Mary Queen of Scots (2018) User Reviews

More concerned with pushing the filmmaker's social agenda than making us care who gains the English throne

[makleen2 · 5/10 · 13 January 2019]

Historic authenticity is cast to the wind in this revisionist costume drama that feels like it was written by a freshman Women's Studies major. Directed by Josie Rourke with a screenplay by Beau Willimon, Mary Queen of Scots (2018) was based on the book Queen of Scots: The True Life of Mary Stuart by John Guy. Like many films released this year, it has strong female leads, a diverse cast, and progressive social messaging, but checking all the right boxes on the SJW playlist wasn't enough to save this film from mediocrity.

The year is 1560, and the young and beautiful Mary Tudor (Saoirse Ronan) returns home, where she is out of place in a dreary Scottish castle. Her half-brother, James, Earl of Moray (James McArdle), has been ruling as regent, alongside a bevy of colorless and perpetually-angry Protestant men. Her appearance in Scotland alarms her cousin, Queen Elizabeth I of England (Margot Robbie). Elizabeth, a Protestant, is not seen as a legitimate ruler by her Catholic subjects. She seeks to gain influence over Mary by arranging a marriage with Elizabeth's own lover, Robert Dudley (Joe Alwyn).

Instead, Mary marries the charming and charismatic Lord Henry Darnley (Jack Lowden), who pulls a Jeckyll-and-Hyde routine and becomes a drunken lecher on their wedding night. Things get complicated for the childless Queen Elizabeth when Mary becomes pregnant, producing an heir for her dynasty and strengthening her claim to the English throne. Can Mary fend off attacks from her domestic critics and convince Elizabeth to acknowledge her as England's rightful ruler?

Mary Queen of Scots couldn't decide whether it wanted to be a film about the rivalry between two queens or a revisionist biopic of its titular character, so it does neither particularly well. This ill-conceived and poorly executed film also missed a chance to let its leading ladies shine. As Queen Elizabeth, the talented Margot Robbie goes to waste as a costumed mannequin who practically disappears for the middle third of the film.

Historically, Mary Stuart was born in 1542, the only legitimate heir to Scottish King James V. She was briefly married to the King of France. After his untimely death in 1560, Mary returned to Scotland and ruled as Mary I of Scotland until 1567, when she was forced to abdicate after her second husband's murder (which her rivals accused her of orchestrating). She fled to England to seek protection from her cousin, Queen Elizabeth I, but many English Catholics considered Mary the legitimate Queen of England, so Elizabeth had her imprisoned and later executed.

There are many anachronisms and inaccuracies throughout Mary Queen of Scots, not the least of which was "colorblind casting" that falsely portrays 16th-Century England and Scotland's aristocracy as racially diverse. Mary's Scottish accent was also out of place (she grew up in France), as was her friendship with Italian courtier David Rizzio/Riccio. Most historians acknowledge Mary was probably having an affair with the man, which infuriated her Second Husband. Rizzio might have been bisexual, but he wasn't "one of the girls," as the film portrays.

Though ostensibly based on a book, this film can be considered a remake of the 1971 film by the same name. Mary, Queen of Scots (1971) was directed by Charles Jarrott and starred Vanessa Redgrave and Glenda Jackson. Like the 2018 film, the 1971 version featured a fictional meeting between the two queens and speculated that Lord Darnley and the musician David Riccio were lovers. The two films part ways, however, when it came to Mary's imprisonment. The 1971 version devotes more screen time to her 19 years in English captivity, while this version fast-forwards through it.

Mary Queen of Scots opened to mixed reviews and currently holds a 63% positive rating from critics and 44% audience favorability on RottenTomatoes. Its opening weekend took in a painful $194,777 on a $25 million budget. A successful film gets the audience invested in the story. Mary Queen of Scots ultimately failed to connect with audiences because it was more concerned with pushing the filmmaker's social perspective than making us care about who gains the English throne.

Historical biographies need to be accurate and this one isn't.

