Marie Stuart, Reine d'Écosse

I really wanted to love this movie. It was beautifully shot, and Ronin was, as always, very strong. And the rest of the cast was fine -- the problems with this Elizabeth were not Robbie's fault. The film was beautiful, but quite, quite dead. And it didn't flow, just a bunch of independent set pieces. Blame the writer and the director.

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.

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.

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.

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.