I only just saw this movie for the very first time on one of my cable movie channels and have seen it several times over the past week. I love British movies and I was blown away by all the great actors and the locations and castles used for the filming. The two ladies performances are so strong and were framed by all the great male actors. Patrick McGoohan is awesome, and his steely look playing other roles has always inspired me. From his role as the Disney "Scarecrow" to the Prisoner. Just awesome. I was mesmerized by Nigel Davenport. Nigel had my attention the entire time he was on screen. Nigel, like Patrick, has an awesome look about him and how he carries himself. I will definitely buy the DVD of this movie and get my son to watch it.
50 Reviews
Captivating study of the Tudor Era's royal lady rivals
roghache3 April 2006
It's been quite some time since I saw this movie, so have forgotten many of the details, but quite enjoyed this portrait of the clash between Mary Queen of Scots and her rival Tudor cousin, Elizabeth I. I confess to a lack of knowledge as to its historical accuracy, which may perhaps be just as well, as I read that the supposed meeting between the two queens never took place in real life. The producers presumably felt audiences would expect such an in person meeting. Frankly, however, while such films might be permitted a wee bit of dramatic license, they should definitely stick with fundamental historical truths.
The movie chronicles the struggles of Mary Stewart, who returns from France, where she had been wife to the sickly (now deceased) king Francois II, to Scotland, where her Protestant half brother, Jamie, is acting as Regent. In order to secure the Scottish throne for herself and her son (later James VI of Scotland and James I of England), she must battle the Scottish Lords, her brother Jamie, who causes rebellions against his sister, and even her second husband, Lord Darnley, who makes a bid for the throne himself. The most devastating enemy proves to be her royal English cousin, Elizabeth I, who sees Mary as a threat, especially when Mary produces (with Darnley) a son while she (Elizabeth) remains unmarried and childless.
The main asset of the movie lies in its two female leads, who portray the warm, emotional Catholic Mary and the cool, calculating Protestant Elizabeth. Vanessa Redgrave made, at least for me, a convincing enough Mary. Especially, however, I recall Glenda Jackson as an absolutely brilliant Queen Elizabeth. She IS Elizabeth, and I believe to a certain extent, it's really her movie. To this day, whenever I picture Elizabeth I, it's Glenda Jackson, who of course went on to play the Virgin Queen in the TV series, Elizabeth R.
Others in the star studded cast include Patrick McGoohan as James Stewart (Mary's brother), Timothy Dalton as Lord Darnley (Mary's weak, conniving second husband), and Nigel Davenport as Bothwell (Mary's true love and third husband). Two of Elizabeth's ministers are portrayed by Trevor Howard as Sir William Cecil, and Daniel Massey as the queen's devoted Dudley.
Beautiful Oscar nominated Tudor period costumes and scenes. I would like to see again the tale of this tragic figure, a woman who should have been content with her Scottish crown and not covetous of the English one as well. Pity modern cinema seems disinclined to delve into these British historical dramas. Personally, I would like to see more movies such as this one and the 1986 Lady Jane with Helena Bonham Carter. There's certainly no lack of historical figures that would make interesting subjects.
The movie chronicles the struggles of Mary Stewart, who returns from France, where she had been wife to the sickly (now deceased) king Francois II, to Scotland, where her Protestant half brother, Jamie, is acting as Regent. In order to secure the Scottish throne for herself and her son (later James VI of Scotland and James I of England), she must battle the Scottish Lords, her brother Jamie, who causes rebellions against his sister, and even her second husband, Lord Darnley, who makes a bid for the throne himself. The most devastating enemy proves to be her royal English cousin, Elizabeth I, who sees Mary as a threat, especially when Mary produces (with Darnley) a son while she (Elizabeth) remains unmarried and childless.
The main asset of the movie lies in its two female leads, who portray the warm, emotional Catholic Mary and the cool, calculating Protestant Elizabeth. Vanessa Redgrave made, at least for me, a convincing enough Mary. Especially, however, I recall Glenda Jackson as an absolutely brilliant Queen Elizabeth. She IS Elizabeth, and I believe to a certain extent, it's really her movie. To this day, whenever I picture Elizabeth I, it's Glenda Jackson, who of course went on to play the Virgin Queen in the TV series, Elizabeth R.
Others in the star studded cast include Patrick McGoohan as James Stewart (Mary's brother), Timothy Dalton as Lord Darnley (Mary's weak, conniving second husband), and Nigel Davenport as Bothwell (Mary's true love and third husband). Two of Elizabeth's ministers are portrayed by Trevor Howard as Sir William Cecil, and Daniel Massey as the queen's devoted Dudley.
Beautiful Oscar nominated Tudor period costumes and scenes. I would like to see again the tale of this tragic figure, a woman who should have been content with her Scottish crown and not covetous of the English one as well. Pity modern cinema seems disinclined to delve into these British historical dramas. Personally, I would like to see more movies such as this one and the 1986 Lady Jane with Helena Bonham Carter. There's certainly no lack of historical figures that would make interesting subjects.
Some License With Facts But It Captures the Mood and the Personas...
eskdale5626 October 2003
I've read a lot of the other reviews of this movie and have to add my two cents here. Anybody critical of Glenda Jackson's portrayal of Elizabeth I is just plain wrong! If there is such a thing as reincarnation I suggest that Elizabeth came back as Glenda...not only were many of her lines historically accurate but Glenda has captured the conflict, the caprice, the indecisiveness, the intellect, the willpower, shrewdness and the brilliance of Elizabeth. Her portrayal of England's greatest queen is matched only by her own portrayal of the queen in "Elizabeth R." I guess that a trained shakespearean actress, like Glenda has been immersed in all things Elizabethan and reflects the time in general. Vanessa Redgrave, although a bit too old for the role of Mary in the earlier part of the movie did a good job at capturing Mary's character as well. The movie does well to illustrate the contrast between the women and why one was so successful, the other not. It takes license with history in that Elizabeth and Mary never met and Mary's captivity was almost two decades long. In my view one contrast, whether intentional or not, is that Mary is made to be a much more sympathetic character than Elizabeth--it seems to stress the womanliness of Mary and coldness of Elizabeth and it does quote the historically accurate line about her being barren, I think to reinforce this unfortunate contrast. Elizabeth was far more complex than portrayed and Mary was close to being an empty-headded ninny, at least in the political sense. The movie has beautiful scenery and some great shots. Well worth the watching.
Knockout performances for the ladies
didi-54 March 2004
The story of Scotland's last Queen has been told in many versions throughout the history of cinema, and it might be thought that this one would not be that different. This is true: the major characters remain Mary herself (played by Vanessa Redgrave), and Elizabeth I of England (played by Glenda Jackson). The story progresses through her time as Queen to the sickly Francois of France, to her return to a Scotland dominated by Protestantism and regented by her brother Jamie (played by Patrick McGoohan), through her unfortunate marriage to the weak and selfish fop Lord Darnley (Timothy Dalton) and her eventual deposition following marriage to Lord Bothwell (played with charm by Nigel Davenport).
The script is a little clunky in places, and departs from the true historical record considerably in the name of drama: it is a pity that Darnley in particular is presented as rather one-note for the bulk of the time (although portrayed very well within the limitations of the script). However, Redgrave and Jackson are splendid, while Ian Holm gives a short but affecting portrayal of the doomed minstrel Rizzio.