[deloudelouvain · 5/10 · 25 July 2019]

I only watched this movie because my wife likes historical costume drama's. The history of Mary Stuart was the subject I thought that would be interesting but the more I watched it the more I had the feeling this wasn't an accurate telling of facts. For example I really doubt there would be a Black lord or an Asian countess at that time in England. Add on that the rather boring repetitive story telling and you get just a mediocre movie. The main actresses Saoirse Ronan and Margot Robbie didn't do a bad job but the inaccuracy of the story just made Mary Queen Of Scots a movie I will forget everything about it in a week.

Interesting yarn, it's a shame it's largely untrue.

[AlsExGal · 5/10 · 8 September 2019]

Somebody else already called this film the "woke" version, and I would have to agree. A black counselor for Mary? An Asian noble woman in the English court? Wherever would they come from? It's not like you could jump on a plane and be anywhere in no time in 1565 And if you could, that you would be accepted when you got there.. Rizzio, Mary's secretary, and Darnley, Mary's second husband, gay? I have actually heard rumors and seen productions about Darnley maybe being bisexual as far back as the 1970s, but at the time, to be homosexual was a crime punishable by death. I doubt that Mary the Catholic queen was so "with it" that she would consider Rizzio, here portrayed as openly gay, just one of her gang of ladies in waiting.

I'm just surprised there wasn't a Hispanic in the cast. I'm sure that they wanted to include one, but the new world had hardly been explored at all by the 1560s so, nope, not even these producers would go that far. Oh, and Elizabeth and Mary never met, and Elizabeth was basically tricked into signing Mary's death warrant.

Is it an interesting tale well told? I thought so. If this was an extension of Game of Thrones, or some other such fantasy drama that was only loosely tethered to the Middle Ages as it existed in Europe, it would have worked. But not as a historical drama. I will say the art design and cinematography were beautiful.

Boring and unbelievable

[Gordon-11 · 23 February 2019]

This film tells the story of Mary Stuart, the queen of Scotland int eh 1500's.

Within fifteen minutes into the film, I already lost all interest in it. The fact that the Royal Court is multi-ethnic back then is unimaginable and inaccurate, even to a person who knows only basic world history. Then, Mary addresses an effeminate man as sister? Really? Homosexuality was punishable by death those days. The story is slow most of the time, but critical plot points are just skimmed over. The fact that the supporting characters are mostly unrecognisable (except for Guy Pearce) makes the characters very confusing too. I can hardly tell who is who. It is a huge bore and a big disappointment.

Disappointment

[Minnesota_Reid · 6/10 · 5 January 2019]

I really wanted to love this movie. It was beautifully shot, and Ronin was, as always, very strong. And the rest of the cast was fine -- the problems with this Elizabeth were not Robbie's fault. The film was beautiful, but quite, quite dead. And it didn't flow, just a bunch of independent set pieces. Blame the writer and the director.

are we sure?

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 25 February 2019]

Mary (Saoirse Ronan) was raised in the French court. After the death of her first husband King Francis II of France, the 19 year old Scot monarch returns to her homeland to take back the throne from her Protestant half-brother. She faces opposition from her Protestant subjects under constant attack by cleric John Knox and a rival in her cousin Queen Elizabeth I (Margot Robbie). Her lineage gives her a better claim to both crowns. Elizabeth is in love with Robert Dudley but she is blocked from marrying the commoner. Mary marries Henry Stuart, an English Catholic lord, and faces rebellion from her many foes including her own husband.

I'm no history expert and even I noticed some questionable takes by the movie. This is definitely trying to paint Mary as reasonable as possible. She's almost modern with a good helping of sisterhood. It's betrayed by a couple of incidents where she keeps pushing for the English crown. It's as if the settled history keeps interfering with the script's needs. It's also questionable to have Saoirse play Scottish when Mary is probably more French than anything. Margot Robbie could do better to show Mary's disconnection with her own country. I guess Saoirse at least looks more like Mary. The political intrigue is interesting but it does get jumbled with all the characters. Some get lost in the shuffle. I also don't know if England has a black ambassador at that time. It'd be great if true. There is the ethereal meeting in the cabin. I remember hearing that the two Queens never met face to face in real life. I can accept a bit of artistic license but this movie takes a lot more than a bit. At least, the cabin finally gets to the truth of Mary's character as far as I'm concern in her final outburst. As for the actors, Saoirse and Margot do exceptional work for what is asked of them. This is a movie of many battles and intrigue but the most defining victory may be a birth. I am uncertain about the accuracy of this movie and that taints any enjoyment.

