Mary Queen of Scots

Focus Features | Release Date: December 7, 2018

5.5	USER SCORE Mixed or average reviews based on 115 Ratings

USER RATING DISTRIBUTION

Positive:

Mixed:

Negative:

Watch Now

Buy on

Stream On

Expand

Review this movie

VOTE NOW

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Please sign in or create an account before writing a review.

Check box if your review contains spoilers

0 characters (5000 max)

User Reviews

User score By date Most helpful

imthenoobFeb 20, 2019

Fantastic performances by Ronan and Robbie. The rest of the cast, especially David Tennant, do a great job in their bit parts as well. That doesn't stop the film from being freaking boring though. So very little happens onscreen and most ofFantastic performances by Ronan and Robbie. The rest of the cast, especially David Tennant, do a great job in their bit parts as well. That doesn't stop the film from being freaking boring though. So very little happens onscreen and most of it just comes off as typical soap opera drama, It's boring and it fails to maintain your interest throughout. So as much as the cast tries, The material they were given fails to bring anything to the table but that's to be expected. Most historical drams fail to capitalize on the source material.… Expand

4 of 4 users found this helpful40

All this user's reviews

HannibalBMar 3, 2019

The cinematography is good and the acting is adequate, but these virtues can't save this piece of garbage. The story is soporific. The characters aren't people, they're representatives of various groups, and so lack any sense of individualThe cinematography is good and the acting is adequate, but these virtues can't save this piece of garbage. The story is soporific. The characters aren't people, they're representatives of various groups, and so lack any sense of individual personhood. This is a movie with some very trite messages and no life, no personality, no heart. It's like a Sunday School lesson in the Church of Current Morality without a hint of art except for the stilted dialogue, which is thoroughly unengaging. I watched the whole thing, but I gave up trying to follow what was happening about halfway through. The tone is imposed by fiat. The pace does nothing to serve the film except get us from beginning to end. It just plugged along from one pretty tableau to the next without variation or any sense of impending catharsis. Bad script, bad director, bad editing.… Expand

4 of 4 users found this helpful40

All this user's reviews

JoeCoolMar 24, 2019

Although the story might be quite interesting to some, it did not appeal to me personally and I found myself quite bored after about half an hour. I don't think the actors or actresses are to blame for this as I thought the performancesAlthough the story might be quite interesting to some, it did not appeal to me personally and I found myself quite bored after about half an hour. I don't think the actors or actresses are to blame for this as I thought the performances passable though far from splendid. And it wasn't so much the historical inaccuracies but mostly that the storytelling was too bland to keep me even somewhat interested. I can't recommend this one to anyone without a special interest in this Scottisch-English (hi)story.… Expand

2 of 2 users found this helpful20

All this user's reviews

YeetusMcGeetusNov 6, 2019

Pretty terrible. There is no way around it! I could not even finish the movie without falling asleep from boredom.

2 of 2 users found this helpful20

All this user's reviews

QuartzcatFeb 4, 2020

Horribly Historically inaccurate in the name of diversity. Pointless boring film.

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

Zeus_plJan 18, 2019

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. An awful movie with weak screenplay.

Titular character is annoying, mentally unstable and barks at everyone. Despite the fact that she spent her whole life in France she speaks with strong (Irish?) accent?

All her 3 husbands were portrayed as weak mean. First came before they even started so she never felt a man, second one was homosexual and she had to force him to have sex with violence (he didn't have problem giving her oral sex before that...) and third one was a fool who raped here.

She kept close a gay minstrel who on her wedding night slept with her husband. Despite that she asked him to never change and be true to his nature until he was murdered by royals and jealous gay husband.

Black and Asian people people on British courts in historic drama...

It feels like this movie was made top push some ideological agenda and not to tell a story.… Expand

5 of 6 users found this helpful51

All this user's reviews

GreatMartinDec 25, 2018

In 1933 in a play by Maxwell Anderson called "Mary of Scotland " he was first to imagine a meeting between Queen Elizabeth of England and Queen Mary that never took place. Three years later it was made into a movie starring Katherine HepburnIn 1933 in a play by Maxwell Anderson called "Mary of Scotland " he was first to imagine a meeting between Queen Elizabeth of England and Queen Mary that never took place. Three years later it was made into a movie starring Katherine Hepburn as Mary and Florence Eldridge as Elizabeth. In 1936 Bette Davis got an Oscar nomination playing Elizabeth in "The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex" and that is the Elizabeth I remember 82 years later. She would do the role again in "The Virgin Queen" 1955 and Mary is only mentioned in passing. Through the years, on television, theatre and other movies both Mary and Elizabeth have been portrayed by other actresses but these I have mentioned immediately came to mind hearing this movie was opening up this week.