The script is a little clunky in places, and departs from the true historical record considerably in the name of drama: it is a pity that Darnley in particular is presented as rather one-note for the bulk of the time (although portrayed very well within the limitations of the script). However, Redgrave and Jackson are splendid, while Ian Holm gives a short but affecting portrayal of the doomed minstrel Rizzio.
The Vanessa Redgrave show part II
JasparLamarCrabb14 June 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Surely it's not historically accurate, but who cares? It's great fun. In fact it has the slyness & humor that THE LION IN WINTER buried beneath its pretensions. Vanessa Redgrave is excellent as Mary, the Scottish queen who married the King of France only to be drummed out his country by his rotten family...unwelcome in England, she returns to Scotland intent on remaining on the throne. A lot of people around her (as well as England's Queen Elizabeth) have other ideas. There are scoundrels everywhere and the movie plays like a game of chess with real people! Mary faces one trial or tribulation after another, dealing with her turncoat brother and bisexual (second) husband as well as the local holy men. Redgrave's performance is matched by the great cast: Patrick McGoohan, Timothy Dalton, and Ian Holm (who steals his scenes as the "little Italian"). Glenda Jackson plays Queen Elizabeth and she's dynamite. Yes, the two Queens have a couple of confrontations and yes, historical purists will argue that they'd never actually met, but it doesn't matter...it's an extremely well made, well-written and even suspenseful film. This is the second film (after ISADORA) that helped to show off Redgrave's immense talent and versatility.
What a magnificent film!
aussiebrisguy26 July 2006
Even though Mary Queen of Scots and Elizabeth I, Queen of England never met, this is a brilliant film. Vanessa Redgrave is perfect in the role of Mary. She is such a wonderful actress. She plays the Scottish Queen in all her arrogance and deviousness. She looks and sounds magnificent throughout. Glenda Jackson is magnificent as Elizabeth I. She is so powerful and such a clever actress. What a great loss it is that she became a politician. Her great scene with Redgrave must be one of the classics of acting between two great actresses. Timothy Dalton is great as the devious and weak fop Lord Darnley and Nigel Davenport is incredible as the rugged Earl of Bothwell. The casting gets better with Trevor Howard as William Cecil, Ian Holm as David Rizzio and Patrick McGoohan as the half-brother James Stuart. Katherine Kath is suitably odious as Queen Catherine de Medici and Vernon Dobtcheff is highly suitable as the Duke of Guise, Mary's manipulative Uncle. Robert Fox is absolutely right as John Knox. The script is very clever, the scenery magnificent and the costumes incredible.
Double Biography
JamesHitchcock2 April 2020
Imagine that the current Queen of England is a young woman of 25. Imagine that her teenage cousin is not only Queen of a still-independent Scotland but also Queen Consort of a still-Royalist France. The two royal ladies bear a certain resemblance to one another, being tall, fair-skinned, blue-eyed, red-haired and beautiful. In this scenario the two women would doubtless also be the best of friends, their only rivalry revolving around who could achieve the most appearances on the front pages of the world's newspapers. Elizabeth would regularly be voted "World's most eligible single lady" in magazine polls and Mary and her husband King Francois "World's most glamorous couple".
Four and a half centuries ago, however, rather more was expected of a reigning monarch than turning up to the State Opening of Parliament and appearing on the cover of "Hello!". Being a Queen Regnant was a particularly difficult task, as this was a period when many believed that women, even those of royal blood, should not exercise any form of political power. (Mary's arch-enemy John Knox published a pamphlet with the splendidly bilious title "First Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstrous Regiment of Women"). If the Queen remained single as Elizabeth did, she would be accused of failing to provide the realm with an heir. If she married one of her subjects, as Mary did, she would instantly make him hated by a jealous nobility. If she married a foreign prince, as Elizabeth's sister Mary Tudor did, she would raise fears of her country falling under foreign domination. This was the era of the Reformation, so neither the Catholic Mary nor the Protestant Elizabeth could automatically count on the loyalty of those of their subjects who were of the other faith. An extra complicating factor was that Mary was Elizabeth's closest surviving relative and therefore a possible heir to the English throne, although Elizabeth never acknowledged her as such.
Mary has long been a controversial historical figure. Indeed, she was a controversial figure even in her lifetime, being forced to flee Scotland with accusations of being a "harlot" and "murderer" ringing in her ears. These accusations referred to the belief that she was guilty of adultery with her Italian secretary David Rizzio and of conniving at the murder of her estranged husband Lord Darnley, although most modern historians would take the view that there is no evidence to substantiate either charge.
The characterisation of the two Queens is similar to that in the recent film from 2018, although the 1971 version emphasises Mary's Catholic faith more strongly than does the remake. In both versions Mary is played as the more emotional and passionate, governed by her heart whereas Elizabeth is the more self-controlled and dispassionate, ruled by her head. In reality the two never met, but in the film (as in the 2018 version) they meet twice. The scriptwriters, however, are in good company; the classic German dramatist Friedrich Schiller invented a similar confrontation in his play "Maria Stuart".
Vanessa Redgrave and Glenda Jackson were two of Britain's leading actresses of this period; they have often struck me as having rather similar styles of acting, but here they give nicely differenced performances as the two contrasting queens, although Redgrave (aged 34 in 1971) perhaps seems too mature for the youthful Mary, who was only 18 when she returned to Scotland from France and only 24 when she left the country. She did not turn 34 until halfway through her imprisonment in England, a period not dealt with in any detail here.(In Schiller's play all the action takes place in England and we only hear about her life in Scotland at second hand).
I liked Nigel Davenport as Mary's third husband, Bothwell, making him rather more sympathetic than the way in which he is sometimes portrayed. He can be as ruthless as any of his enemies, but at least he comes across as sincerely loyal to Mary when everyone else seems ready to betray her in one way or another. I didn't care, however, for a pre-Bond Timothy Dalton as her second husband, Lord Darnley, who is played as childish, petulant, debauched, drunken, foul-tempered, vindictive and treacherous, with no redeeming virtues- so much so that I found it difficult to believe that Mary could have fallen in love with such a worthless individual, whose only attraction is his looks, especially as the film depicts him as a homosexual, or at least bisexual. In 1971 it was becoming acceptable for film-makers to be explicit about such matters; a decade earlier they would have had to be much more circumspect.
Having seen this film recently, for the first time in many years, I can see how much it influenced the 2018 version, which has a similar structure and similar emphases. Neither, for example, deals with Mary's childhood or her years in France, even though it was this period which formed her views and her character. (Had she been allowed to grow up in Scotland she might have been better equipped to face the challenges which confronted her as Queen). Both films are, despite their title, essentially double biographies of Elizabeth and Mary, dealing with their differing characters and with the different ways they played the hands which fate had dealt them. 7/10
Four and a half centuries ago, however, rather more was expected of a reigning monarch than turning up to the State Opening of Parliament and appearing on the cover of "Hello!". Being a Queen Regnant was a particularly difficult task, as this was a period when many believed that women, even those of royal blood, should not exercise any form of political power. (Mary's arch-enemy John Knox published a pamphlet with the splendidly bilious title "First Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstrous Regiment of Women"). If the Queen remained single as Elizabeth did, she would be accused of failing to provide the realm with an heir. If she married one of her subjects, as Mary did, she would instantly make him hated by a jealous nobility. If she married a foreign prince, as Elizabeth's sister Mary Tudor did, she would raise fears of her country falling under foreign domination. This was the era of the Reformation, so neither the Catholic Mary nor the Protestant Elizabeth could automatically count on the loyalty of those of their subjects who were of the other faith. An extra complicating factor was that Mary was Elizabeth's closest surviving relative and therefore a possible heir to the English throne, although Elizabeth never acknowledged her as such.