"Our Swords Are Not Just for Show"

[richardchatten · 6/10 · 2 January 2022]

A very 21st Century plod through the tale of a 16th Century heroine played out in the usual hushed tones and amber hues with graphic sex and violence.

The unsparing portrayal of Margot Robbie as barron Queen Bess with bad skin is in marked contrast to pixie-faced gaelic elf Saoirse Ronan playing the celtic title role of "the young fierce Queen"; who in reality probably spoke with a French accent.

Woke telling of history

[Maverick1962 · 6/10 · 23 March 2022]

Director Josie Rourke appears to want to tell the historical story of Mary Queen of Scots and her cousin, Queen Elizabeth the first, as she would have liked it to be, shown in fashionable 21st century terms, not how it was in the 16th Century. I read that Josie was determined to have a mixed race cast and I ask the reader, why? The events took place at a time when not too many non white people inhabited England, let alone took their place as royal courtiers. This is clearly nonsense and I found some of the casting a distraction that spoilt an otherwise fairly decent film, other than an event at the close that brings the two women together in an unconvincing tearful meeting. I say unconvincing, not just because these two strong women would have been unlikely to act like two blubbering soap actresses but that there is no evidence that they ever met. Having said that, most of the rest of the film is fairly accurate that I can see, the rivalry between Mary and Elizabeth, a slaughter of Mary's aide, the murder of her husband and Mary's ultimate beheading. These are all things that may be common knowledge to many so I'm not sure if they count as spoilers or not. Soairse Ronan is well cast as Mary although I'm not sure she is pretty enough as Mary has been described in history. The supporting actors on the whole, apart from some miscasting, are on the whole excellent, David Tennant, Ian Hart, Brendan Coyle and Martin Compson are all strong. The real standout for me is a chilling performance by a heavily made up Margot Robbie as Queen Elizabeth who out acts everyone else in the movie. Josie Rourke had the opportunity to make a really good movie here but has blown it by introducing these modern woke ideas already mentioned, not just by me but by others. I'd suggest she avoids the woke nonsense if she wants her films to make a decent profit and to be remembered in the future.

A powerful story about powerful women

[schappe1 · 8/10 · 28 December 2018]

I'm shocked at all the negative reviews I see here. they seem to focus on the ahistorical meeting of the two queens and the use of black and Asian actors in some of the roles. The first is about dramatic license, something frequently used in historical movies, including the 1971 version of this story. Any competent dramatist is going to want his two antagonists to confront each other and I think it's forgivable. As to the second, I recall Kenneth Branagh did the same thing when he cast Denzel Washington in "Much Ado About Nothing" a generation ago, saying that black actors should be able to play Shakespearean roles besides just Othello. Josie Rourke, the director of this film, must have had the same idea.

Like several of the reviewers here, I decided to see this and "The Favourite", a different story but also a story of women running Great Britain, abit a century and a half later. That film is highly praised and also has good performances, but i enjoyed this one better. It was more serious, less saucy and had, (easily) a better and clearer ending, (you can't top a beheading for that).

The production values, as many have mentioned are good but it's the two lead performances that count. Saoirse Ronan, when her hair is wept back, looks something like Meryl Streep and seems to be on that kind of career path. She is regal and fiery, yet fun-loving and fearful and dominates every scene she is in. The roles I've seen Margot Robbie in are either as a sex-pot or a cartoon character but she gives us a memorably neurotic but sympathetic Elizabeth. they are the reasons to see this movie and they are very good reasons, indeed.

