I found the things they're taking about at the end, but not actually mentioning, quite distracting. At times you left like you weren't watching a period drama, that it was 21st century values being transposed into the past. so i spent a lot of time wondering if that was the case or that the history had been distorted
Mathew Toll I’d prefer real representation of blacks in that time like a biracial of a noble and a slave and how this person deals with being called a bastard and all other horrible names and grows strong because of it. Like belle. That was an amazing movie.
diversity in the queen's court during that time??? i'm asian by the way, i would be offended if someone portray my great great great grandfather as different race and ethnicity just because the director wants to promote diversity. it's a historical drama for god's sake.
The film’s issues are the writing, direction & historical inaccuracies, however the film’s well acted, well characterised, well casted & is very stylish. (63%) (3/5 stars) (mixed to positive)
The problem I had was with the meeting of the queens. It is not only that it never happened. If it had happened there is a strong possibility Mary would never have been executed since personal contact is likely to make a queen who had severe doubts about signing the death warrant even less likely to sign it. History would have been different-the Spanish Armada would probably never have happened
I thought the performances were great, but the movie, itself, was awful. That scene with the sheets was what was wrong with the whole film...a film that just refused to get on with it. Such a waste of talent, all around. David Tennant should be glad he's so unrecognizable. Guy Pierce, on the other hand, is totally recognizable, which is too bad, because he looks like the Muppet version of Pierce. The film really disappointed me a lot. Still, I love and appreciate any review by Mark Kermode, who loves film so much.
I completely agree. Every time you thought some momentum was building, it just fell flat. I went into the film wanting to love it but as you said, it was disappointing.
this film was great but my problem is that I am a big history fan and it upsets me that it was so so soo inaccurate, most things that are in the movie never ever happened , only thing in what the succeeded was making margot robbie soo much like Elizabeth I as it was possible with her , yeah but there also details were soo off, Elizabeth was known for her crazy outfits always when she became the queen. All the things I would say that were far from the accurate story how this all went down
I felt like Saoirse was ok but she doesn't fit for the role in my opinion, her accent sometimes flop though overall was ok. Both performances were good but the movie was really bad
Lana Nieves Absolutely on point! The acting was superb within the director's over-the-top concept of a series of explosive scenes that seemed to me incredibly "stagey." The murder of Rizzio was, I thought, well done because historically his vicious murder in front of the queen was in fact very over the top, but EVERY damn scene was a "murder of Rizzio," screaming with fury or passion or blood, and whenever possible, a combination of the three. John Knox was in particular so outrageous that some teens in the audience I was in began to boo every time he popped up. Ever go to a museum like the Louvre where you see one blown-up masterpiece after another until you feel as if you've got the headache from hell and have to rush out and look at a tree or a hamburger or a lampshade? That's how I felt. It might have made an excellent stage play. What a great subject for Shakespeare! But, Christopher Marlowe, hands off!!😜
Mary and Elizabeth never met. Mary was brought up in France, she lived in the French court from a child of 5 until a woman of 18 and French was her 1st language so she most probably spoke English with a French accent. Historical nonsense yet again. Another Braveheart.
That doesn't mean that it can't possibly be a good film. I am a history nerd, but I can still appreciate that historical fiction is just that fiction that takes its leads from actual history, but never more. Braveheart for all of it's historical short comings (and there are many) and it's pathos is still a rousing epic of a movie.
@@sueymatta8779 most people who watch this and don't know the history will likely not even bother to check whether it's accurate (probably out of apathy) and then consciously or not it becomes truth so far as they know it. Why the need to be set in real history if you have nothing to do with it?
Saoirse Ronan is a very good actress and I liked "Mary Queen of Scots" (2018), but it did not make my list of my favorite 300 movies. I think Winona Ryder was in a better version of "Little Women" (1994), but I really loved "Little Woman" (2019) just not enough to put it on my list. The 1994 version made #160 on my list. Here are the movies that did make the list: "Lady Bird" (2017) at #114, "Brooklyn" (2015) at #254, and "The Grand Budapest Hotel" (2014) at #273. What I have learned from watching this girl is that if anyone says that their favorite is one I have not watched, then, I would look it up and watch it, because she is worth it.
