User reviews

Sky & STARZ are good at making historical dramas, not the great ones, though. Especially when STARZ writes works based on what really happened in history, the storyline is linear and one-dimensional. It never challenges itself to be something great. There are some good sides. Thanks to the effort from STARZ, I actually researched actual historical materials to delve deeper and to know in detail what really happened (The White Princess, Becoming Elizabeth, Gaslit, and etc.). The funny thing is that research and reading books are way much more interesting and exciting than watching the series made by STARZ.

'Mary & George' is the trendiest of all (maybe because it's produced the latest). Editing is straightforward and fashionable. Scenes cut to unexpected but real moments rather than explaining everything in between. My favorite scene is the very first scene of the first episode. Mary, who is still connected to George by umbilical cord says "Before I cut you free, what should I call you?". It gives me chills and sums up the whole seven episodes of the relationship between Mary and George. She never lets him free till everything including George is ruined. Iconic scene.

I enjoyed episode 1 and from then on it went rapidly downhill until we eventually abandoned it at episode 3.

The sound on the dialogue was quite hard to make out without subtitles as it was very badly mixed. After straining to hear and then attempt to grasp what the convoluted plot was actually about it wasn't actually worth the effort.

Just another one of these tedious series which descend into a garbled mess after a promising start.

Who is actually approving the script? The costumes and the sets were fantastic so once again it's the writing that insults the viewers intelligence.

A wasted opportunity!

Juliane Moore is not a serious actress. If Meryl Streep were playing this role she would be speaking as an English woman. She would have taken the time to learn dialect. Lazy American actors speak like Americans in French and British films. Interesting that the British actors do learn how to speak like US people. Just as ridiculous is the fact that this review sight will not publish reviews unless they are around 600 letters in length. What could possibly be the non-sensical reason for that? Looks like I still don't have a mini novel's worth of words to publish this review. I went to the grocery store the other day and bought some kale and carrots and yogurt and two of those dark chocolate salty almond bars which were absolutely delicious.

Given what the producers of this show have chosen to highlight -- the passionate love affair between King James and the Duke of Buckingham, along with countless other dalliances, treachery, lust, and basically every sin you can think of-- the show is strangely cold and distant. It's a character drama without the characters: all the participants are drawn as though from fifty feet away. We never really get into the heads of anyone, we never have a sense of their internal dialogs, we never quite get to know them outside the obvious lust for power, or sex, with which each character is aflame.

There is also the matter of historical rewriting: the show rather pretends to be based on facts, but it's really not; many of the most interesting plot developments are fictional, and much of what could have been actual, factual plot turns are left out (poor Francis Bacon comes off the worst: instead of portraying him as the fascinating and spectacular intellectual he was, here he is only a weak, ineffectual loser).

All in all, there's much to like here if you want scenery, costumes, and sets, along with some remarkable acting (especially from Samuel Blenkin and Tony Curran), but the show leaves a slightly bitter taste, as though you were expecting champagne and instead got ale.

👑 Ignore ALL those reviewers that claim this 7 hour miniseries isn't excellent.. Because it most definitely IS. Those viewers are just "morality-entertainment police" who allow their moral judgment to paint their views on superb cinematic art. They obviously HATE the Fact that this historical miniseries is based on the King James who we know as the man behind the King James Version of the Bible that most modern Christians use as their most prized edition. Given that King James was historically a well known extreme homosexual who surrounded himself with handsome younger men to fulfill his sexual needs daily. This theatrical quality level 7 hour film shows what we already know, that royalty over the centuries is filled with Betrayal, Corruption, Cruelty, Murder, Ambition, Sex, Manipulations, and Lust For Power at Any Cost. But, what this movie has to offer is Superb Performances by a very professional cast led by Julianne Moore in a very juicy diabolical lead role. Also, a very enigmatic performance by Nicholas Galitzine as her son who is a pawn in his mother's chess game for power and wealth. The production is very detailed and wonderfully written. Locations, Sets, Costumes are historically accurate. You can't go wrong with this handsome production and its not an accident that it's been critically acclaimed around the world at every Film Festival it played in. Don't Miss It (and forget about those morality police)

Practically concerned with George Villiers and his mother, Mary, as they traverse the wild post-Elizabeth 1 monarchy, and try to improve their standings in court by attaching George as the next-in-line male concubine of the King James, son of Mary Queen of Scott.