Be Accurate Historically to the Time Perios

[joewhalen7 · 6/10 · 8 September 2019]

There were no African nobles in the court of Elizabeth I of England in the 16th century. Having black actors play some of the parts in this movie makes as much sense as having women as generals in that era. If you are going to do a historical film, either stick to the facts of the time period or don't do the film. Maybe the next time they can have a Leonard Nimoy look alike with Spock ears play the English ambassador to Scotland.

You can't mess with history, if you do, you get junk like this.

[Sleepin_Dragon · 3/10 · 23 September 2020]

Right...

I will never simply trash a film, I even tried to find some good in Carry on Emanuelle, but this....

It's trash, the trouble is I know this period of history, I studied it at A Level, I cannot recognise anything, characters, motivations, morals, politics.

It's a sixteenth century story, given a twenty first century slant, so expect zero accuracy. I'm sorry, but this time was governed by religion, not gender, it's shocking to even hint that Mary or Elizabeth would have had such a degree of tolerance, or had such a liberal look on the world. I'd class myself as someone pretty liberal, but please don't mess with history, it's there to teach us. There is a visible agenda.

It's not an entire write off, David Tennant as always is exquisite, it's hard to even recognise him initially, such is his performance. I didn't particularly care for any of the others, Queenie in Blackadder was perhaps a more accurate representation of Elizabeth, who had an iron will, you wouldn't know that from seeing this.

It's visually decadent, it looks amazing, great costumes, terrific sets, I'm not quite so sure that all men would have dressed in black, I don't think that's accurate. Relationships are forced, not explained nor developed.

There are snippets of accuracy, but they are fleeting, and lost in its desperation to be politically correct.

Do yourself a favour watch Glenda Jackson and Vanessa Redgrave, you'll see a superior adaptation, one amusingly that's almost fifty years older than this one.

You can put a mannequin in a designer dress, it's a lovely visual, but underneath it's still a mannequin, blank, without a heart or soul, that's how I feel about this film, it's a mannequin.

3/10.

A good reminder not to be prejudiced about a film before seeing it!

[coombsstephen · 8/10 · 25 January 2019]

As soon as I saw trailers for MQOS, knowing a bit about the history of this period, I thought that for sure this would be another rewriting of history. Then reading some reviews seemed to confirm this which made me very sceptical about seeing it.

So I was pleasantly surprised to see that, although there was some rewriting history, it did not detract from the film, wasn't what I expecting and was quite inconsequential in the grand scheme of things.

I thought the film itself was excellent, Really well paced and well acted. The costumes and scenery are also a thing of beauty.

Having seen both, I really don't understand how The Favourite got such critical acclaim over this, similarly timed release, period drama but I guess that's what opinions are all about.

strong women from the wrong era

[ferguson-6 · 7/10 · 7 December 2018]

Greetings again from the darkness. The history of monarchs goes back more than a thousand years. These days we view British royalty as little more than telegenic subjects for gossip sites, though for hundreds of years, the crown carried real power. Of course, the system never made any logical sense. Why should a baby born to the "right" family be pre-ordained to rule the country? These birthrights even caused much confusion and debate ... and wars ... when there was uncertainty about which kid was the most important. And yes, kids is the proper term. Mary Stuart (Mary Queen of Scots), was six days old when her father King James V died, and she ascended to the throne (though the actual ruling was done by regents until she was older).

Saoirse Ronan stars as Mary and Margot Robbie is Queen Elizabeth I (daughter of King Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn). The two were cousins (not sisters), and the film examines many aspects of this era: the struggle for the throne between the two, the unusual circumstances that found two women in power, the behind-the-scenes maneuvering by men in an effort to wrestle power from the women, the importance of marriage and heirs, the conflicts between Catholics and Protestants, and the bizarre arrangement that caused Mary to spend nearly half her life in custody.

Director Josie Rourke is best known for her stage productions, some of which have been broadcast live in cinemas. This is her debut feature film, and her talent is quite obvious. She gets "big" with stunning sweeping vistas, and intimate with dark chamber meetings. The castles look and feel like castles, and not the sound stage sets we often see in costume productions. The film is a thing of beauty and the two lead actresses are sublime ... and with much more screen time, Ms. Ronan delivers a ferocious performance.