@@evesapple Im now going to watch this, just because I learnt that Max Richter has done the soundtrack. His score for Hostiles was incredibly moving and lifted that film up a level.
There are people below who believe that Mary Queen of Scots would have returned to Scotland talking like Brigette Bardot! Utter tosh! She lived her first six years in Scotland playing amongst her nine half brothers and sisters, nurses and early tutors, all talking English in a Scots accent. I think the film makers got it right. Yes, her mother was French, but would have had little contact with her. Parents did not dote on their children like they do today. Basic translation between Mary of Guise and her daughter would have been minimal, that's all. It would have taken young Mary many years to have learnt French fluently once there. The obvious glaring fly in the ointment with this film is high ranking Afro Caribbean and Asian characters. That is where the film becomes unbelievably unrealistic!
Albert Brammer, if you're after historical accuracy then surely you'd have more of a problem with the fact that Elizabeth & Mary NEVER met. Of course you aren't concerned about historical accuracy otherwise you would have mentioned it, so the rest of us can only speculate on your comment & judge you...
I suppose they were making up for the fact that the known black/mixed members of Elisabeth and Catherine of Aragon's court have been whitewashed for years.... That being said, I would rather they put the real characters in there rather than inventing fictitious ones.
@Litshttam Are you suggesting paintings are being doctored, and words are being changed, and somehow photographs wouldn't be, if that was the case? If there were just one or two black people in Elizabethan England, maybe time could be given to that conspiracy theory. However there were so many of them that even Shakespeare couldn't resist putting them in his plays.
As a US viewer without a grounding in much of the relevant historical background, I have to say that it played as muddled and overlong for me. There’s a lot to like in the film - plenty of great performances, gorgeous cinematography and costuming, and the fantastic period dialogue Mark mentioned. But it felt structurally mushy to me, and I was often unclear on what was happening and why, which meant I struggled to care. I felt it needed to either be about thirty minutes shorter or extended to miniseries length. I didn’t have a problem with the “woke” moments, because the film feels hagiographic by design and it needs to appeal to a modern audience. I don’t mind history being abridged or revised for the sake of a film. That said, the “woke” moments *did* stick out as somewhat contrived to me.
Watched the Favourite first bec of all the hype (and emma stone) then but I didnt like it very much as opposed to MQOS , saw the trailer.. looks good but didnt like saoirse and margot that much and it was on HBO after a year I think, so I gave it a go and actually really liked it so much , also I thought that saoirse is very good and appreciated her talent in this movie., I cant believe that it was rated badly … maybe bec I watched it without any expectations and was blown away by saoirse’s performance.
I was wondering why it wasn't being shown at any Vue Cinemas so we are having to go to cineworld to see it. Even in London it does seem to have a limited range of cinemas showing it - which won't help the film's revenues. I think there was a similar issue with Vue and 'A star is born' initially before they came to an agreements - can the distributors afford to be that fussy in the country where it is likely to do best?
I expected to hate the film because i know about the history and the liberties taken. In the end i enjoyed it and appreciated what they were going for in the treatment of women. I think it could have been done better or more authentically but i know they have to balance story and entertainment also. What really bothers me is how ghanged their personalities were, Elizabeth was deeply offended by many of Mary's actions irl and Mary was far more Catholic than portrayed. The "happy" ending that her son became King is kind of sexist and is a Victorian interpretation of the story, that something was wrong with Elizabeth and she must have been so jealous of Mary having a husband and baby, is because of how disturbed they were by her rejection of the female duty. If she wanted to marry she would have married. And she wasnt a "nice lady" she was an authoritative ruler, more often to rage than weep. Its a little disrespectful that they made Marys legacy her baby. She went to the block dressed as a Catholic martyr and gave a speech about religion, Scotland and France. If they'd emphasized the religious issue better they could have kept this and she'd be remembered on her own terms. They wanted a victory for her but it just felt icky to me.
Do you know when you love a film but can’t really pinpoint why? When a film has a sort of indescribable x-factor that makes it impossible to explain that even though the plot, story, acting, writing, dialogue, score etc were not great, you love it anyway? Well this film is like that. Except I really didn’t like it. I just can’t put my finger on why. There wasn’t much offensively bad about it, but overall it rubbed me up the wrong way. Anyone else?
