Mary Queen of Scots

It's only my love for Saoirse Ronan and Adrian Lester that I kept it on. It was Disney-fied in the casting area as there were no people of colour as nobleman or indeed in the court at that time. Mary's accent is not accurate as she was raised in France. And they didn't all wear black. It was like rowan atckinson's black adder. The subject matter is intense as extreme misogyny meets religious hypocrisies! Well Shot and acted by ALL.

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.

An earlier poster slates the film for its historical inaccuracy and then displays his/her own ignorance! There is no such place as "Holyrood Castle"- its Holyrood Palace, or alternatively, the Palace of Holyrood House. The fortified buildings on top of Castle Rock make up Edinburgh Castle, which is perhaps what this contributor is laughingly alluding to. As for the lack of tartan, God save us, that's likely to be the film's only saving grace! Whether monarch, nobles or commoners, people in Lowland Scotland did not wear tartan. And anyway, Lowland Scots considered those in the Highlands at the time to be closer to barbarians than fellow countrymen. Another contributor states entirely erroneously that Elizabeth I had authority over Scotland, revealing his/her failure to grasp the essential fact of their rivalry, based as it was on both being Queens of two entirely separate kingdoms. And don't get me started on Braveheart or Outlander!

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.

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.