Ruuz

Thinking about them just in terms of their visual appearnce, Saoirse Ronan probably should have played Queen Elizabeth I instead of Mary, and Margot Robbie probably should have played Not In This Movie. Perhaps it could have performed better, had it not come out the same year as both _Outlaw King_ and _The Favourite_, as its content lies somewhere between the two, but its quality pales to either. _Final rating:★★ - Definitely not for me, but I sort of get the appeal._

minymina

This movie is complete trash. Watch only if you want modern politics shoved down your throat. The movie focuses more on LGBT rights then events related to the setting the movie takes place. Poor casting choices, horrible acting from A-list actors and low budget sets. Not worth streaming. Not worth pirating. Not worthing Seeding. Not worth the popcorn.

John Chard

We have a scourge upon our land. 'Tis worse than pestilence and famine. 'Tis a woman with a crown. ​ Mary Stuart's (Saoirse Ronan) attempt to overthrow her cousin Elizabeth I (Margot Robbie), Queen of England, finds her condemned to years of imprisonment before facing execution. Directed by Josie Rourke and written by Bau Willimon and John Guy, Mary Queen of Scots is the latest in a long line of historical costumers that fudge history to suit heir own ends. From a technical standpoint it's top draw, design, costuming and lead acting performances are quality - though Mary herself ends up being more cartoonish than anything resembling a tragic historical figure. Sadly, though, the narrative goes round and round in circles and ends up in a politically correct fog.​ ​ The pace is laborious, which makes the two hour run time something of a chore to get through. There's little dangles of spice, with attempts at gay acceptance and oral pleasure etc etc, and things hit an upward curve in the latter stages, there's even some smarts in the narrative where obsession with rites and rules of succession threaten to turn the pic into exciting politico/religio waters. Alas, it's a false dawn, to the point where the costume design becomming the best thing in a production speaks volumes about a badly - on the page - historical drama. 3/10

John Chard

We have a scourge upon our land. 'Tis worse than pestilence and famine. 'Tis a woman with a crown. Mary Stuart's (Saoirse Ronan) attempt to overthrow her cousin Elizabeth I (Margot Robbie), Queen of England, finds her condemned to years of imprisonment before facing execution. Directed by Josie Rourke and written by Beau Willimon and John Guy, Mary Queen of Scots is the latest in a long line of historical costumers that fudge history to suit heir own ends. From a technical standpoint it's top draw, design, costuming and lead acting performances are quality - though Mary herself ends up being more cartoonish than anything resembling a tragic historical figure. Sadly, though, the narrative goes round and round in circles and ends up in a politically correct fog.​ ​ The pace is laborious, which makes the two hour run time something of a chore to get through. There's little dangles of spice, with attempts at gay acceptance and oral pleasure etc etc, and things hit an upward curve in the latter stages, there's even some smarts in the narrative where obsession with rites and rules of succession threaten to turn the pic into exciting politico/religio waters. Alas, it's a false dawn, to the point where the costume design becoming the best thing in a production speaks volumes about a badly - on the page - historical drama. 3/10

Geronimo1967

Unfortunately there are just too many flaws in this depiction of the life of Mary Stuart to itemise. The writing rather clumsily imposes a 21st century slant on 16th century Scottish history and seems more bent on imposing the morals and opinions of the former on the times and scenarios of the latter. Neither principal performance is particularly engaging; and Jack Lowden and Joe Alwyn are frankly hopeless as the sexually ambiguous "Darnley" and "Leicester" respectively. The Oscar nominations for Make-up and Costume are certainly well deserved, but really do epitomise the style-over-substance emphasis of this weak adaptation of one of history's greatest rivalries.

GenerationofSwine

Well, I guess the good new is that you don't have to worry at all. It is not historically accurate, and by that I mean it falls under the title of "revisionist." Normally I don't care if a film is historically accurate, I understand it is Hollywood...but I do care if it is a total re-write of history. This is a rewrite, it is so far from accurate that it is a clear attempt to change people's knoweldge of the historical figures and the era. But, the good news is that where is lacks in historical correctness it more than makes up for in political correctness. And that might be at the route of why it veers so far from depicting actual real life events. It's focus was elsewhere, it's focus was on appeasing the people that support censorship and wish nothing more than to revise history to suit their political agenda. But, the good news is that they do a great job of breaking down a tense political and religious struggle to sex.. sex... sex, which seems to be the real driving force behind man characters in the film, forsaking what would have otherwise been an interesting and story of political intrigue