I think it was very well noted how George took advantage of the King James's and Charles I's affection. Unlike the show, it was unanimously seen unfavorably. A lot of his charms are pretty much publicized with the vast number of arts pieces centered around him. His mother was less written about, but the characterization was similar to the show - greedy and ambitious, deeply unpopular.

The writing is meant to show the messiness of it all, and it works for the most part since it is really salacious history. This was meant as a show of flesh and trashiness. It is a not that inspired if you think about it BUT its hits enough checkmark for fun tv viewing. I would say that it could have been less on the nose, with all the mother knows best storytelling AND could have made paced the storytelling for the first and last two episodes better but it is what it is.

Also, a lot of other reviews are really riled up by its historical inaccuracies BUT I think you watch this not for those reason. It was not meant to be this deep show anyhow.

Acting wise, I still find Galatzine not that good. He has his moment but I felt that he strays in moments of ineptitude. Its so glaring sometimes that he looks like he does not know what emotion should he show in a scene. He should thank god his pretty because I think that was the only prompt he stood well on. I think Moore and Curran faired better but pretty much was phoning it in with 'camp' aspect. They are in the end, somewhat of a caricature.

Overall, I think this is fair introduction to the Villiers. Reading about them a lot, and I think they are fascinating. If I would compare it to what I saw, there clearly is a huge real estate that the show jumped out off BUT this would be fun if your into this kind of material. Recommended.

History is a strange thing it is not a straight no matter how much some people want it to be.

Mary & George is about one of the many favourites of King James 1 of England. As portrayed here, and apparently in fact, James enjoyed the company of his male favourites to that of his wife and as a consequence young men vie for his favours as young women would vie for a monarch's favour in other royal courts.

One such is George Villiers (Nicholas Galitzine) whose mother is like a stage mother from hell, played with delicious venom by the wonderful Julianne Moore.

This series is sexual more than sexy. Raw in its use of language. Violent in its telling of history. Political games are played and won and lost.

The script is not too removed from know historical facts at least as far as Villiers and the King are concerned.

The design, costumes and cinematography are breathtaking.

Galitzine plays Villiers with an insouciance and gradual knowing of his role and power.

There is much black humour in this series but at its heart is a story rarely told of homosexual monarchs and the games played around them.

The work is a historical drama, go watch a documentary if you want historical accuracy. But oh how you will miss out!

As the story goes, a woman played by Julianne Moore (what a performance!) was born into nothing and rose through the class system by advantageous, but insufferable, marriages. She is doggedly determined to achieve wealth, power and control for herself and family... by any means necessary.

Where Mary & George really comes into its own is in the script and acting. The sharp and witty dialogue had me rooting hard for the protagonists Moore (esp!). Plots abound. Sex is very much power, a means to an end. Whoever has the king's eye has his ear. The series portrays an electrifying romance between a young Buckingham and King James I whilst various machiavellian characters seek to influence the king through his newfound lover.

Costume, casting, art departments have done an excellent job. Truly blown away by the sets, acting and insane garments.

9/10.

This tale of England and Scotland's homosexual king James I and his favourite and lover, George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham, might look the part but there are too many aspects to it which can only deserve the well-known observation 'nice try, but no cigar'.

This series is like those tomatoes we are offered these days in the vegetable section of too many superstores: they look the part and are certainly pretty, but all too often they taste of very little but water, and mot certainly not of tomatoes.

That analogy is not as silly as it sounds: shop for tomatoes in a Southern European small-town market and you will be offered horribly misshapen specimens, but by God they taste great and do taste of tomato.

We spoiled shoppers, however, are put off aesthetically by such misshapen fruit and lazily settle for tasteless specimens which, however, look fantastic.

That pretty much sums up Mary & George: with its authentic looking sets (filmed in various Jacobean manor houses in England), sumptuous costumes and its cod-Shakespearean dialogue, many might feel Mary & George is the real deal.

But it is nothing of the kind: essentially it is bog-standard soap opera drama portentously puffed up to seem profound, whereas for too many reasons it is nothing but an expensively produced soap opera with pretensions it never lives up to.

The first, and perhaps most important, point to make is that it is fiction. This is not history. Other reviewers have warned that many watching this will imagine it is 'history' and I shall repeat that warning: this is pure fiction involving real historical characters.