The screenplay from Beau Willimon (creator, producer and head writer of "House of Cards") is based on the John Guy book "Queen of Scots: The True Life of Mary Stuart". This matters because Mr. Guy theorizes that the two sovereigns actually met in real life, something very much doubted by historians. Either way, it makes for an interesting (if not a bit hokey) segment in the film, as Elizabeth and Mary wander through billowing curtains in a clandestine spot.

Beginning at the end, we get an early look at Mary's "martyrdom" march to her execution on 1587 at age 44. If you've ever read about the actual execution, you'll be relieved to know it's not shown on screen. Supporting work comes courtesy of Jack Lowden, Guy Pearce, Joe Alwyn, Gemma Chan, and an explosive David Tennant as a fire-breathing priest. This version plays up the inner-turmoil and challenges in power faced by the women - more so than the 1974 version starring Vanessa Redgrave and Glenda Jackson (the film received 5 Oscar nominations). Ms. Ronan and Ms. Robbie really help us understand the challenges these women faced - challenges that men on the throne wouldn't have faced.

Re-writing history

[dierregi · 1/10 · 4 July 2021]

As already mentioned by many reviewers this "version" of Mary Stuart's story is so inaccurate as to be a sci-fi story taking place in a parallel, politically correct universe.

Contrary to the movie tagline, the plot bows to everybody: let's have a black foreign minister (sure, that so happened at the time) plus several mixed-race noblewomen, a bunch of black highlanders and an Hispanic, gay minstrel (eyes roll).

Not only that, but the Catholic Mary is unruffled by homosexuality, in fact she almost encourages it.... Because, as everybody knows, the Catholic church was totally OK with that... as long as the people followed their heart...

The tragic part is that many - among the least educated - will actually believe that this is a "true" story, or if it isn't, it should have been. But it could not possibly have been because the social and historical circumstances dictated that people lived in a different way - not necessarily because they were evil, but because that was what they considered right...

PS and Mary presented as a better woman than Elizabeth and a martyr, when she didn't achieve anything as a queen, apart from producing an heir and she was executed for her active participation in several plots to kill Elizabeth (this part conveniently skipped over)

nice

[Kirpianuscus · 19 December 2019]

After so many adaptations, really good, this film says just nothing. Except costumes, landscapes and cinematography. It is not a sin. But the purpose of it seems reduced at political correctness and its basic virtue is to give a reasonable Elizabeth I by Margot Robbie and to propose Saoirse Ronan as Mary Stuart, after the brilliant Vanessa Redgrave. Short, a nice film, not special but using the fair "spices" for be a decent one.

Decent but slow-moving drama about the confrontation between two known Queens : Mary Stuart and Elizabeth Tudor

[ma-cortes · 6/10 · 21 February 2020]