Cate Blanchetts films were good, especially the first one. This new one reminds me of Walmart-version of these films, going by the trailer. Terrible dialogue.
Margot Robbie is especially great in this. I really enjoyed it but I do think that some of it feels too modern to be historically accurate. Some stuff just stands out a bit too much.
This film was so good, saw it in a packed cinema in covent garden odeon. Im suprised how much I enjoyed it as I wasn't sure due to the trailers. Not a single scene is wasted, EVERY SCENE is very interesting. The film flows so well from the opening act to the end, its so well made.
People have been so hissy about the whole "They never met!" thing that I was expecting it to be horrifically anachronistic. But honestly I was genuinely surprised with what they kept true to life. Obviously liberties have been taken, but it never claims to be 100% true to life, it felt very theatrical. I've seen a lot of stuff about both queens and I'd put this up there with Elizabeth: The Golden Age (which btw was far more anachronistic as far as I'm concerned)
Also I really enjoyed the repeated use of the intro music to Zadok The Priest and then never giving us the pay off of that moment of glorious majesty. It gave a sense of Mary as a Queen who never really got going.
The problem with this movie is that it brought nothing new to the table in comparison with the 1971 film and to my knowledge it was not pitched as a remake. Both movies are good, 1971 is more coherent and less "artsy", but I cannot definitely say I like it better. One thing which surely is different is that Bothwell went from almost a "Disney Prince" to a violent thug that he allegedly was.
Saorise Ronan is so overrated, every film I've seen her in was either boring or just plain awful (don't get me started on Hanna) . But Max Richter's score was beautiful.
Have your guys endlessly march very very quickly and purposefully around and into rooms before coming to a comically abrupt halt and then march them out again. Really overdo the marching around sound effects. Throw yet another ridiculously stunning vista at the audience to make up for a lack of any engaging narrative Do some LGBT stuff but not really commit to it and so on. The movie flips from stagey to overly stylistic too often which just makes it seem kind of goofy and quite unbelievable if not actually awful. Good individual performances - Robbie would make a great QE1 in another film and David Tennant hams it up wonderfully in his handful of scenes.
Call people narrow minded because they believe a historical film should be accurate? You are trying to transpose 21st century values into an Elizabethan drama. Read some history books, then come back with some constructive points, rather than resorting to name calling.
narrow minded? u know what is offensive, casting my ancestor as a different race just because u want to promote a 21st century divesity value. it's a historical drama. some facts u can't change. i have no problem wesley snipes as blade even though in the comic, blade is white. in fact, snipe is defintely cool playing as blade.
One of the worst I've had the displeasure to see in my life. The writers of this film deserved to be flogged in public square. Just kidding. Do not watch it! 2 hours wasted in my life. Terrible movie!
The trouble with any portrayal of Elizabeth I is it always makes me think of Miranda Richardson in Blackadder II
Vanished lord Percy, not varnished. :-)
"I may have the body of a weak and feeble woman...but I have the heart and stomach of a concrete elephant."
"Which one is queen?"
The film wasn't in fact a historical drama, but a re-imagining of Mary if she were a millennial transported in the 16th century.
It’s usually a good sign when the review opens with “a problem with this movie is that one of the actors is too good”.
Didn't know there was black English nobleman in 16th century England. Its quite an education!
there isn't. they just force it into the movie. the queen's ambassador is white. Mary and Elizabeth never met each other too.
Did you notice anything else about the film? Anything else at all?
I found the things they're taking about at the end, but not actually mentioning, quite distracting. At times you left like you weren't watching a period drama, that it was 21st century values being transposed into the past. so i spent a lot of time wondering if that was the case or that the history had been distorted
Mathew Toll no there were no black nobles and bess was white.
I know. But the film invited those confusions. And I did find it rather distracting.
Mathew Toll Yeah I didn’t like it at all. It didn’t feel like medieval England at all. They were almost Puritan.
Mathew Toll I’d prefer real representation of blacks in that time like a biracial of a noble and a slave and how this person deals with being called a bastard and all other horrible names and grows strong because of it. Like belle. That was an amazing movie.
@@Amateur_Pianist_472 A year late but...yawn.