Yes, James I was homosexual, and although he fathered eight children by his wife Anne of Denmark (of whom four died in infancy and his eldest son and heir died at 18) and thus might be classed as bisexual, he and Anne lived separate lives and his main inclination was gay.

He was quite open about his sexuality and did not stint himself in public with his gay courtiers. Modern apologists, in a curious form of homophobia, like to argue along the lines that 'we don't understand the kind of male friendships in the 16th and 17th centuries' and that his kind of behaviour was not necessarily gay.

Yes, it was, and James was often the butt of ribald jokes and ballads by what are often condescendingly called 'the lower orders', but he didn't care one jot.

However, the kind of rampant sexual behaviour depicted in Mary & George is fictional: James was very conscious of his 'royal status' - he 'was the king' and people had better believe it - and he would not have jeopardised his role in such a blatant public way.

It is also very probable that George Villiers was mainly gay, and he and James were known to have been very close, with a discrete passageway connecting his rooms to Villiers'. But the arrangement and goings-on set out in the TV series are occasionally ludicrous.

The novel upon which the series is based suggests that Villiers mother Mary patiently schemed to get her son, metaphorically, into James's bed. That scheming is demonstrated in the series, but all the machinations we are asked to believe are never convincing.

The evolution of George from something of a wimp into one of if not the most powerful man in England for a while is portrayed in such a cack-handed fashion that we can't quite bring ourselves to believe it (and thus as drama the piece falls at the first hurdle).

Other aspects of the series are also fatally flawed: we are presented with characters who speak, both in content and manner, in a pseudo-Jacobean fashion, but the writers also have them incessantly effing and blinding and using the C word like dockworkers. And it is incessant and even Mary does it.

It's as though the producers wanted 'an historical piece', but also wanted 'to make it modern'. That's about the only explanation I can give. It ends up being simply silly.

OK, this is fiction, but Francis Bacon would certainly not had wandered around the streets of London (though the same street is put to work several times as it happens) alone as he is shown to do.

Mary might well have had a lesbian relationship - why not, many women do. But it is a cliche too far to have her striking up such a relationship with a woman who was either a brothel madam or even just a simple prostitute. Mary was far too conscious of her status and she would not have ventured into a brothel on her own in the first place.

The vicissitudes of her rise to power are also so convoluted as at times to be more than a little incomprehensible. And would she really have, after being a scorned woman, so miraculously become such a power at court? Don't think so.

As for her supposed gay relationship (which is somewhat gratuitous as it serves no dramatic function at all), it is doubly unlikely in that in the Jacobean era and for the next two hundred years at least the class distinctions were not only vast but important to those at the top. There was no mingling 'with the plebs' by 'nobility'.

If a gay noble wanted a quick spot of how's our father, there were plenty of other gay nobles or palace staff to have it on with without trawling the streets. And it would not have taken place in one of the palace corridors.

It occurs to me that in the muddled thinking of the producers, what with rather a lot of flash-forwards and flash-backs and folk suddenly appearing, Mary & George was perhaps intended as some kind of 'art piece'. Well, it that was the case they get nul points.

At the end of the day one might argue that my gripes are irrelevant because, after all, this is 'only fiction'. To that I would respond 'fine, but overall what with this flaw and that anachronism - the constant use of the F and C words - it is rather badly made fiction.

It might look the part, but it does not convince.

The first two episodes I loved. Cutting dialogue, smart humour, silly sexiness... it reminded me of why I used to love shows on Starz like Spartacus.

Escapism, basically.

The production values are top notch, through location shooting and costuming it felt realistic. But measured by that humour that I mentioned, I know not to take it too seriously as a documentary. Just go along for the ride.

In terms of casting I want to particularly note Julianne Moore is amazing and Nicola Walker as Lady Hatton proves she is one of our top talents.

But the weird thing is... it got boring, and serious. It did a bait and switch. It started off as a dark comedy then turned into a rather sober and serious take on history.

Julianne Moore - the initial anchor, so funny - just becomes an extra almost in the later episodes. And they create a plot for her that feels a step too far even within the silliness of the plot.

And the show stumbles on them goes out on a daf whimper.

I think the hardest thing for me is the change in tone. Witty dialogue/humour of the first few episodes gives way to melodrama. It's like they started with one show, and changed their minds halfway through. For a show of only six episodes is jarring. This isn't a show that has seasons to build motivations and change characters.