Good costumer drama that takes a brilliant look at the turbulent life of two famous Queens : Mary Stuart (Saoirse Ronan) and Elizabeth Tudor (Margot Robbie) . The story of two stubborn women , fighting each other in a man's world : Elizabeth I of England and Mary , Queen of Scots . This is a sweeping chronicle of 16th-century English Queens from their splendor years . She's the Protestant Elizabeth , a brilliant stateswoman who helped by William Cecil (Guy Pearce) arranged to restore England to power and glory amidst public and private confusion . Mary Queen of Scots and her cousin Elizabeth were rivals for power in Tudor England . The heathen Protestant Elizabeth dreads the prospect of the Catholic Mary about her ascending the English throne , leading to intrigue and divisiveness within the court . It also recreates ambition , turmoil and struggle for power by favorites as Robert Dudley , Earl of Leicester . As Elizabeth dealing with Protestant religion , intrigues with Spain and France and the vexing question of a political marriage . Elizabeth chose her advisers with consummate care , the first and best was William Cecil , he stayed in office for forty years , along with Francis Walsingham . Mary Stuart was imprisoned by the powerful Elizabeth , who rightly feared Catholic plots to place Mary on the throne . Mary is a tragic , romantic heroine that contends with various treacheries . Mary (1516-1558) inherited the throne of Scotland from Jacob V . She was next in line to the English kingdom , and married Francisco II , king of France , but he died early . Having been in France for thirteen years , Mary returned Scotland , and arrived from France with some misgivings . Then , Mary disembarks in Leith and goes to a castle near Edimburg , along with his lover David Rizzio (Ismael Cordoba) , court musician and confidant . There , she's supported by his brother , the Earl James Stuart , (James McArdle) . Later on , Queen Mary married a foppish aristocrat named Lord Darnley (Jack Lowden) . Mary is helped by the Earl James Bothwell , her main supporter in her battle for power . Then , Rizzio was reputed to be the father of Mary's son , the future James I of England . Darnley , with some underlings , murdered Rizzio in Mary's presence . But Darnley is killed by an explosion in his refuge , outskirts Edimburg , and the God-fearing Calvinists led by John Knox (David Tennat) accused to Bothwell (Martin Compston) as regicide . John Knox and the rebels Lords besiege Holyrood and the Borthwell's stronghold , Dumbar castle . The Calvinists forced her abdication , Mary escapes and asks for protection to Queen Elizabeth I , but Mary is double-crossed and taken imprisoned in the Tower of London . At the end of the movie , Mary confronts her English accusers at court in a stylized trial . Finally , Mary was guilty of plots complicity and was condemned , as the movie reflects splendidly when Mary goes to beheading block with all due pomp and circumstance . Born to Fight . Born to Power . Bow to No One . Two Queens. One Future.One of the greatest dramas of all time... brought to the screen in throbbing glory by a wonderful cast of stars! History called her "The Temptress"!

This is a good costume-designing , a typical British historic-drama in which Saoirse Ronan in the title role and Margot Robbie as the contender Queen are well cast . The fine and large cast with prestigious Brit actors , does quite well in historic setting . Here is splendidly recreated turmoil , loves , and fight power of its time , including the troublesome days and machinations surrounding . Although supposedly Mary and Elizabeth never met face to face , the movie centers on the theory that Queens Mary and Elizabeth may have met and looked each other in the eye and then the screen crackle when both have a reunion that goes wrong , because they are strong rivals for power in Tudor dynasty . The film is based on Dr. John Guy's biography "Queen of Scots: The True Life of Mary Stuart", in which both Queens allegedly had a meeting , and as they contemplated their kingdoms' fates . This costumer/melodrama recreates faithfully the historical facts , as several centuries separate us from the events are to narrate , it is really important to highlight the huge significance that these Kingdoms had back then , as the shadows still hide from the public those great historic moments , and the significance of such deeds . The picture contributes to historical , artistic and cultural memory of an era , with a look back to the past , offering us an interesting adaptation based on important facts . It's magnificent and correctly captured by marvelous sets , splendid production design and glamorous gowns . This elaborate costumer drama packs outstanding performances from a great cast , as Margot Robbie playing an impulsive , arrogant queen as well as Saoirse Ronan as obstinate Mary Stuart . Besides , a top-notch support cast giving strong acting , such as : Guy Pearce as William Cecil , Joe Alwyn as Robert Dudley , Gemma Chan as Bess of Hardwick , Ian Hart as Lord Maitland , David Tennant as John Knox , Brendan Coyle as Earl of Lennox , Jack Lowden as Henry Darnley and Adrian Lester as Randolph .

This interesting historical drama contains a wonderful cinematography that adds color to the atmosphere from John Mathieson .As well as a sensitive and evocative musical score by Max Richter. Being efficiently directed by filmmaker Josie Rourke , though with no originality . Other films dealing with these famous Queens are as follows : ¨Mary of Scotland¨1936 by John Ford with Katharine Hepburn as Mary , Fredric March , Florence Eldridge as Elizabeth , John Carradine , Ian Keith . Followed by a remake with the same title (1971) with Vanessa Redgrave as Mary and Glenda Jackson as Elizabeth and directed by Charles Jarrott , ¨Elizabeth¨ (1998) with Cate Blanchet , Joseph Fiennes , directed by Shekar Kapur . And TV series as ¨Elizabeth R¨ by Herbert Wise with Glenda Jackson . Elizabeth I series (2005) by Tom Hooper with Helen Mirren , Jeremy Irons , Hugh Dancy, Toby Jones . And Reinas ¨Queens¨ (2016-2017) with Olivia Chenery as Mary Stuart , Rebecca Scott as Elizabeth I , Matt McClure , Ángela Molina, among others.