Mary has long been a controversial historical figure. Indeed, she was a controversial figure even in her lifetime, being forced to flee Scotland with accusations of being a "harlot" and "murderer" ringing in her ears. These accusations referred to the belief that she was guilty of adultery with her Italian secretary David Rizzio and of conniving at the murder of her estranged husband Lord Darnley, although most modern historians would take the view that there is no evidence to substantiate either charge.
The characterisation of the two Queens is similar to that in the recent film from 2018, although the 1971 version emphasises Mary's Catholic faith more strongly than does the remake. In both versions Mary is played as the more emotional and passionate, governed by her heart whereas Elizabeth is the more self-controlled and dispassionate, ruled by her head. In reality the two never met, but in the film (as in the 2018 version) they meet twice. The scriptwriters, however, are in good company; the classic German dramatist Friedrich Schiller invented a similar confrontation in his play "Maria Stuart".
Vanessa Redgrave and Glenda Jackson were two of Britain's leading actresses of this period; they have often struck me as having rather similar styles of acting, but here they give nicely differenced performances as the two contrasting queens, although Redgrave (aged 34 in 1971) perhaps seems too mature for the youthful Mary, who was only 18 when she returned to Scotland from France and only 24 when she left the country. She did not turn 34 until halfway through her imprisonment in England, a period not dealt with in any detail here.(In Schiller's play all the action takes place in England and we only hear about her life in Scotland at second hand).
I liked Nigel Davenport as Mary's third husband, Bothwell, making him rather more sympathetic than the way in which he is sometimes portrayed. He can be as ruthless as any of his enemies, but at least he comes across as sincerely loyal to Mary when everyone else seems ready to betray her in one way or another. I didn't care, however, for a pre-Bond Timothy Dalton as her second husband, Lord Darnley, who is played as childish, petulant, debauched, drunken, foul-tempered, vindictive and treacherous, with no redeeming virtues- so much so that I found it difficult to believe that Mary could have fallen in love with such a worthless individual, whose only attraction is his looks, especially as the film depicts him as a homosexual, or at least bisexual. In 1971 it was becoming acceptable for film-makers to be explicit about such matters; a decade earlier they would have had to be much more circumspect.
Having seen this film recently, for the first time in many years, I can see how much it influenced the 2018 version, which has a similar structure and similar emphases. Neither, for example, deals with Mary's childhood or her years in France, even though it was this period which formed her views and her character. (Had she been allowed to grow up in Scotland she might have been better equipped to face the challenges which confronted her as Queen). Both films are, despite their title, essentially double biographies of Elizabeth and Mary, dealing with their differing characters and with the different ways they played the hands which fate had dealt them. 7/10
Mary Queen of Scots
Tanismoon26 November 2006
I am not a die-hard fan of Miss Redgrave's, but I will acknowledge her talent as one of our finest actresses of our day. Her portrayal of Mary of Scotland is brilliant. The cast is excellent and you will find yourself engrossed in a history lesson before you realize it. Even the portrayal of John Knox is as accurate as one can get by delving into the archives. I found myself transported back into Tudor England with one of the most dysfunctional families of all time, Elizabeth I and her cousin Mary of Scotland. Both women were anointed Queens which lends to a problem situation that many did not consider for the English Hierarchy.
With both cast and acting shimmered in excellence, you will not be disappointed in this film.
With both cast and acting shimmered in excellence, you will not be disappointed in this film.
McGoohan Relaxes in an Ensemble Cast
Moor-Larkin14 November 2005
The nomination of this movie as the British Royal Film Performance may seem ironic given it's royally internecine themes of murder and attempted coups. The myth of the tragic Mary Stuart is further tangled by imagined meetings between herself and her unwilling nemesis, Elizabeth I.
Somewhat episodic, it reminded me of another Vanessa Redgrave vehicle, also involving Patrick McGoohan: "Three Sovereigns for Sarah". As that film also did, this movie attempts to tell a thirty year long story, this time starting with Mary's beginnings as a widowed teenager and not ending until her execution twenty-seven years later. This ambition dooms the film to gradually become un-involving, as the tense speeds on through the years faster than my emotional ability to keep pace.
It is certainly a worthy movie with some highlights. The grisly (Shakespearian) murder of Mary's Italian 'fancy', played by Ian Holm, is still shocking, even in today's gore-ridden movie climate. The later murder of Timothy Dalton is less startling, though more drawn out. I was impressed by Dalton's performance. He did well in his portrayal of the erratic personality of the Lord Darnley. Patrick McGoohan impresses as Mary's dour brother, ever the realist (conducting peace-keeping transactions with Glenda Jackson's English Court) but equally willing to help his irresponsible half-sister stay alive.
Mr. McGoohan is always a highlight for this reviewer. He was very restrained but still effective as the pragmatic Regent. If only the foolish Mary had listened to him, her life could have been very different (and longer).
Somewhat episodic, it reminded me of another Vanessa Redgrave vehicle, also involving Patrick McGoohan: "Three Sovereigns for Sarah". As that film also did, this movie attempts to tell a thirty year long story, this time starting with Mary's beginnings as a widowed teenager and not ending until her execution twenty-seven years later. This ambition dooms the film to gradually become un-involving, as the tense speeds on through the years faster than my emotional ability to keep pace.
It is certainly a worthy movie with some highlights. The grisly (Shakespearian) murder of Mary's Italian 'fancy', played by Ian Holm, is still shocking, even in today's gore-ridden movie climate. The later murder of Timothy Dalton is less startling, though more drawn out. I was impressed by Dalton's performance. He did well in his portrayal of the erratic personality of the Lord Darnley. Patrick McGoohan impresses as Mary's dour brother, ever the realist (conducting peace-keeping transactions with Glenda Jackson's English Court) but equally willing to help his irresponsible half-sister stay alive.
Mr. McGoohan is always a highlight for this reviewer. He was very restrained but still effective as the pragmatic Regent. If only the foolish Mary had listened to him, her life could have been very different (and longer).
o ya?
pookey5621 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
British history is a particular passion of mine, and i watched this film when it was released in theatres way back when. The gorgeous Vanessa Redgrave, and the incomparable Glenda Jackson! Who could resist viewing a film with these two actors? i felt compelled to write this very late review because i have an opinion about history recording that Mary and Elizabeth never met. Elizabeth had access and motive to meet secretly with her cousin, who's parents gave her father Henry fits. She could also control royal scribes. i personally don't believe that the two never met. And if they had, o what a scene it must have been. This film is remarkable in that. The movie was rather harsh with Elizabeth; she had passion plenty, but she put her crown and her head first. Looking at how close she came to death herself, and how improbable her accession to the throne was, i don't blame her. Technically, she was illegitimate, and Mary was a legitimate descendant of Henry VII. But Elizabeth had the sense to surround herself with loyal, political geniuses, as she herself was. Mary did not. She most likely knew about the plan to murder her husband, her cousin who shared the same grandmother.That might explain her son James and his short of divine character and physique. But he did become king, and he did unite Scotland and England in his way, despite centuries of feuding. So in spite of herself, Mary lost her head but was victorious in the end. So far, i think this is the best Mary of Scots film to date. Even after all these years, the music from this film still moves me...ever notice that the music from films about Elizabeth and Mary are usually beautiful?..and Nigel Davenport! I'm staying tuned for the hopeful 2008 release with Scarlett Johansson. It's interesting to speculate about whom they enlist as the director...
