comedy, which is not, or a very decent period drama, which is also fails to become. What is certainly missing here is a willful decision to stick to a certain route, and while the plot swings between laughs and tears, it gets into a very strange broth of no good taste. This is the main problem, the second being a certain overplay of several sickness scenes. Too blatant, too obvious, too simplistic. It gets the albeit decent drama aside from a painfully earned place to a messy gruel. Pity, the movie could have been a masterpiece, instead, it became a painful mix of wrong chemicals.