Marie Stuart, Reine d'Écosse

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.

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.

Mary (Saoirse Ronan) was raised in the French court. After the death of her first husband King Francis II of France, the 19 year old Scot monarch returns to her homeland to take back the throne from her Protestant half-brother. She faces opposition from her Protestant subjects under constant attack by cleric John Knox and a rival in her cousin Queen Elizabeth I (Margot Robbie). Her lineage gives her a better claim to both crowns. Elizabeth is in love with Robert Dudley but she is blocked from marrying the commoner. Mary marries Henry Stuart, an English Catholic lord, and faces rebellion from her many foes including her own husband.

I'm no history expert and even I noticed some questionable takes by the movie. This is definitely trying to paint Mary as reasonable as possible. She's almost modern with a good helping of sisterhood. It's betrayed by a couple of incidents where she keeps pushing for the English crown. It's as if the settled history keeps interfering with the script's needs. It's also questionable to have Saoirse play Scottish when Mary is probably more French than anything. Margot Robbie could do better to show Mary's disconnection with her own country. I guess Saoirse at least looks more like Mary. The political intrigue is interesting but it does get jumbled with all the characters. Some get lost in the shuffle. I also don't know if England has a black ambassador at that time. It'd be great if true. There is the ethereal meeting in the cabin. I remember hearing that the two Queens never met face to face in real life. I can accept a bit of artistic license but this movie takes a lot more than a bit. At least, the cabin finally gets to the truth of Mary's character as far as I'm concern in her final outburst. As for the actors, Saoirse and Margot do exceptional work for what is asked of them. This is a movie of many battles and intrigue but the most defining victory may be a birth. I am uncertain about the accuracy of this movie and that taints any enjoyment.

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.

Historic authenticity is cast to the wind in this revisionist costume drama that feels like it was written by a freshman Women's Studies major. Directed by Josie Rourke with a screenplay by Beau Willimon, Mary Queen of Scots (2018) was based on the book Queen of Scots: The True Life of Mary Stuart by John Guy. Like many films released this year, it has strong female leads, a diverse cast, and progressive social messaging, but checking all the right boxes on the SJW playlist wasn't enough to save this film from mediocrity.

The year is 1560, and the young and beautiful Mary Tudor (Saoirse Ronan) returns home, where she is out of place in a dreary Scottish castle. Her half-brother, James, Earl of Moray (James McArdle), has been ruling as regent, alongside a bevy of colorless and perpetually-angry Protestant men. Her appearance in Scotland alarms her cousin, Queen Elizabeth I of England (Margot Robbie). Elizabeth, a Protestant, is not seen as a legitimate ruler by her Catholic subjects. She seeks to gain influence over Mary by arranging a marriage with Elizabeth's own lover, Robert Dudley (Joe Alwyn).

Instead, Mary marries the charming and charismatic Lord Henry Darnley (Jack Lowden), who pulls a Jeckyll-and-Hyde routine and becomes a drunken lecher on their wedding night. Things get complicated for the childless Queen Elizabeth when Mary becomes pregnant, producing an heir for her dynasty and strengthening her claim to the English throne. Can Mary fend off attacks from her domestic critics and convince Elizabeth to acknowledge her as England's rightful ruler?

Mary Queen of Scots couldn't decide whether it wanted to be a film about the rivalry between two queens or a revisionist biopic of its titular character, so it does neither particularly well. This ill-conceived and poorly executed film also missed a chance to let its leading ladies shine. As Queen Elizabeth, the talented Margot Robbie goes to waste as a costumed mannequin who practically disappears for the middle third of the film.

Historically, Mary Stuart was born in 1542, the only legitimate heir to Scottish King James V. She was briefly married to the King of France. After his untimely death in 1560, Mary returned to Scotland and ruled as Mary I of Scotland until 1567, when she was forced to abdicate after her second husband's murder (which her rivals accused her of orchestrating). She fled to England to seek protection from her cousin, Queen Elizabeth I, but many English Catholics considered Mary the legitimate Queen of England, so Elizabeth had her imprisoned and later executed.

There are many anachronisms and inaccuracies throughout Mary Queen of Scots, not the least of which was "colorblind casting" that falsely portrays 16th-Century England and Scotland's aristocracy as racially diverse. Mary's Scottish accent was also out of place (she grew up in France), as was her friendship with Italian courtier David Rizzio/Riccio. Most historians acknowledge Mary was probably having an affair with the man, which infuriated her Second Husband. Rizzio might have been bisexual, but he wasn't "one of the girls," as the film portrays.

Though ostensibly based on a book, this film can be considered a remake of the 1971 film by the same name. Mary, Queen of Scots (1971) was directed by Charles Jarrott and starred Vanessa Redgrave and Glenda Jackson. Like the 2018 film, the 1971 version featured a fictional meeting between the two queens and speculated that Lord Darnley and the musician David Riccio were lovers. The two films part ways, however, when it came to Mary's imprisonment. The 1971 version devotes more screen time to her 19 years in English captivity, while this version fast-forwards through it.

Mary Queen of Scots opened to mixed reviews and currently holds a 63% positive rating from critics and 44% audience favorability on RottenTomatoes. Its opening weekend took in a painful $194,777 on a $25 million budget. A successful film gets the audience invested in the story. Mary Queen of Scots ultimately failed to connect with audiences because it was more concerned with pushing the filmmaker's social perspective than making us care about who gains the English throne.