"Project Vanessa Redgrave"
biffo28 August 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Whereas most actors and actresses have to work hard to gain recognition for themselves, a select few are lucky enough to be the children of famous actors and have big budget films custom made to launch their Hollywood careers (with the clear expectancy of bagging the appropriate Oscar nomination at the end of it). This is a clear example of this, and it's painfully obvious before, during, and after watching the film.
It's a bizarre case of Mary Queen of Scots being chosen as the subject of Vanessa Redgrave's sweeping epic, rather than finding the best choice to play Mary and this leads us to the first problem - the casting of the main star. Historically, we're told that when Mary first arrived in Scotland, she got off the boat as a beautiful, impetuous young woman full of confidence and determination to triumph over the challenges that lay ahead.
When Vanessa Redgrave gets off the boat, she looks exactly what she is - 30odd years old, gaunt, pale, and a bit funny-looking with ash-blonde hair. There is NO resemblance between her and Mary, and almost instantly she starts behaving like a moron with no control over what's going on. It would have been so much better if they'd hired someone younger and gutsy, with a bit more oomph and presence. As it is, Redgrave's neurotic, wailing portrayal is unsympathetic, and she allows Mary's fatal flaws (which could have been confined simply to the character's instances of bad judgement) to be ever-present by behaving like an imbecile, always wavering and incompetent. To the audience, this babyish Mary looks as though she could never rule in a million years and it's difficult to rally round her when she gets booted off her throne as she quite frankly doesn't seem fit to sit on it.
The highly anticipated confrontation between those 'two titans' Vanessa Redgrave and Glenda Jackson (ermm... Mary and Elizabeth was it?) fails, basically because one character is so childlike she's no match for the other, while Glenda Jackson plays Elizabeth with a general lack of seriousness or depth, carelessly overacting and making the most of her comedic turns. The scenes in which they appear together are not particularly memorable and add nothing of value to the film. They also effectively reduce the two queen's relationship (which has so far been comprised of suspicion and fear of their distant rival) to nothing. Moreover, the fact that they do meet (when so famously they didn't) seriously affects the film's historical accuracy and is probably the most commonly criticized part of the film.
The depiction of Lord Darnley as a secret homosexual, complete with a repulsive femininity (another invention in the script) I found to be a cheap way of not bothering with the necessary character development to explain his awful personality and the failure of his marriage to Mary. Moreover, I found the negative depiction of homosexuality to be a bit politically incorrect (after Darnley, Mary gets herself a REAL MAN), and although the film is hardly radical in any of its views, it did bother me.
While most of the character depictions are all to hell, the script does follow the general flow of history and is at least watchable it's not nearly as silly as most modern historical dramas and has some measure of plausibility. Being a major film, the production values are good, there being some fantastic scenery and settings with very good, accurate costumes. The music is very spirited and atmospheric, somewhat spurring the film along and adding feeling in areas where script and acting fail.
All in all it is a shame because the subject matter is so rich in material, full of vibrant characters just waiting to brought to life but instead of utilizing this, the script writer just has the entire supporting cast tip-toeing around Redgrave as she hogs the screen. Although it is by far superior to Jimmy McGovern's very bad 'Gunpowder, Plot and Treason' (2003), 'Mary, Queen of Scots' hardly stands out as a work of any great ingenuity or greatness (especially considering how many great films came out in 1971) and, set against the backdrop of other historical epics, the film is easily swamped and very easy to surpass.
It's a bizarre case of Mary Queen of Scots being chosen as the subject of Vanessa Redgrave's sweeping epic, rather than finding the best choice to play Mary and this leads us to the first problem - the casting of the main star. Historically, we're told that when Mary first arrived in Scotland, she got off the boat as a beautiful, impetuous young woman full of confidence and determination to triumph over the challenges that lay ahead.
When Vanessa Redgrave gets off the boat, she looks exactly what she is - 30odd years old, gaunt, pale, and a bit funny-looking with ash-blonde hair. There is NO resemblance between her and Mary, and almost instantly she starts behaving like a moron with no control over what's going on. It would have been so much better if they'd hired someone younger and gutsy, with a bit more oomph and presence. As it is, Redgrave's neurotic, wailing portrayal is unsympathetic, and she allows Mary's fatal flaws (which could have been confined simply to the character's instances of bad judgement) to be ever-present by behaving like an imbecile, always wavering and incompetent. To the audience, this babyish Mary looks as though she could never rule in a million years and it's difficult to rally round her when she gets booted off her throne as she quite frankly doesn't seem fit to sit on it.
The highly anticipated confrontation between those 'two titans' Vanessa Redgrave and Glenda Jackson (ermm... Mary and Elizabeth was it?) fails, basically because one character is so childlike she's no match for the other, while Glenda Jackson plays Elizabeth with a general lack of seriousness or depth, carelessly overacting and making the most of her comedic turns. The scenes in which they appear together are not particularly memorable and add nothing of value to the film. They also effectively reduce the two queen's relationship (which has so far been comprised of suspicion and fear of their distant rival) to nothing. Moreover, the fact that they do meet (when so famously they didn't) seriously affects the film's historical accuracy and is probably the most commonly criticized part of the film.
The depiction of Lord Darnley as a secret homosexual, complete with a repulsive femininity (another invention in the script) I found to be a cheap way of not bothering with the necessary character development to explain his awful personality and the failure of his marriage to Mary. Moreover, I found the negative depiction of homosexuality to be a bit politically incorrect (after Darnley, Mary gets herself a REAL MAN), and although the film is hardly radical in any of its views, it did bother me.
While most of the character depictions are all to hell, the script does follow the general flow of history and is at least watchable it's not nearly as silly as most modern historical dramas and has some measure of plausibility. Being a major film, the production values are good, there being some fantastic scenery and settings with very good, accurate costumes. The music is very spirited and atmospheric, somewhat spurring the film along and adding feeling in areas where script and acting fail.
All in all it is a shame because the subject matter is so rich in material, full of vibrant characters just waiting to brought to life but instead of utilizing this, the script writer just has the entire supporting cast tip-toeing around Redgrave as she hogs the screen. Although it is by far superior to Jimmy McGovern's very bad 'Gunpowder, Plot and Treason' (2003), 'Mary, Queen of Scots' hardly stands out as a work of any great ingenuity or greatness (especially considering how many great films came out in 1971) and, set against the backdrop of other historical epics, the film is easily swamped and very easy to surpass.
A captivating story, brought to life incredibly well.
Sleepin_Dragon25 September 2020
This decadent, glorious film brings to life one of the most fascinating stories of conflict and betrayal among Royals.
Despite never meeting Elizabeth and Mary had a monumental impact on one another's lives, this film shows the impact each had on the other, how one was infiltrated as it were, and the other had to live with the consequences of her actions.
It is sumptuous, the costumes and set designs are spellbinding, but it's the performances that make this film so great, Redgrave is strong, but gentle, very measured, Jackson of course is iconic, and was born to play the part, nobody else even comes close, how wonderful that the legendary actress returned to the screens after politics, her award for Elizabeth is Missing so well deserved.
It's a fascinating story, and of course they have taken a few liberties, but the essence of the conflict is visible, and expertly played out.
