Mary Queen of Scots (DVD) [2018]

I’m a history lover, I found this mildly entertaining but completely spoilt by all the historical inaccuracies. As another reviewer has already pointed out we have political correctness gone mad with lots of black actors and even what appears to be a half Chinese lady in waiting for Elizabeth . This is not a racist comment it’s just a fact that there were no black members of Scotland’s privy council in the 1500’s and England did not have a black ambassador. It’s not historically accurate and it just doesn’t look right. ( would they make a film about Martin Luther King with the lead played by a white man ? )Add to this the depicted meeting between the two queens that never actually took place and the fact that Mary Queen of Scots had a French accent NOT Scottish etc etc the whole film starts to lose all credibility . Shame really.

Must admit I am at pains to agree with many of the reviewer comments made in regards to the film....I love a good historical drama that tells of the struggles of the past in the royal households, however, sadly the film barely gets going and struggles with its inaccuracies which contribute to the films poor showing.Over the past few years, the movie industry has tried to readdress the balance it had been criticised for in terms of the lack of recognition for black actors/actresses, fine, however, to include black characters in roles where there were obviously none is political correctness gone bonkers.Don't misunderstand me, I could and would quite happily watch Morgan, Denzel and Samuel L all day long, they are indeed great actors, however not in historical dramas of this kind.The film itself telling loosely of the rivalry for the English throne between Queen Elizabeth 1 (Margot Robbie) and the younger Mary Queen of Scots (Saoirse Ronan) does have its moments but for me not enough to hold my interest throughout.I would recommend if you like dramas from this era giving the 1997 and indeed 2007 films (Elizabeth and Elizabeth the Golden Age) a spin if you've not yet seen them.

Anyone watching this and hoping for some historical enlightenment will be disappointed. So many inaccuracies where to begin. In the film Mary has a Scottish accent, but in reality she spent most of her childhood in France so is most likely to have had a French accent. There is absolutely no evidence that the two cousins ever met. I despair that film producers ignore history in the interest of dramatic licence "never let truth get in the way of a good story". Some people will watch this and take it as the definitive history. Sigh.

To say that this film is a waste of talent is probably the understatement of the year (so far!) But it most certainly does not seem to make use of the fabulous performances of the two leads – Saoirse Ronan as Mary, Queen of Scotland and Margot Robbie as Queen Elizabeth 1 – who are both regal delights. Their feisty portrayals are spoilt by a somewhat clumsy story line/script, which seems to assume that the audience will be familiar with the nuances of both queens lives as it doesn’t make it easy to follow or make clear who is who or even what is what. A rather bewildering array of names come into play, many of which I can vaguely recall being mentioned in a history 'O’ level syllabus that dates me terribly, but otherwise of whom I unsurprisingly know very little about in my modern 21st century life. And, even less so, the part they played in history and in Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth 1's involvement in particular.So, I therefore spent much of the film, when seen at my local cinema yesterday, in whispered questions to the dear hubby sitting next to me in the assumption and hope that he knew more than me – he didn’t; well, not much more any way!This grappling with the facts, in my humble opinion, is the main downfall of the film – and, to be honest, it’s quite an essential thing to try and get right or you lose the viewer’s interest right from the beginning. And that’s certainly what happened to me - and I confess to never really regaining it.The on-screen images certainly looked good and, as said, the lead actors – and indeed all the cast, which contained a fair few famous faces (including that of David Tennent who was almost impossible to spot in his role as antagonist John Knox, complete with long grey beard) – played their parts well.It was just such a shame that the whole thing was so confusing … It probably just simply lacked good final editing, despite the fact that its female director, Josie Rourke (in her film directing debut I believe), tried hard to get across the view that these two strong women were fighting for survival in a male-dominated world: That's a subject worth bringing to public attention at any point in history. However, this particular film's interpretation, on what could and should have been an interesting subject, is not one I will be recommending or would have any desire to view again sadly.

These forays into history usually take some liberties with the facts but this latest look at the Elizabeth/Mary saga strays far into fantasy. Clearly designed for the #MeToo generation, it portrays the two queens as nice ladies who were bullied, badgered and betrayed by horrible men. Mary, in real life a headstrong and feckless woman who plotted endlessly against Elizabeth, is depicted as a saint martyred for her principles, while the ruthless Elizabeth was actually a big old softie. Given the current preference for diversity over reality, it comes as no surprise that their 16th century lords included a substantial number of black people, including Elizabeth's ambassador to the Scottish court; that Mary's murdered favourite Rizzio was not Italian but Puerto Rican (and her husband's gay lover); and that their ladies-in waiting ranged across a wide ethnic spectrum. In a coda, Mary's son James is shown ascending the English throne; the movie's makers must have been sorely tempted to go full woke by turning him into a transgendered Jane. Superb cinematography and high production values were completely wasted on this farrago