Siga la historia de la condesa de Buckingham que moldeó a su hijo para seducir al rey y convertirse en su todopoderosa amante, a través de intrigas, llegando a ser más rica, con más títulos ... Leer todoSiga la historia de la condesa de Buckingham que moldeó a su hijo para seducir al rey y convertirse en su todopoderosa amante, a través de intrigas, llegando a ser más rica, con más títulos e influyente que se haya visto jamás.Siga la historia de la condesa de Buckingham que moldeó a su hijo para seducir al rey y convertirse en su todopoderosa amante, a través de intrigas, llegando a ser más rica, con más títulos e influyente que se haya visto jamás.
- Nominado a 1 premio Primetime Emmy
- 9 nominaciones en total
Explorar episodios
Opiniones destacadas
Just finished ep7. An unrelenting rush to destruction. Not even the winners could be envied. This play is about animals rutting in a political trough.
Nicholas Galitzine plays the ingenu no longer. Within the ensemble, he's a beautiful, weak, psychopathic puppet, who fails because he thinks he's cleverer than the puppet master, his mother. This is his 14th film/tv role and his grittiest. He has the range, the charisma, the acting chops to climb to the top perch. I hope he soon gets the role that will push him from 'wow' to 'superstar'.
Julianne Moore plays a woman who doesn't need to quibble about pronouns to rule. Rule? She rocks.
Tony Curran gives a sly performance, allowing a brilliant humanity to peep though cracks in the orgy.
All of the cast deserve mention, it was a flawless ensemble.
Would you enjoy a sexy romp on the Titanic as it was cracking apart and sliding under? This show was a bit like that, the atmosphere was so fraught it overpowered any loveliness in the frequent coupling.
Nicholas Galitzine plays the ingenu no longer. Within the ensemble, he's a beautiful, weak, psychopathic puppet, who fails because he thinks he's cleverer than the puppet master, his mother. This is his 14th film/tv role and his grittiest. He has the range, the charisma, the acting chops to climb to the top perch. I hope he soon gets the role that will push him from 'wow' to 'superstar'.
Julianne Moore plays a woman who doesn't need to quibble about pronouns to rule. Rule? She rocks.
Tony Curran gives a sly performance, allowing a brilliant humanity to peep though cracks in the orgy.
All of the cast deserve mention, it was a flawless ensemble.
Would you enjoy a sexy romp on the Titanic as it was cracking apart and sliding under? This show was a bit like that, the atmosphere was so fraught it overpowered any loveliness in the frequent coupling.
Practically concerned with George Villiers and his mother, Mary, as they traverse the wild post-Elizabeth 1 monarchy, and try to improve their standings in court by attaching George as the next-in-line male concubine of the King James, son of Mary Queen of Scott.
I think it was very well noted how George took advantage of the King James's and Charles I's affection. Unlike the show, it was unanimously seen unfavorably. A lot of his charms are pretty much publicized with the vast number of arts pieces centered around him. His mother was less written about, but the characterization was similar to the show - greedy and ambitious, deeply unpopular.
The writing is meant to show the messiness of it all, and it works for the most part since it is really salacious history. This was meant as a show of flesh and trashiness. It is a not that inspired if you think about it BUT its hits enough checkmark for fun tv viewing. I would say that it could have been less on the nose, with all the mother knows best storytelling AND could have made paced the storytelling for the first and last two episodes better but it is what it is.
Also, a lot of other reviews are really riled up by its historical inaccuracies BUT I think you watch this not for those reason. It was not meant to be this deep show anyhow.
Acting wise, I still find Galatzine not that good. He has his moment but I felt that he strays in moments of ineptitude. Its so glaring sometimes that he looks like he does not know what emotion should he show in a scene. He should thank god his pretty because I think that was the only prompt he stood well on. I think Moore and Curran faired better but pretty much was phoning it in with 'camp' aspect. They are in the end, somewhat of a caricature.