I came to this having watched the disastrous 2018 adaptation. It doesn't hold a candle to this exquisite adaptation.
Fabulous, 10/10.
Despite never meeting Elizabeth and Mary had a monumental impact on one another's lives, this film shows the impact each had on the other, how one was infiltrated as it were, and the other had to live with the consequences of her actions.
It is sumptuous, the costumes and set designs are spellbinding, but it's the performances that make this film so great, Redgrave is strong, but gentle, very measured, Jackson of course is iconic, and was born to play the part, nobody else even comes close, how wonderful that the legendary actress returned to the screens after politics, her award for Elizabeth is Missing so well deserved.
It's a fascinating story, and of course they have taken a few liberties, but the essence of the conflict is visible, and expertly played out.
I came to this having watched the disastrous 2018 adaptation. It doesn't hold a candle to this exquisite adaptation.
Fabulous, 10/10.
Mary meets Elizabeth (2)
dbdumonteil8 March 2006
In Ford's movie featuring Katherine Hepburn ,we already attended a meeting between the two queens.And with two actresses as fascinating as Redgrave and Jackson,Charles Jarrot felt compelled to film two scenes with both of them.Historically,they never met.And Bothwell was not a romantic knight but a hairy brute.The Lochleven episode and Mary's escape are passed over in silence and however what a suspenseful story it was! On the other hand,Maurey (James Stuart)'s part is more prominent than in the previous film ,which is a good thing.The prologue in France in Chenonceaux "le Château des Dames " is welcome too:Mary's life in France was sweet ,probably the happiest time in her life although mother-in-law Catherine de Medicis did not like her.With hindsight,it's easy to see why she could not cope with the harshness of her native country where,in spite of her three crowns , she remained a papist.
The two great thespians get excellent support from all the male cast:Thimoty Dalton gives a Shakespearian performance as Darnley,Ian Holm is equally good as Riccio.The cinematography is lavish and the story is never dull.I saw the movie when it was theatrically released and every time it's on the telly,I watch it again.
Despite Queen Elizabeth's appearance ,the ending seems more historically accurate than in the 1936 version:before her death,the queen did not think of Boswell anymore,she wanted to become a martyr to catholicism.And so she died.
The two great thespians get excellent support from all the male cast:Thimoty Dalton gives a Shakespearian performance as Darnley,Ian Holm is equally good as Riccio.The cinematography is lavish and the story is never dull.I saw the movie when it was theatrically released and every time it's on the telly,I watch it again.
Despite Queen Elizabeth's appearance ,the ending seems more historically accurate than in the 1936 version:before her death,the queen did not think of Boswell anymore,she wanted to become a martyr to catholicism.And so she died.
Pretty thin stuff beneath all the showboating.
ianlouisiana16 December 2008
Warning: Spoilers
As befits seasoned Shakespearian thesps,Miss Jackson and Miss Redgrave emote at the drop of a hat.Elizabeth,stubborn,toughened by years of enforced absence from Court,backed by wise advisors,Mary,stubborn,weakened by years of sycophancy at the effete French court,surrounded by hotheads.Miss Jackson goes for it as if she was auditioning for a part as Pirate Queen,she is barely restrained from smacking her thigh.Miss Redgrave,pale and dull,a mousy Desdemona. This sort of stuff may have them standing on their seats at Stratford on Avon but is hugely OTT on the screen. This basic error is compounded by the appalling performance by Mr Patrick Mcgoohan as Mary's brother,James.His attempt at a Scottish accent is frankly embarrassing.Mr Nigel Davenport as Bothwell is equally bad but at least he has the good grace to tone it down a bit. Mr Ian Holm seems to have no idea what his accent is supposed to be, a condition I suspect that will be shared by many viewers. It is left to a very young Mr Timothy Dalton to supply what entertainment "Mary Queen of Scots" provides as he pillages Olivier's bleach - blond "Hamlet"and turns that gloomy Dane into a camp aristo. Never a true villain,he is arch when he should be terrifying. Apart from a perfunctory rape which presumably results in King James,his role seems to be as GBF to the Queen. Unfortunately many people seem to see "Mary Queen of Scots" as a great historical movie.In truth it is about as accurate as "Carry on Henry" and nowhere near as funny.
Outstanding Acting!
Tim Ewing19 June 2002
Vanessa Redgrave portrays an excellent Queen of Scots in this film; Mary Stuart's frivolity, passion for life, religious devotion, and emotion-stirring conscience is perfectly captured by this talented actress. Similarly, the vanity, arrogance, and evil self-assuredness of the weakling Henry Lord Darnley shone through in Timothy Dalton's words and actions. But, without desecrating the skills displayed by Dalton and Redgrave, I was riveted by the scenes in the English Court. Glenda Jackson, as Elizabeth of England, has completely captured the hearts and imaginations of the audience as the best actress to ever play the Virgin Queen, and as I watched her manipulate her Catholic enemies and rise above the snares of danger that her fellow Queen blindly stumbled into, I was amazed at her complete understanding of the role. In my opinion, Elizabeth can be no easy character to portray, but Jackson clearly demonstrates a clear knowledge of the complicated workings of this Queen's mind. Also wonderfully brought to life are the struggles for approval amongst her leading ministers, William Cecil (played by Trevor Howard) and Robert Dudley (Daniel Massey). Cecil's endless determination to lead the Queen in best interests of the nation are admirable, and Dudley's endless devotion (though sometimes portrayed as ambition and avarice) is touching. Unfortunately, the script seems to rush through the complicated and fascinating tale of the Queen of Scots' harrowing 7 years on her Scotch throne. All in all, I recommend this movie to anyone interested in Mary, or, even if your tastes run more to Elizabeth than her impulsive cousin, I believe you will be more than satisfied.
