In English, with Hungarian subtitles.
You can look it up if you like: King George III really did reign over the United Kingdom. For 59 years, no less (1760-1820). At the same time, The Madness of King George is not a biographical film, exactly. Yes, it's true, according to historical accounts he really did go mad, though people are divided on what caused it (many suspect porphyria). Nicholas Hytner's film, however, never worries about producing a precise diagnosis. Instead, it instead focuses on what, in such a situation, occurs in terms of the machinations of power and the people involved in the game. At times it is a drama, at other times a comedy.
If you don't know the name of the director, Nicholas Hytner, don't worry - he is actually more of a theatre director. British cinema has a very strong link with the world of theatre, in fact (the works of Alan Bennett, for example). Because even today British dramatic literature is still extremely rich, and while it is questionable that the teeth of the British lion are not as sharp as they used to be, there is no doubt that the British have some of the world's best when it comes to composing contemporary theatrical works. Not to mention their actors. Not even the celebs of the 21st century have managed to erode this tradition. Just a taster: Nigel Hawthorne, Helen Mirren, Ian Holm, Rupert Graves and Rupert Everett, though there are many others. And we really must mention the cinematography of Andrew Done, who manages to spectacularly express the various states of royal madness. A more complicated question is how the king's subjects - and the filmmakers - saw the institution of the monarchy and the supreme majesty of the ruler. Because for them, unlike for the Hungarians, the issue is something more than tabloid fodder.