The Twisted Tale of Bloody Mary

Badly acted. Disjointed format. Absolutely ghastly and overbearing music.

I purchased the movie being interested in all of the Tudor history and because it is to my knowledge the only movie made about the life of Mary Tudor. What a GIANT disappointment. The movie made in the style of a documentary has the feel of being put together by some experimenting high school students. Acting is non existent, the dialog stilted and often unintentionally funny. Camera work is fuzzy, shot into the light, so it is impossible to see anything but shadows (artsy??), not to mention the same repeated shots of meadows, deers, bunnies,trees and running blood - really TACKY! I knew that this was low budget, but come on - PBS has a lot of British productions that are on the lower budget end, nevertheless excellent. Mary turns from an adorable teenager into a 50+ looking woman, when in reality she was about 30 at her brothers Edwards death. By the way her eyes turn from light green as a child to a deep brown as a teenager - is this a miracle or did they run out of brown eyed children? Henry VIII stereo typed as a fat old tyrant, when he actually was quite young when he divorced Katherine. The main players at the court of Henry VIII are hardly mentioned although they played a big role in Mary's life and were indeed the cause of her bitterness. There is not really any explanation for her cruelty, other than her fanatic catholicism, upbringing and failed marriage. Instead of exploring her character in depth her actions seem to be based more on revenge than anything else. The filmmakers underline this by showing her expressions toward the end depicted more and more as an evil witch. Don't waste your money and time on this piece of trash! I hope in time a good movie will be made about "bloody Mary" exploring the woman behind the evil mask.

I have always been fascinated by the Tudor period of history, ever since I saw the 1970 BBC Six Wives Of Henry VIII. There has never been a film about Mary Tudor and I stumbled across this by accident. Considering the small budget, I thought they brought the 1500s to life brilliantly and with style and class and atmosphere, looking like a rich drama production, and to my mind, having production values which excelled over the BBC's first production of The Other Boleyn Girl. I would have given it 10 out of 10 but for it missing out Henry's last four queens, and not mentioning Ann Boleyn's daughter Elizabeth until the very end. But it made me think deeply about Mary's motives, was far more Tudor realistic than the hugely expensive "The Tudors" and had amazing gritty realism, such as the sores on Henry's legs, and on Edward VI. Plus the actress playing Ann Boleyn bore the most uncanny resemblance to Hans Holbein's portrait.

A film I am proud to own on DVD. It would benefit from some filmising of the video, like they do with current Doctor Who, removing alternate fields to give it a more filmic look rather than video, but trust me, this is a truly neglected gem and deserves far greater acclaim and stands as a testament to what can be done with dedication even with a minuscule budget. And Miranda French is so stunning and believable as Mary that she deserves an award.

Whoever gave this the other review here had no right to dismiss it so scathingly, and clearly missed the whole beauty and poignancy of such a stunning production. The film Avatar may have cost ultra millions but expense and gloss and special effects don't make a great story or believable drama. This stands supreme as possibly the best low budget film ever.