Mary, Queen of Scots
jboothmillard15 December 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I watched this film previously when I was in college, but almost forgot all about it, it was only with the release of the new movie of the same name with Saoirse Ronan and Margot Robbie that I rediscovered it, and I'm glad I got to watch it again. Basically in 1560, Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots (Oscar and Golden Globe nominated Vanessa Redgrave), returns to her native land following the death of her husband. Her half-brother James Stewart, Earl of Moray (The Prisoner's Patrick McGoohan) has ambitions to rule, and knows that Mary is young and inexperienced, he suggests she enjoy herself. Queen Elizabeth I of England (Golden Globe nominated Glenda Jackson) fears that Mary has ambitions to to the throne of England, so she sends ambitious Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester (Daniel Massey) to distract her, by wooing her. Elizabeth promises that Mary will become her heir if she agrees to marry Dudley, but she also sends younger, dashing but weak and spoiled Lord Darnley (Timothy Dalton) as another distraction. Mary is tempted by Darnley and chooses him for marriage, ignoring the protests of Moray, she even exiles him to strengthen her own authority. Soon after the wedding, bratty Darnley throws a childish temper tantrum, complaining that he has no real power, a disillusioned Mary soon banishes him, and frequently consults with Italian courtier David Riccio (Ian Holm). Darnley is persuaded by a group of Scottish lords to help get rid of Riccio, whom they murder in Mary's presence. Lord Bothwell (Nigel Davenport, Jacks father) has been an ally of Mary since her arrival in Scotland, he helps her to escape the plotters. After she forces Moray, Darnley and Bothwell to make a truce, she gives birth to a son, James, who is expected to succeed both Mary and the unmarried, childless Elizabeth. Peace is short-lived, Darnley still wants power, though by now he is hideously scarred and already dying of syphilis (the pox), Mary pities him, but finds herself falling in love with Bothwell. Following a failed assassination attempt, Darnley is strangled to death, while Mary marries Bothwell, and Moray rejoins the Scottish lords and leads a rebellion against them. Moray forces Mary to abdicate and is driven with her husband into exile, Mary to England and Bothwell to Denmark, meaning Mary's young son James is to be crowned King of Scotland. In England, Mary begs Elizabeth for money and an army to regain her throne, instead Elizabeth takes her prisoner, locking her in a luxury room in a remote castle. Elizabeth's closest advisor, Sir William Cecil (Trevor Howard), is anxious to get rid of Mary, Elizabeth fears sentencing her to death will set a precedent, that her Catholic subjects will rebel and cause problems with powerful France and Spain. As a result, Mary is doomed to never-ending captivity, she half-heartedly plots her escape, but ultimately becomes comfortable in her luxurious seclusion, occupying herself with a lazy daily schedule. With the help of his associate Walsingham (Richard Warner), Cecil finds evidence of Mary's involvement in the conspiracy to assassinate Elizabeth known as the Babington Plot. Finally Elizabeth confronts Mary in a secret meeting, Elizabeth offers her mercy if she begs for forgiveness, but Mary refuses. Mary accepts her fate, enduring the trial, conviction and execution, as she knows her son James will ultimately succeed to the throne of England. Also starring Tom Fleming as Father Ballard, Jeremy Bulloch as Andrew, Beth Harris as Mary Seton, Frances White as Mary Fleming, Maria Aitken as Lady Bothwell and The Spy Who Loved Me's Vernon Dobtcheff as Duc De Guise. I will admit I did not understand much of what was going on, especially all the political chat, only the opposition between the queens and the conflict between their nations, but to be honest, it is much more about the performances. Redgrave and Jackson are both terrific as the monarchs at loggerheads, it is fact that Mary Stuart and Queen Elizabeth did not meet in real life, but the scene created for them to do so does work well, and the performances of supporting cast members Dalton (young, with blonde hair?), Holm, Davenport and Howard are also well done, what I did understand worked well, it is written well, and the period detail is splendid, all together it is a worthwhile historical drama. It was nominated the Oscars for Best Art Direction-Set Decoration, Best Costume Design, Best Music for John Barry and Best Sound, and it was nominated the Golden Globes for Best Motion Picture - Drama, Best Original Score and Best Screenplay. Good!
Wonderfully atmospheric music and locations, excellent pacing, and especially wonderful performances by Redgrave, McGoohan, and the compellingly handsome Nigel Davenport.
Rogue-1815 August 1999
A visually lush, beautifully-acted treatment of the compelling story of Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots--refreshingly, not slanted in favor of Mary's English opponents. Along with massive doses of romance, the film provides an interesting depiction of the long-distance tension between Mary and her Cousin, Elizabeth I of England, and the forces at work in the courts of continental Europe and of England and Scotland that made Mary's life hazardous from the moment she set foot on Scottish soil. This is above all a vivid portrait of the interrelationships of fascinating personalities--none more so than those of the Queen, played with riveting and unselfconscious elegance by Vanessa Redgrave, and her great love Lord Bothwell--in which role the gifted and compellingly attractive Nigel Davenport is perfectly cast.
Extremely Episodic, but lovely
lavignebiz11 June 2017
I saw this movie in the theater when it came out and haven't seen it since -- until now. I got it from the library on a double pack with Anne of the Thousand Days, which I also saw in the theater and until now hadn't seen it again.
I know far more about Mary now than I did at the time, and while the majority of the story focuses, as it should, on Mary, which Redgrave plays incandescently, the script is extremely episodic. Having been to Scotland several times, and visited places where Mary dwelled, I was so hoping to see structures similar, especially the Palace at Holyrood.
I saw the Donmar Warehouse production of Mary Stuart in New York, and a year later the opera, both of which are as lovely as this is, but I missed the authenticity here. I doubt I'll see this one again!
I know far more about Mary now than I did at the time, and while the majority of the story focuses, as it should, on Mary, which Redgrave plays incandescently, the script is extremely episodic. Having been to Scotland several times, and visited places where Mary dwelled, I was so hoping to see structures similar, especially the Palace at Holyrood.
I saw the Donmar Warehouse production of Mary Stuart in New York, and a year later the opera, both of which are as lovely as this is, but I missed the authenticity here. I doubt I'll see this one again!
Sacrificing For The Realm You Rule
bkoganbing27 April 2010
The tragedy of Mary Stuart of Scotland is that she never could put boundaries between her heart and her needs and the necessity of sacrificing those for the realm you rule. This is the contrast that so many writers have been fascinated with, the contrast between her cousin and rival Elizabeth of England.
Mary, Queen of Scots has the story start where it properly belongs in France where the Queen Consort of the sickly Francis II has two deaths happen to her which forever alter her life. Her husband the king and her mother Mary Of Guise who has been ruling Scotland as regent for her daughter. At the same time Mary attains her majority and decides to rule in Scotland as her mother-in-law Katherine Kath playing Catherine DeMedici really doesn't want her around.
Her brothers the Duke of Guise and Cardinal Guise belonged to a family that was described as more Catholic than the Pope. They were real big on stamping out the Protestant heresy which was growing on the British Isles. Her mission was bring back the old religion.
Like John Ford's Mary Of Scotland the film turns on the performances and rivalries Vanessa Redgrave as Mary and Glenda Jackson as Elizabeth. Katharine Hepburn and Florence Eldridge played Mary and Elizabeth in the Ford film and Redgrave and Jackson are every bit their equal. Jackson in fact probably made Elizabeth I her career role because this same year she starred in a six part mini-series for the BBC, Elizabeth R. The story of Mary and Elizabeth is part of that as well.
Mary made her decisions impulsively and was as likely to consult her hormones before her gray cells. She married three times first to Francis (Richard Denning), then Lord Darnley played by Timothy Dalton, and finally and most impulsively Lord Bothwell played by Nigel Davenport who threw his own wife out. Each was a different type of man, but all the marriages ended disastrously. With Darnley she gave birth to James who became James VI of Scotland and eventually James I of England.
Elizabeth on the other hand had her passions, but her realm always came first. Glenda Jackson is quite the calculating machine, her scene with Trevor Howard as her chief minister William Cecil where she sends both Dalton and her lover Daniel Massey as Robert Dudley later Earl Of Leicester to Mary and explaining how if Mary chooses either, she Elizabeth will wind up a winner. We call it a win/win situation six centuries later, but Elizabeth was a tough survivor and was lucky to be Queen. That took an incredible combination of circumstances and to get an idea about that one should see the Jean Simmons film, Young Bess.
The smartest guy in the film is Patrick McGoohan who plays the Earl Of Moray. He was Mary Stuart's illegitimate half brother, a tried and true Protestant, but knew how to play the religious and political game which blended so often in that and the next two centuries. If Mary had listened to him, she'd have died a Queen although maybe without all the royal prerogatives.
Mary, Queen Of Scots's story has been told on stage, screen, and even the grand opera. It's one about human frailty and losing all for love and every human on planet earth can identify with that. This telling of the story of Mary, Queen Of Scots is a good one, but by no means will be the last.
