Add a Review

  • An historically honest film, if a painfully dull one. It suffers from the nearly completely lackluster casting. The one bright spot is Sean Biggerstaff as Bothwell, a much better actor than his CV might suggest, which almost makes it worse. The film likely would have been better received had the entire cast suffered from the same quality of dullness, but Biggerstaff is so natural and unaffected that everyone around him appears even more contrived and wooden. He's a diamond against cheap black crepe, easily and unintentionally outshining everyone in any scene he's in, though Edward Hogg comes closest to giving him a run for his money.

    His French is atrocious, though.

    Worth seeing if you've two hours to kill, low expectations, and/or want to see a clear juxtaposition of masterful acting against mediocre acting.
  • Kirpianuscus9 September 2018
    A correct adaptation of the novel by Stefan Zweig. Decent performances, beautiful costumes, the wise choice to not transform the story in a melodrama. And a sketch about power and illusions. It is easy to see it as a gray movie - familiar scenes, reasonable reflection of events, facts of a young woman front to huge challenges. But the film has a special virtue - Camille Rutheford . Who knows use her presence for sustain, in nice manner, the plot. And, sure, Mehdi Dehbi as a sort of spice. A film about a known character. Far to be a revelation, convincing or spectacular ,it could represent a decent work.
  • I really really wanted to like this, but the version I watched had NO subtitles so the first 20 minutes were a complete wash for me not knowing at all what the hell was even being said because the dialogue was completely in French... no comprehensible dialogue, equals no plot, equals no grabbing the viewer, and that needs to happen in the first minutes to keep them. The next bit was hit and miss, so still couldn't get into it. I wanted to, I really really did. I'm a big fan of Aneurin Barnard (since his portrayal of Richard III in The White Queen) but by the time he appeared the whole thing was already lost for me. Sorry! I tried!
  • Mary, Queen of Scots, she lived a full life and more as this historical film shows. The actress, who played Mary, Camille Rutherford, is a revelation. I wish to see her in more films. I felt the film was quite well-done and I am surprised it has not been seen, reviewed or commented on by more film buffs. Definitely worth it for those of you who enjoy period films based on historical figures and past events. Costumes, screenplay and direction was exceptional. The sound track was a bit off but I suppose it was more in tune with the impending doom that was to come to Mary. It isn't melodramatic at all. Very to the point, and I liked the fact that it took you in to her thoughts and mind and not be merely an observer to her life. Well done. 7/10.
  • Wonderful movie but suffers severely for the inclusion of 'Rock Music' in a film that takes place in the 16th Century. Really an incredible mistake and I'm just trying to fathom 'why'? It rates so well in all other categories so I just can't quite figure the reason. I saw the series 'The Tudors' and it was just astounding with such attention to every detail including the music. If anyone can 'clue' me into the reasoning then I would be grateful. Possibly the producers felt the rest of the production would be too weak without the inclusion of such inappropriate music but everything else is so obviously up to snuff and then some so I am still left with this question. However, please make this a must on your list of historical series to view just hold your noses when the music is played. Henry the VIII would probably lop the head off of the producer who made this decision.
  • 'Mary Queen of Scots' is the story of a famous and unhappy queen, a story well-known in the British space where it is part of the respective national histories and in the German-speaking cultural space, especially due to Schiller's play which is taught in schools. The film by Swiss director Thomas Imbach, released on screens in 2013, is the first of three films dedicated to this historical figure made in the last decade. Another one was released in 2018 and the third is still in production. Imbach chose as a source the biography written in 1935 by Stefan Zweig, but starting from a historical book (Zweig is considered the master of narrated history) he made a very personal film, which focuses on the character of a woman who lives her life passionately and loves in the context of the political and religious conflicts in which she is involved. It is a bold cinematic bet, the result of which is destined from the start to please some and to please less others. I confess that I belong to the first category. I liked the film, but I can also understand the arguments of those who ended up watching disappointed.

    Queen Mary lived 45 years, out of which the last 20 were spent in the more or less gilded captivity of her cousin Elizabeth I, ending wit the execution of the one who may have had more rights to claim the throne of England than the queen on the throne. The film traces the first 25 years of Mary's life, using flashbacks inspired by the letters she never sent to the queen she never had the opportunity to meet. In these 25 years of active life Mary had time to wear or claim the crowns of three kingdoms (Scotland, France and England), but also to be a widow three times. Above all, however, she had time to live a tumultuous life and to love, to get involved with passion in political intrigues but also to make enough mistakes that she would eventually tragically pay for.