The 1971 version was MUCH BETTER!

[razor323 · 6/10 · 16 January 2019]

Soarise Ronan is NO Vanessa Redgrave and Margot Robbie is NO Glenda Jackson. This is such a weak, denatured telling compared to the more glorious 1971 version; and yes, admittedly it was based on Maxwell Anderson's play. But it was precisely Anderson's language that gave the 1st go-around such dramatic fireworks. This one is a lame, telegrapher version that tailors the story to the camera; and similarly, panders to PC-ness by casting so many minorities in the Scot and English courts. REALLY? It is so distracting and a travesty on history and does a disservice to the paying movie-goer by feeding into that "casting diversity" BUT WHOLLY FALSE Representation, of historical fact. The hairdos of the 2 queens are quite silly and again, dressing all the men in BLACK and just giving color to the queens' costumes betrays such self-conscious techniques that they are all doing these FOR THE CAMERA, not in the interests of historical accuracy. Quite disappointing.

Below average, absurdly revisionist, virtue signalling playhouse repertoire.

[ToneBalone60 · 6/10 · 14 November 2019]

This film could have been so much better if the writers has stuck to historical accuracy. I wont repeat what other reviewers have commented on the politically correct box ticking in both casting and script, that were clearly aimed at the Hollywood Awards committees. (You can't get an Oscar or a Globe these days if you haven't covered the wickedness of the patriarchy, racism and gender issues to an acceptable degree for the California luvvies). The other issue that bugs me is how people keep assuming that Mary & Elizabeth were sisters. They were not, they were distant cousins. The confusion is that Queen Mary i of England, who was Elizabeth's sister and the other daughter of Henry Viii is a completely different character. Even after seeing this film many audiences have still not understood the difference. I've even seen tourists in Westminster Abbey comment on the fact that the Queen Mary i, buried alongside Elizabeth is Mary Queen of Scots. No No No.

Yes!!

[FrenchEddieFelson · 7/10 · 3 March 2019]

True Homerien duel between 2 queens (Scotland versus England): rivalry, treason, alliance, hypocrisy, ... and tutti quanti. The costumes are up to the photography: top!

Riveting Drama

[ronterry55 · 9/10 · 28 December 2018]

Just saw this movie and it was so good; I didn't want it to end. While the story of Mary and Elizabeth has been made before; I was fascinated by this story because of the leads. Saorsie Ronan and Margot Robbie are just terrific in the roles. The story moved along intercutting between the two queens. Ms. Ronan has the bigger role as Mary and is every inch the queen. Ms. Robbie as Elizabeth is very good, and becomes a hideous caricature of that queen as she ages. The machinations of the queens' courts and political intrigue that lead to Mary's end are fascinating. The costumes, makeup, cinematography and direction are all first rate.

Sensible, yet harrowing

[kosmasp · 7/10 · 16 October 2020]

It is tough to make a real life movie about event that happened just a few years or decades ago. How is it to get it right with something that happened even longer ago? It is tough to say the least, especially if you try to be sensible about certain issues. That doesn't mean it holds back punches (or stabs for that matter). When it gets dark, it gets dark. But it tries and shows us an inevitability ... even when you mean well ... things can go south.

The acting of our two main ladies is impeccable. Everyone else does a great job too. It is tough and especially public deception is high. While the two women are the main focus, it is not always what they do and say that matters. It is how it is perceived and even more so, how some try to help by promoting certain things. But once something is set in motion ..... there is almost nothing anyone can do to stop it. A movie that dares to be ugly and beautiful at the same time - and is a period piece for sure.

About as accurate as an episode of Reign

[MissSimonetta · 4/10 · 21 December 2018]

Definitely don't come to this movie for history: it takes two of the sixteenth century's most interesting political figures and renders their tense relationship into soap opera terms. Even the costumes are all wrong-- outside of periods of mourning, no one would be wearing that much black in a royal court.