Mary, Queen of Scots has the story start where it properly belongs in France where the Queen Consort of the sickly Francis II has two deaths happen to her which forever alter her life. Her husband the king and her mother Mary Of Guise who has been ruling Scotland as regent for her daughter. At the same time Mary attains her majority and decides to rule in Scotland as her mother-in-law Katherine Kath playing Catherine DeMedici really doesn't want her around.
Her brothers the Duke of Guise and Cardinal Guise belonged to a family that was described as more Catholic than the Pope. They were real big on stamping out the Protestant heresy which was growing on the British Isles. Her mission was bring back the old religion.
Like John Ford's Mary Of Scotland the film turns on the performances and rivalries Vanessa Redgrave as Mary and Glenda Jackson as Elizabeth. Katharine Hepburn and Florence Eldridge played Mary and Elizabeth in the Ford film and Redgrave and Jackson are every bit their equal. Jackson in fact probably made Elizabeth I her career role because this same year she starred in a six part mini-series for the BBC, Elizabeth R. The story of Mary and Elizabeth is part of that as well.
Mary made her decisions impulsively and was as likely to consult her hormones before her gray cells. She married three times first to Francis (Richard Denning), then Lord Darnley played by Timothy Dalton, and finally and most impulsively Lord Bothwell played by Nigel Davenport who threw his own wife out. Each was a different type of man, but all the marriages ended disastrously. With Darnley she gave birth to James who became James VI of Scotland and eventually James I of England.
Elizabeth on the other hand had her passions, but her realm always came first. Glenda Jackson is quite the calculating machine, her scene with Trevor Howard as her chief minister William Cecil where she sends both Dalton and her lover Daniel Massey as Robert Dudley later Earl Of Leicester to Mary and explaining how if Mary chooses either, she Elizabeth will wind up a winner. We call it a win/win situation six centuries later, but Elizabeth was a tough survivor and was lucky to be Queen. That took an incredible combination of circumstances and to get an idea about that one should see the Jean Simmons film, Young Bess.
The smartest guy in the film is Patrick McGoohan who plays the Earl Of Moray. He was Mary Stuart's illegitimate half brother, a tried and true Protestant, but knew how to play the religious and political game which blended so often in that and the next two centuries. If Mary had listened to him, she'd have died a Queen although maybe without all the royal prerogatives.
Mary, Queen Of Scots's story has been told on stage, screen, and even the grand opera. It's one about human frailty and losing all for love and every human on planet earth can identify with that. This telling of the story of Mary, Queen Of Scots is a good one, but by no means will be the last.
MARY, QUEEN OF SCOTS (Charles Jarrott, 1971) ***
Bunuel197617 January 2009
A follow-up to the prestigious historical epic ANNE OF THE THOUSAND DAYS (1969) which reunites several crew members (producer Hal Wallis, director Jarrott, screenwriter John Hale, costume designer Margaret Furse, etc.) and resumes the bloody Tudor saga. The same events had been previously filmed in Hollywood by John Ford as MARY OF Scotland (1936) with Katharine Hepburn (as Mary Stuart), Fredric March (as Bothwell) and his real-life actress wife Florence Eldridge (as Queen Elizabeth I); here these same roles are played by Vanessa Redgrave who had already appeared (as Elizabeth's mother, Anne Boleyn) in the magnificent A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS (1966), Nigel Davenport (ditto) and Glenda Jackson (who was currently starring as the same English monarch on British TV) and, like its above-mentioned predecessor (albeit to a lesser extent), the film found favor at awards ceremonies of the day with both Redgrave and Jackson being up for Oscar (the former) and Golden Globes (both). Also singled out was composer John Barry for his beautiful score, the somewhat disjointed script and, inevitably, the lavish costumes and sets. Still, where the film impresses most is in the performances of the ensemble cast: apart from those already pointed out, we also have Patrick McGoohan (who just died at 80 as Mary's devious half-brother James), Trevor Howard (as the English Queen's wily chief adviser), Timothy Dalton (as Mary's second and tyrannical husband), Daniel Massey (as Elizabeth's ambitious lover), Ian Holm (as Mary's link to the Vatican) and Andrew Keir (as a Scottish lord). As befits the time in which it was made, I suppose, side by side with the classiness on display, we have to contend with tastelessly 'accurate' portrayals of everybody's bed-hopping and histrionic antics from a red-headed Dalton's seduction of minstrel man-spy Holm to Redgrave's elopement with newly-married lord Davenport to Jackson's long-term and tempestuous relationship with the equally married Massey. For the record, I have a handful of other films dealing with the Tudors on my "To Watch" list but I decided to get to this sooner rather than later in view of McGoohan's passing.
Mary, Queen of Scots - Ruled by Her Heart
JLRMovieReviews9 November 2009
Queen Elizabeth I has been the central figure of many movies and has been portrayed by many great actresses, and now Mary, Queen of Scots gets her turn in the spotlight. Katharine Hepburn portrayed her in "Mary of Scotland," of which I have not seen lately. But Vanessa Redgrave was truly exquisite as Mary, fleshing her out and making her a naive and vulnerable person who was ruled by her heart and her passion instead of her reason and her mind, which would lead to her downfall.
Sidebar: I love Bette Davis and all (who was Queen Elizabeth I in "The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex" and "The Virgin Queen"), but as of this writing, I consider at least two actresses to be better at portraying Elizabeth: #1 Cate Blanchett in "Elizabeth" and #2 Glenda Jackson here in this film. Flora Robson was very good, too, for "Fire Over England," which would be my #3 or tied for second.
But getting back to the movie, if you want to see Vanessa and Glenda at their best, this is a must see for movie fans, even if liberties were taken with the facts. Take them, if they must. Just don't stop making movies like this one!
Sidebar: I love Bette Davis and all (who was Queen Elizabeth I in "The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex" and "The Virgin Queen"), but as of this writing, I consider at least two actresses to be better at portraying Elizabeth: #1 Cate Blanchett in "Elizabeth" and #2 Glenda Jackson here in this film. Flora Robson was very good, too, for "Fire Over England," which would be my #3 or tied for second.
But getting back to the movie, if you want to see Vanessa and Glenda at their best, this is a must see for movie fans, even if liberties were taken with the facts. Take them, if they must. Just don't stop making movies like this one!
Decent film with a few flaws, but worth a viewing
NellsFlickers11 April 2020
Being an American who learned very little about the European monarchies, I can't even BEGIN to understand the historical intricacies and familial relations between all of the characters in this film. Therefore, I won't even TRY to get into the plot.
This isn't my type of movie, but I had to cross it off my McGoohan Filmography to-see list. It was well enough made that I did indeed watch the whole thing, even if I was a bit confused as to who was a good guy and who wasn't! Costumes are good, as is photography.
Patrick McGoohan is Mary's half-brother James Stuart, and he IS a bad guy... sort of... I think... Other than the Scottish accent, he does his usual good job, though I sure wish there was more of him in this film. I don't know why they didn't cast him as William Cecil instead of Trevor Howard, perhaps he wasn't old enough. Otherwise, casting is good, though I think Glenda Jackson as Elizabeth was ever so slightly "off" as far as her looks. Vanessa Redgrave does a good job though the character seems a bit "daft". Dalton makes Lord Darnley downright hiss-worthy. His blonde hair made me not even know it was him! His scenes with Ian Holm add to the hiss-worthiness.
