Type in any movie or show to find where you can watch it, or type a person's name.

User Reviews for: Mary Queen of Scots

Sisi2
/10  5 years ago
I am disappointed with this movie. I had such high expectations. There were many gaps in portraying the story. I am very familiar with the British history so I was able to fill in the gaps. But I was with my teenage daughter and she got lost in the story. First of all, there was no explanation as to why the religion mattered. Second, many stories were rushed, no detail provided while some other stories/parts dragged. And as I watched the scene when Elizabeth and Mary met for the first time I realized that this whole movie is about women empowerment. The way the story was told, the focus was on the strength and power of the women (mostly Mary). I don't like how Elizabeth was portrayed as a weak and insecure woman. Actually, the truth was quite the opposite - she was strong and smart woman. She knew what she wanted. She never married because she knew that she would lose power the moment she tied the knot. This is what ultimately brought Mary's demise.

If the focus of the movie was telling the story rather than making a point, the result would have been much better movie. Right now the movie lacks a seamless story telling. What a waste of good actors. And btw, I think they overdid it with Elizabeth's make up.
Like  -  Dislike  -  191
Please use spoiler tags:[spoiler] text [/spoiler]
Reply by Steev1st
3 years ago
@sisi2 ... Hello, I agree with you in some statements, because even the 18(!) years of captivity were worked-off from one scene to the next. Point :( very goofy, but in all that time she had tried several times to escape from captivity or to be freed. That would have been more interesting than dragging out other situations. <br /> According to a history block, it was said that Mary Stuart gave birth to twins during her captivity after her marriage to James Hepburn, Earl of Bothwell, but they did not survive the birth.<br /> Furthermore, the personal meeting with "Cousin" Elizabeth I. astonished me, because in this history block the following sentence could be read:<br /> "... An invitation to Edinburgh in Scotland Elisabeth I. refused and also a meeting in England did not come off. Elizabeth I. and Mary Stuart were never to meet! ..." °!° what is true now??<br /> ==Question==: Was there this meeting between the monarchs as seen in the movie or never? <br /> yes and btw ... in the movie Elisabeth I. looked at times like "Joker", the clown ^_^ <br /> --&gt; still all in all the movie was fair and good `7/10`
Reply  -  Like  -  Deslike  -  00

Please use spoiler tags:[spoiler] text [/spoiler]
Nancy L Draper
4/10  5 years ago
An emotional portrayal rather than an historically faithful account of Mary's relationship with Elizabeth of England. Although claiming that this film was based on John Guy's book MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS: THE TRUE LIFE OF MARY STUART (a remarkable, groundbreaking historical work, which, driven by curiosity by the movie, I've just finished reading) there is very little evidence the screenwriter finished reading it. Both the book and film present Mary as the beautiful, courtly, intellectual and political equal of Elizabeth I, but, that must have been when the screenwriter stopped reading the book for he departs from the historical record and lapses into a fantasy, portraying Elizabeth as weak and distant from her own political processes, gives us with no credible explanation for why Elizabeth made the decisions she did, which begs the question no historian would pose, "If Mary was a true and worthy queen whereas Elizabeth was weak and an emotional mess, how did Mary end up on the executioner's block and Elizabeth manage to successfully hold her throne for 44 years?" The screenwriter muddles up any political, religious or ideological (or even personal) logic for the climate of the day which inevitably set the course for Mary's life path. There is no clarity given as to whether one was either Protestant or Roman would be such an insurmountable issue, partly because John Knox was so poorly written (despite having hidden the very talented and capable David Tennant behind all the hair). Disappointing story telling. Saoirse Ronan and Margot Robbie give emotionally deep performances, as expected. This was a waste of good actors. I rate this film a 4 (poor) out of 10. I know I may be expressing a minority opinion, because, by and large, the people I spoke to as we exited the theatre, seemed to have liked the movie, but more troubling, they accepted this as an historically accurate portrayal while confessing to each other that they never knew of Mary, Queen of Scotts. [Historical? BioPic]. By the way, a seminole point of John Guy's book is that Mary and Elizabeth NEVER MET!
Like  -  Dislike  -  71
Please use spoiler tags:[spoiler] text [/spoiler]
Reply by Steev1st
3 years ago
@nancy-l-draper ... Hello, I agree with you in some statements, because even the 18(!) years of captivity were worked-off from one scene to the next. Point :( very goofy, but in all that time she had tried several times to escape from captivity or to be freed. That would have been more interesting than dragging out other situations.<br /> According to a history block, it was said that Mary Stuart gave birth to twins during her captivity after her marriage to James Hepburn, Earl of Bothwell, but they did not survive the birth.<br /> Furthermore, the personal meeting with "Cousin" Elizabeth I. astonished me, because in this history block the following sentence could be read:<br /> "... An invitation to Edinburgh in Scotland Elisabeth I. refused and also a meeting in England did not come off. Elizabeth I. and Mary Stuart were never to meet! ..." °!° what is true now?? <br /> ==Question==: Was there this meeting between the monarchs as seen in the movie or never?<br /> --&gt; still all in all the movie was fair and good `7/10`
Reply  -  Like  -  Deslike  -  00