As fine a job as Saoirse Ronan does playing the lead in this 2018 movie, which probably will get her a fourth nomination, she is sabatoged by the dark, slow pace getting to the major scene. Her acting partner, Margot Robbie as Elizabeth, is not written as powerful a woman as Mary which unbalences the whole movie.

Beau Willimon wrote the screenplay, basing it on the book "Queen of Scots: The True LIfe of Mary Stuart" by John Guy and one doesn't know which is fact or fiction or 'Hollywood's based on a true story' or who invented the sex lives of some of the characters.

The movie is the screen debut of London's Donmar Warehouse theatre companies artistic director Josie Rourke which may or may not explain the darkness and drab setting of most of the movie. Also, whether it is me or the accents or the soundtrack I had a hard time understanding at least half of the spoken language.

There are many actors as supporting players in roles supporting both queens in both good and evil ways. A standout is James McArdle as Mary's brother, Simael Cruz Cordova as a gay man who whose a close confident of Mary, Jack Lowden as her gay husband, Joe Alwyn as Elizabeth's lover and David Tennent as John Knox, a Scottish minister.

The only reason to see "Mary Queen of Scots" is for the performance of Saoirse Ronan but if you ever want to see the definite performance of Elizabeth look up that 1936 Bette Davis movie!… Expand

4 of 5 users found this helpful41

All this user's reviews

dontjimmymejulzMar 8, 2019

Inaccurate and slow moving dull-fest with bazaar progressive, diverse stunt-casting that quite frankly takes any viewer with a brain and a passing grade in high school history right out of the movie. I'm actually looking forward to the biopicInaccurate and slow moving dull-fest with bazaar progressive, diverse stunt-casting that quite frankly takes any viewer with a brain and a passing grade in high school history right out of the movie. I'm actually looking forward to the biopic of Shaka Zulu that includes a few Swedish and Chinese natives holding spears in the background.… Expand

3 of 4 users found this helpful31

All this user's reviews

charles19Dec 24, 2018

What an awful film. I would have left after 15 minutes but my companion insisted that I stay. There are three reasons for my poor review:
(1) The actresses chosen to play Mary and Elizabeth were lightweights and were never believable in theirWhat an awful film. I would have left after 15 minutes but my companion insisted that I stay. There are three reasons for my poor review:
(1) The actresses chosen to play Mary and Elizabeth were lightweights and were never believable in their roles. Saoirse Ronan does not have the gravitas to pull off the role of Mary. She may be fine portraying contemporary characters in movies, but not historical ones that are larger than life. Particularly annoying is that she speaks with an Irish accent and she is supposed to be a Scottish queen. The woman who plays Elizabeth is better, particularly when portraying her as haughty and aloof, but when she gets simpering the portrayal becomes annoying. Besides, all Elizabeths will ultimately fall short when compared to Cate Blanchett's performance. In this case, way short. On the positive side, both actresses "looked" the part so their anemic performances were a particular letdown.
(2) What a disastrous decision to populate the courts of Elizabeth and Mary with Black and Asian actors. Of course, I have no problem seeing these actors in movies... except when it harms the historical authenticity of the portrayal. There were no Black and Asian people in the high courts of both countries during that period, let alone a Black English ambassador to Scotland. All this for artistic license. Such a dumb decision!
(3)The director of this film really missed the mark.I blame the director for the odd pacing and stilted dialogue. The real problem is that the movie is very literal, and lacks any type of nuance. It also lacks historical accuracy in other ways, such as portraying a meeting between Mary and Elizabeth, something that never happened in real life. The meeting itself however is a fine example of cringe-worthy acting and dialogue.
I am dismayed that some professional critics gave this movie good ratings. I will pay more attention to those that didn't, in the future. The only good points were the costumes and cinematography... but if that is a movie's only claim to fame, I say what a waste of a couple of hours.… Expand

7 of 10 users found this helpful73

All this user's reviews

RigsbyFeb 4, 2019

This stinks quite a lot. David Tennant looks like he's stumbled in from Harry Potter and there is too much acting going on. Didn't believe a word anyone said and so didn't care who lived or died. The scene between Mary and Elizabeth whichThis stinks quite a lot. David Tennant looks like he's stumbled in from Harry Potter and there is too much acting going on. Didn't believe a word anyone said and so didn't care who lived or died. The scene between Mary and Elizabeth which takes place behind the gauze was appalling. Generally rotten.… Expand

4 of 6 users found this helpful42

All this user's reviews