0:00 How dare you...
0:20 Oh, okay then.
diversity in the queen's court during that time??? i'm asian by the way, i would be offended if someone portray my great great great grandfather as different race and ethnicity just because the director wants to promote diversity. it's a historical drama for god's sake.
4:38 Former Leeds United and Republic of Ireland left back, I love him too! Absolutely right always gave 100%
😂
The film’s issues are the writing, direction & historical inaccuracies, however the film’s well acted, well characterised, well casted & is very stylish. (63%) (3/5 stars) (mixed to positive)
The problem I had was with the meeting of the queens. It is not only that it never happened. If it had happened there is a strong possibility Mary would never have been executed since personal contact is likely to make a queen who had severe doubts about signing the death warrant even less likely to sign it. History would have been different-the Spanish Armada would probably never have happened
I thought the performances were great, but the movie, itself, was awful. That scene with the sheets was what was wrong with the whole film...a film that just refused to get on with it. Such a waste of talent, all around. David Tennant should be glad he's so unrecognizable. Guy Pierce, on the other hand, is totally recognizable, which is too bad, because he looks like the Muppet version of Pierce. The film really disappointed me a lot. Still, I love and appreciate any review by Mark Kermode, who loves film so much.
Lana Nieves why is Tennant bad?...
I completely agree. Every time you thought some momentum was building, it just fell flat. I went into the film wanting to love it but as you said, it was disappointing.
this film was great but my problem is that I am a big history fan and it upsets me that it was so so soo inaccurate, most things that are in the movie never ever happened , only thing in what the succeeded was making margot robbie soo much like Elizabeth I as it was possible with her , yeah but there also details were soo off, Elizabeth was known for her crazy outfits always when she became the queen. All the things I would say that were far from the accurate story how this all went down
I felt like Saoirse was ok but she doesn't fit for the role in my opinion, her accent sometimes flop though overall was ok. Both performances were good but the movie was really bad
Lana Nieves Absolutely on point! The acting was superb within the director's over-the-top concept of a series of explosive scenes that seemed to me incredibly "stagey." The murder of Rizzio was, I thought, well done because historically his vicious murder in front of the queen was in fact very over the top, but EVERY damn scene was a "murder of Rizzio," screaming with fury or passion or blood, and whenever possible, a combination of the three.
John Knox was in particular so outrageous that some teens in the audience I was in began to boo every time he popped up.
Ever go to a museum like the Louvre where you see one blown-up masterpiece after another until you feel as if you've got the headache from hell and have to rush out and look at a tree or a hamburger or a lampshade? That's how I felt.
It might have made an excellent stage play. What a great subject for Shakespeare! But, Christopher Marlowe, hands off!!😜
This wasn't a review it's a description of the film, I was here to hear his opinion about the film I saw not to describe it to me.
Why bother with the Scottish accents???
Max Richter is a genius and deserves more recognition.
Mary and Elizabeth never met. Mary was brought up in France, she lived in the French court from a child of 5 until a woman of 18 and French was her 1st language so she most probably spoke English with a French accent.
Historical nonsense yet again. Another Braveheart.
That doesn't mean that it can't possibly be a good film. I am a history nerd, but I can still appreciate that historical fiction is just that fiction that takes its leads from actual history, but never more. Braveheart for all of it's historical short comings (and there are many) and it's pathos is still a rousing epic of a movie.
If you want historical accuracy watch a documentary, movies just have to be entertaining.
I could look past it if the Scottish accent was ok, but it pretty atrocious.
@@sueymatta8779 most people who watch this and don't know the history will likely not even bother to check whether it's accurate (probably out of apathy) and then consciously or not it becomes truth so far as they know it. Why the need to be set in real history if you have nothing to do with it?
Aperki2010 it falls under the umbrella of historical fiction man
The hanging sheets could have been a subliminal advert for Lenor.
I had no idea it was David Tenant until the credits. It was an amazing performance 👏🏼
My problem with it was that I actively loathed it.
SPOILER
the film reimagined Mary Queen of Scott’s as some kind of woke figure and that is frankly laughable. Robbie gave such a better performance.
I've seen this film on the side of too many buses and Twitter feeds, not usually a good sign.