Overall, I think this is fair introduction to the Villiers. Reading about them a lot, and I think they are fascinating. If I would compare it to what I saw, there clearly is a huge real estate that the show jumped out off BUT this would be fun if your into this kind of material. Recommended.
I think it was very well noted how George took advantage of the King James's and Charles I's affection. Unlike the show, it was unanimously seen unfavorably. A lot of his charms are pretty much publicized with the vast number of arts pieces centered around him. His mother was less written about, but the characterization was similar to the show - greedy and ambitious, deeply unpopular.
The writing is meant to show the messiness of it all, and it works for the most part since it is really salacious history. This was meant as a show of flesh and trashiness. It is a not that inspired if you think about it BUT its hits enough checkmark for fun tv viewing. I would say that it could have been less on the nose, with all the mother knows best storytelling AND could have made paced the storytelling for the first and last two episodes better but it is what it is.
Also, a lot of other reviews are really riled up by its historical inaccuracies BUT I think you watch this not for those reason. It was not meant to be this deep show anyhow.
Acting wise, I still find Galatzine not that good. He has his moment but I felt that he strays in moments of ineptitude. Its so glaring sometimes that he looks like he does not know what emotion should he show in a scene. He should thank god his pretty because I think that was the only prompt he stood well on. I think Moore and Curran faired better but pretty much was phoning it in with 'camp' aspect. They are in the end, somewhat of a caricature.
Overall, I think this is fair introduction to the Villiers. Reading about them a lot, and I think they are fascinating. If I would compare it to what I saw, there clearly is a huge real estate that the show jumped out off BUT this would be fun if your into this kind of material. Recommended.
👑 Ignore ALL those reviewers that claim this 7 hour miniseries isn't excellent.. Because it most definitely IS. Those viewers are just "morality-entertainment police" who allow their moral judgment to paint their views on superb cinematic art. They obviously HATE the Fact that this historical miniseries is based on the King James who we know as the man behind the King James Version of the Bible that most modern Christians use as their most prized edition. Given that King James was historically a well known extreme homosexual who surrounded himself with handsome younger men to fulfill his sexual needs daily. This theatrical quality level 7 hour film shows what we already know, that royalty over the centuries is filled with Betrayal, Corruption, Cruelty, Murder, Ambition, Sex, Manipulations, and Lust For Power at Any Cost. But, what this movie has to offer is Superb Performances by a very professional cast led by Julianne Moore in a very juicy diabolical lead role. Also, a very enigmatic performance by Nicholas Galitzine as her son who is a pawn in his mother's chess game for power and wealth. The production is very detailed and wonderfully written. Locations, Sets, Costumes are historically accurate. You can't go wrong with this handsome production and its not an accident that it's been critically acclaimed around the world at every Film Festival it played in. Don't Miss It (and forget about those morality police)
The first two episodes I loved. Cutting dialogue, smart humour, silly sexiness... it reminded me of why I used to love shows on Starz like Spartacus.
Escapism, basically.
The production values are top notch, through location shooting and costuming it felt realistic. But measured by that humour that I mentioned, I know not to take it too seriously as a documentary. Just go along for the ride.
In terms of casting I want to particularly note Julianne Moore is amazing and Nicola Walker as Lady Hatton proves she is one of our top talents.
But the weird thing is... it got boring, and serious. It did a bait and switch. It started off as a dark comedy then turned into a rather sober and serious take on history.
Julianne Moore - the initial anchor, so funny - just becomes an extra almost in the later episodes. And they create a plot for her that feels a step too far even within the silliness of the plot.
And the show stumbles on them goes out on a daft whimper.
I think the hardest thing for me is the change in tone. Witty dialogue/humour of the first few episodes gives way to melodrama. It's like they started with one show, and changed their minds halfway through. For a show of only six episodes is jarring. This isn't a show that has seasons to build motivations and change characters.