My historical confusion made me think the last 1/4 of the film was a bit rushed. All of a sudden, Mary is (I think) let into England by her brother, she meets Elizabeth, and then she's in prison. Next thing you know, she's executed. Perhaps this stretch of history is worthy of a movie of it's own, and was left out to focus on the relationship between the two queens.
Which reminds me, as far as I have read elsewhere, they never did meet. Just in this movie.
So if you like this style of movie, you should like this one. There are a few flaws, but don't let them turn you away from it.
This isn't my type of movie, but I had to cross it off my McGoohan Filmography to-see list. It was well enough made that I did indeed watch the whole thing, even if I was a bit confused as to who was a good guy and who wasn't! Costumes are good, as is photography.
Patrick McGoohan is Mary's half-brother James Stuart, and he IS a bad guy... sort of... I think... Other than the Scottish accent, he does his usual good job, though I sure wish there was more of him in this film. I don't know why they didn't cast him as William Cecil instead of Trevor Howard, perhaps he wasn't old enough. Otherwise, casting is good, though I think Glenda Jackson as Elizabeth was ever so slightly "off" as far as her looks. Vanessa Redgrave does a good job though the character seems a bit "daft". Dalton makes Lord Darnley downright hiss-worthy. His blonde hair made me not even know it was him! His scenes with Ian Holm add to the hiss-worthiness.
My historical confusion made me think the last 1/4 of the film was a bit rushed. All of a sudden, Mary is (I think) let into England by her brother, she meets Elizabeth, and then she's in prison. Next thing you know, she's executed. Perhaps this stretch of history is worthy of a movie of it's own, and was left out to focus on the relationship between the two queens.
Which reminds me, as far as I have read elsewhere, they never did meet. Just in this movie.
So if you like this style of movie, you should like this one. There are a few flaws, but don't let them turn you away from it.
A glimpse into turbulent times of monarchy struggles
lora6423 December 2001
This is a marvellous, very dynamic film, downright tempestuous from scene to scene. I'm thankful that in modern times monarchies are not so riddled with intrigue and violence, being mostly symbolic figureheads in our day, at least for those nations that still embrace monarchy.
Vanessa Redgrave is outstanding as Mary Stuart and I consider it as one of her finest performances. Nigel Davenport as the Earl of Bothwell provides a strong supporting role, a very stolid actor who does well in the romantic lead as Mary's true love. I've also greatly admired his acting in "A Man For All Seasons," my favorite movie. Trevor Howard as Sir William carries himself splendidly. However, for Glenda Jackson there isn't that much to say. Her role as Queen Elizabeth lacks depth somehow. There isn't the same subtlety of feeling being expressed as one finds with Ms Redgrave's role who takes us through a wide range of emotions.
The opening music is a haunting melody sung in French, very beautiful indeed. The costumes by the way are sumptuous and resplendent. I've seen this movie often and appreciate it more each time!
Vanessa Redgrave is outstanding as Mary Stuart and I consider it as one of her finest performances. Nigel Davenport as the Earl of Bothwell provides a strong supporting role, a very stolid actor who does well in the romantic lead as Mary's true love. I've also greatly admired his acting in "A Man For All Seasons," my favorite movie. Trevor Howard as Sir William carries himself splendidly. However, for Glenda Jackson there isn't that much to say. Her role as Queen Elizabeth lacks depth somehow. There isn't the same subtlety of feeling being expressed as one finds with Ms Redgrave's role who takes us through a wide range of emotions.
The opening music is a haunting melody sung in French, very beautiful indeed. The costumes by the way are sumptuous and resplendent. I've seen this movie often and appreciate it more each time!
Historical Drama With a Strong Cast
gpeevers12 June 2009
Warning: Spoilers
While this is not great movie, it is still an enjoyable one, especially if you have an interest in historical dramas. Despite its title the film is not just the story of Mary Queen of Scots (Vanessa Redgrave) but is also the story of her cousin Queen Elizabeth (Glenda Jackson).
The film features a couple of great performances from Redgrave and Jackson who are both Oscar winning actresses. The picture has some good supporting performances from veterans such as; Patrick McGoohan, Trevor Howard, Nigel Davenport as well as such relative newcomers as Ian Holm and Timothy Dalton.
In addition to the fine performances I've already mentioned the film also looks very good and features some very nice locations. The film also boasts a very good score from composer John Barry, who won a number of Oscars for his work and his perhaps best known for his numerous Bond scores.
Despite these strengths though the film only rates a 7 for me. Although I can find no glaring faults, I believe my problems lie mostly with the story structure and the inability of the film to build either sufficient emotion or tension. While the inter-cutting of the two stories seems interesting perhaps it was a mistake to structure the story in such a way. Further the secondary characters are perhaps to numerous as many disappear rather quickly without sufficient resolution.
As iconic as Cate Blanchett has become of late in her portrayals of Queen Elizabeth, at one time Glenda Jackson virtually owned the role with both this film and an Emmy winning performance in Elizabeth R.
The film features a couple of great performances from Redgrave and Jackson who are both Oscar winning actresses. The picture has some good supporting performances from veterans such as; Patrick McGoohan, Trevor Howard, Nigel Davenport as well as such relative newcomers as Ian Holm and Timothy Dalton.
In addition to the fine performances I've already mentioned the film also looks very good and features some very nice locations. The film also boasts a very good score from composer John Barry, who won a number of Oscars for his work and his perhaps best known for his numerous Bond scores.
Despite these strengths though the film only rates a 7 for me. Although I can find no glaring faults, I believe my problems lie mostly with the story structure and the inability of the film to build either sufficient emotion or tension. While the inter-cutting of the two stories seems interesting perhaps it was a mistake to structure the story in such a way. Further the secondary characters are perhaps to numerous as many disappear rather quickly without sufficient resolution.
As iconic as Cate Blanchett has become of late in her portrayals of Queen Elizabeth, at one time Glenda Jackson virtually owned the role with both this film and an Emmy winning performance in Elizabeth R.
Nice costumes
eyesour29 March 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Nice castles. Nice scenery. Pity about the phony accents, acting, writing, direction. The story of the wretched and unfortunate Mary is one ghastly never-ending muddle and mess, end to end. I never did manage to sort out the ramifications of her dealings with the Catholics and Protestants, the King of France, Darnley, Bothwell and Rizzio, not to mention her half-brother, and this screenplay is no help. It is talkative, and presumably this is why Mary and Elizabeth are presented as meeting not once but twice, but very little is made clearer by these silly, pointless, fictitious encounters.
The actors come across as puppets pulled around by strings, spouting unconvincing artificial dialogue. Vanessa is far too physically angular, and unsympathetic, to play Mary; Glenda looks unwell throughout. McGoohan seems unusually constipated. None of these characters, Darnley, Bothwell, and so on seem at all real, let alone royal. Anyone less likely to go mad than Nigel Davenport is difficult to imagine. This is not a good film. Five Oscar nominations ? Incredible. Trevor Howard wasn't too bad. All the other Tudor film histories are better than this one.
The actors come across as puppets pulled around by strings, spouting unconvincing artificial dialogue. Vanessa is far too physically angular, and unsympathetic, to play Mary; Glenda looks unwell throughout. McGoohan seems unusually constipated. None of these characters, Darnley, Bothwell, and so on seem at all real, let alone royal. Anyone less likely to go mad than Nigel Davenport is difficult to imagine. This is not a good film. Five Oscar nominations ? Incredible. Trevor Howard wasn't too bad. All the other Tudor film histories are better than this one.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