It's not a terrible show by any means. And as I said production value wise it's very good. It's just a shame it couldn't make out what it is in such a short span of episodes.

I desired and expected to see this mini series. And no crumb of dessapointed at its end. Sustained by performances and tension and fair crafted portraits of characters and period, it is pretty delightful, the best part remaining the admirable work of Juliane Moore and the more than nice try of young Nicholas Galityine, against the modest tools offered by too simplistic, in large part of series , role.

A XVII century defined by simple and well crafted traits, in which passion of a king, ambition of a lady, using her son for make real her interests are mixed with political context. Not exactly historical accuracy, bodies and full nakedness, large, for my taste too large homosexual references but interesting and little more that.

The price of the taste of power . This is the axis of this more than decent series.

I watched this series with great interest as I'm a descendent of the Stuart Kings and the Villiers through George's sister. I enjoyed the history, the scenery, and the story. Unlike most historical dramas, the series is very historically accurate--though no one knows the cause of the King's death. Watching this series was like peeking into the past, made me feel like I was there witnessing the characters' lives. Perhaps that's because the acting and writing was truly exceptional.

I only gave it 7 stars, because the last two episodes seemed rushed. Many important things were skipped in order to fit the story into seven episodes. Yet, a few of the episodes were slow. The end, especially, deserved more time and attention.

Julianne Moore is wickedly delicious as Mary Villiers, a somewhat noble mother of four who had her sights set on rising above the ranks of nobility with the help of her son, George (cheeky performance from Nicholas Galitzine, who at last sinks his teeth into a real role).

Together, mother and son plot and weave their way through the depraved King Charles' court (Tony Curran effective as the king). What unveils before ones very eyes will fascinate those who seek not to judge, but watch in a perverse sense of wonderment how this all took place in the 17th century.

Creator and writer, D. C. Moore, has crafted a telling tale of what could have occurred behind the King's golden secret doors, delivering treachery of the highest order and other wild shenanigans one has to endure in order to climb that royal social ladder.

Just finished ep7. An unrelenting rush to destruction. Not even the winners could be envied. This play is about animals rutting in a political trough.

Nicholas Galitzine plays the ingenu no longer. Within the ensemble, he's a beautiful, weak, psychopathic puppet, who fails because he thinks he's cleverer than the puppet master, his mother. This is his 14th film/tv role and his grittiest. He has the range, the charisma, the acting chops to climb to the top perch. I hope he soon gets the role that will push him from 'wow' to 'superstar'.

Julianne Moore plays a woman who doesn't need to quibble about pronouns to rule. Rule? She rocks.

Tony Curran gives a sly performance, allowing a brilliant humanity to peep though cracks in the orgy.

All of the cast deserve mention, it was a flawless ensemble.

Would you enjoy a sexy romp on the Titanic as it was cracking apart and sliding under? This show was a bit like that, the atmosphere was so fraught it overpowered any loveliness in the frequent coupling.

I've nothing against sex in TV series. Versailles did it well, as did The Great. But Mary and George seems to treat sex the same way you'd expect to see in a seedy porn romp.

There's little plot to speak of, the script is terrible and the story, such as it is seems to lurch from one bedroom scene to the other with not much happening in between.

It's had a fair amount of money spent on it - the costumes are great and the locations well chosen, but none of that can make up for a show that tries to add edge by ramping up the F-word led language and long shots of naked people hanging (literally) about.

Some of the criticism directed at Mary & George appears unwarranted, potentially arising from discomfort with its gay storyline and homoerotic elements. Yet, this show stands firmly on historical characters and events, blending fact with creative freedom to craft a captivating black comedy. Its clever humor had me laughing out loud, a rare occurrence for me.

The series ventures boldly into LGBT themes, and while it features its share of sexual content, these scenes are approached with tasteful restraint. The instances of nudity, though certainly risqué by the standards of television 30 years ago, especially concerning same-sex relationships, are skilfully filmed. They often suggest rather than show, adding to the intrigue without overshadowing the comedic and scheming aspects of the story. Far from being hardcore pornography, the portrayal is mature and perhaps not suited for children, but it's handled with care.

Nicholas Galitzine's portrayal of George Villiers is remarkable and fitting. The historical description of Villiers by the Bishop of Gloucester as "the handsomest-bodied man in all of England" finds a perfect representation in Galitzine. His stunning appearance and history of playing gay characters, despite being straight, add a genuine and convincing layer to his role.