Who was kermode referring to when he said that a recognizable actor was in the film at the very end? (4:27) I've seen the movie, I just don't recall.
I believe Simon Russell Beale may have been at Mary's execution but I'm not sure
It's David Tennant
The reference to Handel is anachronistic. He was born 82 years after the Tudor dynasty came to an end.
Saoirse Ronan is a very good actress and I liked "Mary Queen of Scots" (2018), but it did not make my list of my favorite 300 movies.
I think Winona Ryder was in a better version of "Little Women" (1994), but I really loved "Little Woman" (2019) just not enough to put it on my list. The 1994 version made #160 on my list.
Here are the movies that did make the list: "Lady Bird" (2017)
at #114, "Brooklyn" (2015) at #254, and "The Grand Budapest Hotel" (2014) at #273.
What I have learned from watching this girl is that if anyone says that their favorite is one I have not watched, then, I would look it up and watch it, because she is worth it.
The Glenda Jackson and Vanessa Redgrave version did it slightly better..
and the music signed by J. Barry
glenda jackson is GREAT
Historical England? Saorise Ronan? Margot Robbie? David Tennant? IAN HART? Max Richter?? YES
Good to see a fellow Max Richter fan.
@@evesapple Im now going to watch this, just because I learnt that Max Richter has done the soundtrack.
His score for Hostiles was incredibly moving and lifted that film up a level.
I never really liked the look of this film, every time I saw the trailer at the cinema I was put off by the film's attitude and dialogue.
Plus Margot Robbie is merely a soap actor that trades on her conventional look(s)
@@MattSingh1 I disagree, I thought she was excellent in I, Tonya.
@@staggabob Good for you. I think you're wrong.
There are people below who believe that Mary Queen of Scots would have returned to Scotland talking like Brigette Bardot! Utter tosh! She lived her first six years in Scotland playing amongst her nine half brothers and sisters, nurses and early tutors, all talking English in a Scots accent. I think the film makers got it right. Yes, her mother was French, but would have had little contact with her. Parents did not dote on their children like they do today. Basic translation between Mary of Guise and her daughter would have been minimal, that's all. It would have taken young Mary many years to have learnt French fluently once there. The obvious glaring fly in the ointment with this film is high ranking Afro Caribbean and Asian characters. That is where the film becomes unbelievably unrealistic!
Of course we're not allowed to make any remark about there being a black courtier that NEVER existed.
Albert Brammer, if you're after historical accuracy then surely you'd have more of a problem with the fact that Elizabeth & Mary NEVER met. Of course you aren't concerned about historical accuracy otherwise you would have mentioned it, so the rest of us can only speculate on your comment & judge you...
I suppose they were making up for the fact that the known black/mixed members of Elisabeth and Catherine of Aragon's court have been whitewashed for years....
That being said, I would rather they put the real characters in there rather than inventing fictitious ones.
@Litshttam And inconvenient for people who try to deny reality, painters and writers existed at that time. Read "Black Tudors"
@Litshttam in a few generations, when wounds have healed, anyone will play anyone. Not now, however.
@Litshttam Are you suggesting paintings are being doctored, and words are being changed, and somehow photographs wouldn't be, if that was the case?
If there were just one or two black people in Elizabethan England, maybe time could be given to that conspiracy theory. However there were so many of them that even Shakespeare couldn't resist putting them in his plays.
When will we see a film about Hanna Reitsch, a strong independent woman.
So that's how you say her first name,it is pronounced MarGO
Maggot Robbie
As opposed to what?
@@alansmith4655 I've heard people who don't know how to pronounce the name actually include the 'T'...so "MargoT".
Please don't get John Travolta to give out awards for this film... The two leads will be beyond him
Litshttam No, Gadot is pronounced with the T, she’s corrected at least one interviewer before
As a US viewer without a grounding in much of the relevant historical background, I have to say that it played as muddled and overlong for me. There’s a lot to like in the film - plenty of great performances, gorgeous cinematography and costuming, and the fantastic period dialogue Mark mentioned. But it felt structurally mushy to me, and I was often unclear on what was happening and why, which meant I struggled to care. I felt it needed to either be about thirty minutes shorter or extended to miniseries length.
