ÉVALUATION IMDb
6,3/10
58 k
MA NOTE
La tentative de Mary Stuart de renverser sa cousine Elizabeth I, reine d'Angleterre, la condamne à des années d'emprisonnement avant d'être exécutée.La tentative de Mary Stuart de renverser sa cousine Elizabeth I, reine d'Angleterre, la condamne à des années d'emprisonnement avant d'être exécutée.La tentative de Mary Stuart de renverser sa cousine Elizabeth I, reine d'Angleterre, la condamne à des années d'emprisonnement avant d'être exécutée.
- Nommé pour 2 oscars
- 8 victoires et 31 nominations au total
Avis en vedette
Somebody else already called this film the "woke" version, and I would have to agree. A black counselor for Mary? An Asian noble woman in the English court? Wherever would they come from? It's not like you could jump on a plane and be anywhere in no time in 1565 And if you could, that you would be accepted when you got there.. Rizzio, Mary's secretary, and Darnley, Mary's second husband, gay? I have actually heard rumors and seen productions about Darnley maybe being bisexual as far back as the 1970s, but at the time, to be homosexual was a crime punishable by death. I doubt that Mary the Catholic queen was so "with it" that she would consider Rizzio, here portrayed as openly gay, just one of her gang of ladies in waiting.
I'm just surprised there wasn't a Hispanic in the cast. I'm sure that they wanted to include one, but the new world had hardly been explored at all by the 1560s so, nope, not even these producers would go that far. Oh, and Elizabeth and Mary never met, and Elizabeth was basically tricked into signing Mary's death warrant.
Is it an interesting tale well told? I thought so. If this was an extension of Game of Thrones, or some other such fantasy drama that was only loosely tethered to the Middle Ages as it existed in Europe, it would have worked. But not as a historical drama. I will say the art design and cinematography were beautiful.
I'm just surprised there wasn't a Hispanic in the cast. I'm sure that they wanted to include one, but the new world had hardly been explored at all by the 1560s so, nope, not even these producers would go that far. Oh, and Elizabeth and Mary never met, and Elizabeth was basically tricked into signing Mary's death warrant.
Is it an interesting tale well told? I thought so. If this was an extension of Game of Thrones, or some other such fantasy drama that was only loosely tethered to the Middle Ages as it existed in Europe, it would have worked. But not as a historical drama. I will say the art design and cinematography were beautiful.
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.
Director Josie Rourke appears to want to tell the historical story of Mary Queen of Scots and her cousin, Queen Elizabeth the first, as she would have liked it to be, shown in fashionable 21st century terms, not how it was in the 16th Century. I read that Josie was determined to have a mixed race cast and I ask the reader, why? The events took place at a time when not too many non white people inhabited England, let alone took their place as royal courtiers. This is clearly nonsense and I found some of the casting a distraction that spoilt an otherwise fairly decent film, other than an event at the close that brings the two women together in an unconvincing tearful meeting. I say unconvincing, not just because these two strong women would have been unlikely to act like two blubbering soap actresses but that there is no evidence that they ever met. Having said that, most of the rest of the film is fairly accurate that I can see, the rivalry between Mary and Elizabeth, a slaughter of Mary's aide, the murder of her husband and Mary's ultimate beheading. These are all things that may be common knowledge to many so I'm not sure if they count as spoilers or not. Soairse Ronan is well cast as Mary although I'm not sure she is pretty enough as Mary has been described in history. The supporting actors on the whole, apart from some miscasting, are on the whole excellent, David Tennant, Ian Hart, Brendan Coyle and Martin Compson are all strong. The real standout for me is a chilling performance by a heavily made up Margot Robbie as Queen Elizabeth who out acts everyone else in the movie. Josie Rourke had the opportunity to make a really good movie here but has blown it by introducing these modern woke ideas already mentioned, not just by me but by others. I'd suggest she avoids the woke nonsense if she wants her films to make a decent profit and to be remembered in the future.
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.
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.
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.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesThe first time Saoirse Ronan and Margot Robbie saw each other in character was during the scene where they meet for the first time. They rehearsed separately, and Robbie's scenes were completed the day Ronan began hers.
- GaffesDarnley wasn't exiled to Kirk o' Field, he was sent there with the pox, for medical quarantine.
- ConnexionsFeatured in Front Row: Episode #3.3 (2018)
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et surveiller les recommandations personnalisées
- How long is Mary Queen of Scots?Propulsé par Alexa
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Sites officiels
- Langues
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- Mary Queen of Scots
- Lieux de tournage
- Aviemore, Highland, Écosse, Royaume-Uni(on location)
- sociétés de production
- Consultez plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Budget
- 25 000 000 $ US (estimation)
- Brut – États-Unis et Canada
- 16 468 499 $ US
- Fin de semaine d'ouverture – États-Unis et Canada
- 194 777 $ US
- 9 déc. 2018
- Brut – à l'échelle mondiale
- 46 712 809 $ US
- Durée2 heures 4 minutes
- Couleur
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 2.39 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant
Lacune principale
What is the streaming release date of Marie reine d'Écosse (2018) in Canada?
Répondre