The show also stands out for its exquisite cinematography, breathtaking locations, and detailed costumes, all of which deserve praise and contribute to a high IMDb rating.

While some reviews indicate that Mary & George may not appeal to everyone, its comedic brilliance and exploration of gay themes within a historical framework should not be dismissed lightly. This gay-centric, humorous narrative offers laughter and enjoyment across sexual orientations, affirming that quality comedy transcends boundaries. Recognising the evolution of television content presentation, Mary & George should be commended for its progressive depiction of relationships and intimacy.

Why is it, that despite having a decent budget and decent actors , Sky productions so often end up being way less than a sum of their parts?

The locations are great, the camerawork is OK and the costumes are top notch. The premise is also intriguing. The problem is it seems to have been written by AI - perhaps it was.. What you get is everything you've seen in similar productions like The Tudors or Wolf Hall but with none of the ingenuity, none of the individuality and most of all, none of the spark. It is bland, predictable and at times nonsensical. Someone in production has clearly noticed this and ramped up the sex and language to 10 to try to compensate for the lack of much else going on.

Pretty disappointing.

I absolutely love movies and series that depict English history, especially the Monarchy. So when I saw Mary & George advertised, I knew that this was one I had to watch and I was not disappointed in the slightest.

Mary & George had me hooked from the opening scene. Julianne Moore is wonderful as always in her role as Mary.

The costuming and sets are wonderful as so is the acting. I don't have any problem with the script.

If you love historical series then do check this one out. It might be a bit graphic for some with the nudity, but personally, I love how they just went for it. I highly recommend this series.

This is a very enjoyable and enlightening drama about relationships, ambition and power. The story could be set in Wall Street, Dallas or modern day London but it's in the fascinating and dynamic days of the early 1600s.

It's told totally through the life and experience of Mary Beaumont so don't expect a history of King James. So there's no commissioning of the Bible, nothing about how he skilfully avoided getting involved in the 30 years war or his penchant for killing witches. The James in this story is just the James who becomes enamoured with young men. Although not everything we see is based on fact, the basic history hasn't been altered too much which makes a nice change to a lot of what's made these days.

Similarly, seen through the eyes of Mary, George isn't the atrocious and incompetent member of the government responsible for countless disasters he was in reality. He was in truth promoted way above his skill grade and indeed in this story he's unaware of his own inadequacies - which was one of his biggest character flaws so it's a pretty accurate representation of him.

This offers very much a 2024 perspective on the story. In twenty years time or so this will probably look as dated as those period dramas made in the 1970s but for now it really works. Some people have criticised the accents and the 'modern' manners of speech. Since the English spoken back then probably sounded more American than modern English does, that's a pointless criticism but there does seem to be a lot of gratuitous swearing.

What makes this different to the historical dramas were used to that profundity of swearing and quite a lot of sex. That might put a few people off but its bawdy script does capture a certain mood which was a characteristic of James' court. It is therefore a refreshingly accurate depiction of England at the start of the seventeenth century and good fun.

The story of king James I and his male favorites is probably not a familiar one for most people (including me), so this mini series is as well informative, as original. But there's more to enjoy: it has a good pace, some surprisingly steamy and daring (same-) sex scenes, the settings and costumes are beautiful, and the acting of almost all of the cast is great, especially that of Julianne Moore. I'm not always a Moore fan, at times she can be so dominant in a production that it turns into a Julianne Moore show (like in the 2021 miniseries "Lisey's Story"), but here she's absolutely excellent as the authoritative, scheming mother who'll do anything to promote her son's (and her own) position.

I was slightly disappointed with the part of Nicholas Galitzine, he acted (or was made to act) as an insecure upstart through all of the seven episodes. That was maybe realistic in his first encounters with the king and the court, but surely, after several years as Duke of Buckingham, residing in the highest ranks of the kingdom, he would have gained some self-composure and authority; his continuous awkwardness just didn't feel realistic.

As always in history-based movies, there's some juggling with the historical facts, and the way king James comes to his end in the last episode is definitely fictional, but it fits the story fine. It was a pity however, that after that the story rushed in hardly 10 minutes to a totally abrupt ending, with a sudden leap in time of some 3 years, and without any information of how we got to that point (like for instance how the relation between George and the new king Charles developed). It felt a bit as if the writers had gotten weary, or the budget ran dry.

But for the rest: absolutely worthwhile!