It's not a terrible show by any means. And as I said production value wise it's very good. It's just a shame it couldn't make out what it is in such a short span of episodes.
Escapism, basically.
The production values are top notch, through location shooting and costuming it felt realistic. But measured by that humour that I mentioned, I know not to take it too seriously as a documentary. Just go along for the ride.
In terms of casting I want to particularly note Julianne Moore is amazing and Nicola Walker as Lady Hatton proves she is one of our top talents.
But the weird thing is... it got boring, and serious. It did a bait and switch. It started off as a dark comedy then turned into a rather sober and serious take on history.
Julianne Moore - the initial anchor, so funny - just becomes an extra almost in the later episodes. And they create a plot for her that feels a step too far even within the silliness of the plot.
And the show stumbles on them goes out on a daft whimper.
I think the hardest thing for me is the change in tone. Witty dialogue/humour of the first few episodes gives way to melodrama. It's like they started with one show, and changed their minds halfway through. For a show of only six episodes is jarring. This isn't a show that has seasons to build motivations and change characters.
It's not a terrible show by any means. And as I said production value wise it's very good. It's just a shame it couldn't make out what it is in such a short span of episodes.
I enjoyed episode 1 and from then on it went rapidly downhill until we eventually abandoned it at episode 3.
The sound on the dialogue was quite hard to make out without subtitles as it was very badly mixed. After straining to hear and then attempt to grasp what the convoluted plot was actually about it wasn't actually worth the effort.
Just another one of these tedious series which descend into a garbled mess after a promising start.
Who is actually approving the script? The costumes and the sets were fantastic so once again it's the writing that insults the viewers intelligence.
A wasted opportunity!
The sound on the dialogue was quite hard to make out without subtitles as it was very badly mixed. After straining to hear and then attempt to grasp what the convoluted plot was actually about it wasn't actually worth the effort.
Just another one of these tedious series which descend into a garbled mess after a promising start.
Who is actually approving the script? The costumes and the sets were fantastic so once again it's the writing that insults the viewers intelligence.
A wasted opportunity!
¿Sabías que…?
- TriviaEven given the taboos both of the historical period and of the next several centuries of research into and writing about history, there is a fair amount of historical documentation of contemporary rumors and reports that King James I (played in this series by Tony Curran) was gay, or perhaps bisexual, giving a historical basis to this aspect of his depiction in "Mary & George." His close relationships with a series of male courtiers were often remarked-upon in letters and other documents of the day. Two of the men whom many historians agree were likely his lovers are depicted in this series: Robert Carr, 1st Earl of Somerset (Laurie Davidson) and George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham (Nicholas Galitzine); Sir John Oglander, a contemporary politician and diarist, wrote that James "is the chastest prince for women that ever was, for he would often swear that he never kissed any other woman than his own queen. I never yet saw any fond husband make so much or so great dalliance over his beautiful spouse as I have seen King James over his favourites, especially the Duke of Buckingham," and a Royal Navy officer, Edward Peyton, observed James "tumble and kiss [George] as a mistress" in view of the court. James I was the same King James who sponsored the translation of the Bible that is still known today as "the King James Bible," which is another reason that religious interests may have been eager to deny or expunge from history the possibility that James was gay or bisexual.
- ErroresLord and Lady Somerset have Scottish accents when in reality the real life couple and the actors that play them were and are English.
- ConexionesFeatured in WatchMojo: Top 10 TV Shows of 2024 (So Far) (2024)
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y agrega a la lista de videos para obtener recomendaciones personalizadas
- How many seasons does Mary & George have?Con tecnología de Alexa
Detalles
- Fecha de lanzamiento
- País de origen
- Sitio oficial
- Idioma
- También se conoce como
- Мэри и Джордж
- Locaciones de filmación
- Productoras
- Ver más créditos de la compañía en IMDbPro
- Tiempo de ejecución
- 1h(60 min)
- Color
Contribuir a esta página
Sugiere una edición o agrega el contenido que falta