I could almost forgive it if the movie worked as art, but every character with the exception of Mary is so two-dimensional that it's hard to get involved with them.

I could forgive the movie if it was entertaining, but it is quite a slog, feeling far longer than its two-hour runtime. Excessive sex scenes and pretty shots of the Scottish countryside do not entertainment make. The music is pretty standard "epic" fare. The cinematography is good but nothing exceptionally original or interesting.

By the end, I was rather bored and ready to be out of the theater.

A little stilted but an engaging period piece

[CubsandCulture · 8/10 · 29 April 2019]

The technical aspects of this film really make the film enjoyable. The cinematography especially is a crisp, soulful take on the chamber drama and a lot of time you get lost in the visuals. Likewise, the art direction-costumes are all top notch and in any case make for a splendid atmosphere. The direction brigs a lot of the script by being moody and really inventive in a few places. The scene where Elizabeth and Mary finally meet is great bit of staging.

Unfortunately, the script is the weak point in the film. It tries too hard to fit the history into a palace intrigue plot. Of note I think the film ahistorically treats same sex relationships as a fixed "nature." (This is the modern understanding of gay and queer folks) This is done in order to make Mary more sympathetic to the modern viewer given her understanding of her husband and her secretary. The film deals bluntly with matters of sexuality and it was wonderful to see a period film not straightwash the material. The script's treatment of Elizabeth and Mary has friends turned rivals works dramatically but it is absurd historically. There script also has some hilariously awful lines.

I am glad I saw this.

Fantasy more than factual.

[W011y4m5 · 6/10 · 6 April 2019]

As a lover of historical period pieces, I can accept filmmakers occasionally require some creative license in order to make their movies more watchable throughout... But Mary Queen of Scots is a prime example of people taking this notion way too far & ultimately ruining the suspension of disbelief by tipping it closer to the category of "fiction", obviously refusing to acknowledge historical accuracy has any role to play / importance whatsoever in this particular instance. When the film goes to such great lengths to depict the indoctrination of firm religious beliefs amongst the vast majority of the public within Scotland & the rest of the UK - which is the main source of conflict fuelling the majority of the story's progression - featuring what is essentially an openly gay, effeminate & flamboyant male character within it seemed totally inconceivable - when he's surrounded by staunchly traditional men & women who are intolerant towards other groups of people for something as trivial as simply interpreting the Bible differently upon reading it... As a gay man myself, I'm endlessly longing for more healthy LGBT representation in Hollywood productions etc. but only when it's appropriate & turning real life historical figures (Mary's husband included) gay (or speculating on their sexual orientations in order to create a mini soap opera drama) for the sake of it seemed forced & unnecessary - not to mention, utterly illogical & ridiculous, considering the time period the events took place in. Additionally, expecting to convince the audience such characters would be accepted by even one individual is unreasonable & hard to imagine so having Mary & her maids possess the same liberal attitudes you'd find in 21st century Britain is a "bold move" at that, if not a little distracting - when it's set in 1561. The script clearly needed a fair amount of extra work before production progressed into the later stages; dialogue is clunky & has all the subtleties of a mallet being swung towards your head & for the reasons I've noted above - not to mention other failings in maintaining historical accuracy which have gained larger amounts of attention - it just wasn't ready for principal photography... Granted, that doesn't make this a bad movie - it's thankfully partially saved by some excellent performances from great actors who can make even the worst lines sound outstanding (namely, David Tennant is the surprising stand-out - even with his minor role & limited screen time - & Margot Robbie as Queen Elizabeth) - it just makes it underwhelmingly average instead when it began with such promise.

16th Century history told through 21st Century eyes

[Beyondtheflame · 2/10 · 10 June 2019]

If you want to watch a brilliantly acted and truthful adaption of this piece of history then look no further than the BBCs early 70s series Elizabeth R staring Glenda Jackson. I would thoroughly recommend it for younger history buffs and those who like their history factually correct.