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

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]
Back to Top