Please use spoiler tags:[spoiler] text [/spoiler]
minymina
/10  5 years ago
This movie is complete trash.
Watch only if you want modern politics shoved down your throat.

The movie focuses more on LGBT rights then events related to the setting the movie takes place.
Poor casting choices, horrible acting from A-list actors and low budget sets.

Not worth streaming. Not worth pirating. Not worthing Seeding.
Not worth the popcorn.
Like  -  Dislike  -  0
Please use spoiler tags:[spoiler] text [/spoiler]
GenerationofSwine
/10  one year ago
Well, I guess the good new is that you don't have to worry at all. It is not historically accurate, and by that I mean it falls under the title of "revisionist." Normally I don't care if a film is historically accurate, I understand it is Hollywood...but I do care if it is a total re-write of history.

This is a rewrite, it is so far from accurate that it is a clear attempt to change people's knoweldge of the historical figures and the era.

But, the good news is that where is lacks in historical correctness it more than makes up for in political correctness. And that might be at the route of why it veers so far from depicting actual real life events. It's focus was elsewhere, it's focus was on appeasing the people that support censorship and wish nothing more than to revise history to suit their political agenda.

But, the good news is that they do a great job of breaking down a tense political and religious struggle to sex.. sex... sex, which seems to be the real driving force behind man characters in the film, forsaking what would have otherwise been an interesting and story of political intrigue
Like  -  Dislike  -  0
Please use spoiler tags:[spoiler] text [/spoiler]
John Chard
/10  4 years ago
We have a scourge upon our land. 'Tis worse than pestilence and famine. 'Tis a woman with a crown.

Mary Stuart's (Saoirse Ronan) attempt to overthrow her cousin Elizabeth I (Margot Robbie), Queen of England, finds her condemned to years of imprisonment before facing execution.


Directed by Josie Rourke and written by Bau Willimon and John Guy, Mary Queen of Scots is the latest in a long line of historical costumers that fudge history to suit heir own ends. From a technical standpoint it's top draw, design, costuming and lead acting performances are quality - though Mary herself ends up being more cartoonish than anything resembling a tragic historical figure. Sadly, though, the narrative goes round and round in circles and ends up in a politically correct fog.​


The pace is laborious, which makes the two hour run time something of a chore to get through. There's little dangles of spice, with attempts at gay acceptance and oral pleasure etc etc, and things hit an upward curve in the latter stages, there's even some smarts in the narrative where obsession with rites and rules of succession threaten to turn the pic into exciting politico/religio waters. Alas, it's a false dawn, to the point where the costume design becomming the best thing in a production speaks volumes about a badly - on the page - historical drama. 3/10
Like  -  Dislike  -  0
Please use spoiler tags:[spoiler] text [/spoiler]
Back to Top