This movie is the proof that the world is becoming a sick and dumb place

A brilliant film that helped define a genre

When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

Everyone loves the conflict between the cold, controlling, successful Elizabeth of England, and her unlucky but much-loved rival, the warm and passionate Mary Queen of Scots. This lush and well-photographed movie hits all the right notes yet only skims the surface.Vanessa Redgrave makes a lovely Mary and Glenda Jackson a fiery Elizabeth, yet neither actress really taps into the deeper contrast between the two queens. To put it another way, for a woman who threw everything away for love, Redgrave's Mary seems frightfully cool and correct. And for an icy woman who got off mostly on politics and power, Jackson's Elizabeth seems much too hot-tempered and impulsive.Only a handful of minor scenes really catch the contrast. Early in the film, we see flame-haired Elizabeth in a plain black dress, rising early in the morning to scan household expenses with an eagle eye. A bit later, we see her rival Mary meet the day in different fashion, waking up in splendor to a tray served in bed. Even the way Vanessa Redgrave hugs the pillow with both arms is a sly, knowing comment on Mary Queen of Scots and her French love of luxury and comfort.Later in the film, when Mary is Elizabeth's prisoner, it's noticeable that Elizabeth comes to visit her in secret, and literally catches Mary dozing, this time with armed guards standing just outside her chamber. The curt way Elizabeth nods to the two guardsmen makes it clear who is really keeping Mary locked up like a prisoner. Yet when Elizabeth enters her rival's chamber, just in time to see Mary turning over and stretching in sheer comfort, it's really interesting how Mary herself still seems to think of herself as queen. She questions Elizabeth boldly, ("what is the meaning of this, sister?") yet she accepts it when Elizabeth sits down informally on the side of her bed. And when the usual breakfast tray is brought in Mary begins eating and drinking in her usual dainty fashion. Plainly she's already accepting her status as a pampered prisoner of the more assertive queen.These scenes are convincing and fully absorbing, yet the historical scenes just don't catch Mary making mistakes and Elizabeth being prudent and wise. Instead both of them just yell a lot and make speeches, with confused looking men in funny costumes sort of saying, "well, yes, Your Majesty. You're in charge. Of course."

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.

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 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).