    Director and co-writer Thomas Imbach chose to focus his story on the personality and feelings of the woman who was one of the most tragic figures in the history of England. Camille Rutherford's acting performance seemed very inspiring to me. She is an actress that I do not remember from other movies, and this is actually an advantage, because her face is fresh and I am not influenced by other roles. Thomas Imbach's approach is in line with the trends in many British historical films of the last decade ('The Favourite', the series 'The Tudors') to use the historical background as a pretext for reinterpretations of history, with characters who behave and act more like our contemporaries than as characters of their time, and with a minimalism in production that tries to preserve authenticity but does not make of it a goal. In the case of this 'Mary Queen of Scots' the result is a strong personal drama and a feminist plea about the fragile balance between personal life and public duties. However, the events described in the film also had a strong impact on British history, on the power relations between Scotland and England, between Catholics and Protestants. The son of the unfortunate Queen Mary became James I, the first king of England and Scotland. Those who do not know history may be confused, and it is not from here that they will get the information that they are missing, but the tragic figure of Mary Queen of Scots, as it appears in this film, will be hard to forget.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    This version of the story of "Mary, Queen of Scots" comes from Switzerland. Though the story of the most famous Scottish monarch of all has been told on the big screen several times before, this European-produced version is very credible. Its USA premiere was in November, 2013; and had a second screening at the AFI Fest in Hollywood. By the sizes of the audiences who wanted to see the picture, it confirms the fact that there is still much interest in Mary Stuart.

    The film stars French-Swiss actress Camille Rutherford, who plays the title role with honesty and truthfulness. Rutherford portrays Mary as neither a complete heroine nor a complete villain, but rather a human being who inherits the trappings of being royal; as well walking the very thin line of trying to solve the problems of religious divisions. Rutherford has a earthy natural beauty to her (she is as attractive in-person as she is on the big screen); which lends itself to the character of 'Mary, Queen of Scots'. But she never allows her natural beauty to overshadow or become the main focus of her character. Rutherford allows her character's flaws to resonate with audiences; and does such a masterful job of portraying her character with a quiet subtlety, that movie patrons root for 'Mary' to be successful, though many know of her well-documented doom.

    Director Thomas Imbach could have fallen into the trap of turning this costume period piece into a soap opera-like drama. But with Imbach at the helm, he avoids all the usual clichés, and gives this well-documented story a different slant. Is there drama within the life of Mary Queen of Scots? Yes, historical accounts do nothing but that otherwise; but Imbach and the screenwriters (including a Stuart descendant)keep close to historical accuracy by telling the story with dramatic believability. He manages to bring us into the world of Mary Stuart and Queen Elizabeth I of England, yet we never see Elizabeth I on the screen as a real person. The cinematography by Rainer Klausmann makes the most of the beautiful landscapes of Switzerland and France.

    Sean Biggerstaff plays the 'Earl of Bothwell' very deliberately without going 'over-the-top' with his performance. Aneurin Barnard had the unenviable task of portraying the very flawed 'Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley', and did so without calling attention to his character over the title role of 'Mary', as well as does not overshadow the rest of the cast. Tony Curran does a marvelous job as the caustic 'John Knox"

    But the real point-of-note in this picture is the performance of Camille Rutherford. Mary, Queen of Scots is such a real, 'larger-than-life' historical character with such a tragic ending that portraying such a figure has to be accomplished with an affirmative integrity for audiences to even care. Rutherford does that brilliantly.

    This cinematic version of the story of Mary, Queen of Scots is better than the 1936 film, "Mary of Scotland" (starring Katharine Hepburn); and is just as good and looks better than the 1971 version "Mary, Queen of Scots" (starring Vanessa Redgrave). No doubt this 2013 version will be compared to the American-produced cinematic version, starring the very talented Saoirse Ronan. This European-produced version of the story of "Mary Queen of Scots" is one not to be missed by those who love movies.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I really was impressed. It's a good film - I can only assume that the poor ratings are a result of people watching it expecting a Mel Gibson blood-fest with blue, kilted battles every few minutes. If that's what you want, then this certainly isn't for you.

    It's interestingly atmospheric - and it draws you in to the complexity cleverly. I really warmed to Mary, despite not being that keen on queens generally.

    You can see the problem, one queen is bad enough, certainly otiose to requirements - but two must have been a, literally, bloody nuisance.

    She was, to be polite, mixed-up and confused, but, if you're brought up as a pet, you can't really be expected to turn into a sane and well-rounded human being. Despite that she did well.

    I can't understand why sub-title technology appears stuck in the 1950s. Surely it isn't beyond the wit of man to avoid white writing on white backgrounds. Not that there's all that much French, it's mainly in English, but it's annoying to have the intrusion of subtitles, but be unable to read some of them.

    You have to feel for people, living in such violent times with so many people hating them that they have to live in castles, obviously very uncomfortable, draughty, gloomy places.

    I'd recommend it. It's certainly my cup of tea.
  • I quite liked this version of Mary Queen of Scots, the setting, costumes, and dialogues were consistent during the whole film; however, the soundtrack is something I was a little bit taken aback especially by a dancing scene in which the background music was a gigue from Marin Marais' Suite in D minor; a baroque composer who lived 100 years later.