I didn’t have a problem with the “woke” moments, because the film feels hagiographic by design and it needs to appeal to a modern audience. I don’t mind history being abridged or revised for the sake of a film. That said, the “woke” moments *did* stick out as somewhat contrived to me.
Inquiring Really!? I’d love to read or watch anything which confirms that, if you have a link!
Inquiring Ah, I see. Perhaps!
I almost watched this film for my birthday, but instead I watched The Favourite. I suppose I made the right call but I’ll need to see Mary to be sure
Happy birthday!
You definitely, DEFINITELY made the right call... I'd suggest bypassing this MQOS trash and going to see The Favourite again.
FMJ S thank you 😊
Watched the Favourite first bec of all the hype (and emma stone) then but I didnt like it very much as opposed to MQOS , saw the trailer.. looks good but didnt like saoirse and margot that much and it was on HBO after a year I think, so I gave it a go and actually really liked it so much , also I thought that saoirse is very good and appreciated her talent in this movie., I cant believe that it was rated badly … maybe bec I watched it without any expectations and was blown away by saoirse’s performance.
Loved the film but it felt as if it was very full of itself, like it's always trying to be momentous.
Not being shown at Vue Cinemas due to legal stuff, which is a shame because I wanted to see it this weekend
@@whoknew2273 Vue charges slightly less for tickets than the film is happy with
I was wondering why it wasn't being shown at any Vue Cinemas so we are having to go to cineworld to see it. Even in London it does seem to have a limited range of cinemas showing it - which won't help the film's revenues. I think there was a similar issue with Vue and 'A star is born' initially before they came to an agreements - can the distributors afford to be that fussy in the country where it is likely to do best?
I couldn't pinpoint the cameo at the end! Clarification via comments would be great please!
I expected to hate the film because i know about the history and the liberties taken.
In the end i enjoyed it and appreciated what they were going for in the treatment of women. I think it could have been done better or more authentically but i know they have to balance story and entertainment also.
What really bothers me is how ghanged their personalities were, Elizabeth was deeply offended by many of Mary's actions irl and Mary was far more Catholic than portrayed. The "happy" ending that her son became King is kind of sexist and is a Victorian interpretation of the story, that something was wrong with Elizabeth and she must have been so jealous of Mary having a husband and baby, is because of how disturbed they were by her rejection of the female duty.
If she wanted to marry she would have married. And she wasnt a "nice lady" she was an authoritative ruler, more often to rage than weep.
Its a little disrespectful that they made Marys legacy her baby. She went to the block dressed as a Catholic martyr and gave a speech about religion, Scotland and France. If they'd emphasized the religious issue better they could have kept this and she'd be remembered on her own terms.
They wanted a victory for her but it just felt icky to me.
Do you know when you love a film but can’t really pinpoint why? When a film has a sort of indescribable x-factor that makes it impossible to explain that even though the plot, story, acting, writing, dialogue, score etc were not great, you love it anyway?
Well this film is like that. Except I really didn’t like it. I just can’t put my finger on why. There wasn’t much offensively bad about it, but overall it rubbed me up the wrong way. Anyone else?
Cate Blanchetts films were good, especially the first one. This new one reminds me of Walmart-version of these films, going by the trailer. Terrible dialogue.
You can't judge the film's by the trailer, go see it and then decide
Blackadder is way better with a cunning plan.
Margot Robbie is especially great in this. I really enjoyed it but I do think that some of it feels too modern to be historically accurate. Some stuff just stands out a bit too much.
This movie was so boring, and feel like they made up things at times. Great performances tho shame it was so slow
They did.
WHAT NO BIG BANG EXPLOSIONS . POOR DIDUMS .
Inquiring I’m ashamed I was so naive 😭😂
@@guinan2007 No. Even they're too complex for me.
im just bored of films about the same historical figures all the time are there not enough depictions of liz number one already?
This film was so good, saw it in a packed cinema in covent garden odeon. Im suprised how much I enjoyed it as I wasn't sure due to the trailers. Not a single scene is wasted, EVERY SCENE is very interesting. The film flows so well from the opening act to the end, its so well made.
People have been so hissy about the whole "They never met!" thing that I was expecting it to be horrifically anachronistic. But honestly I was genuinely surprised with what they kept true to life. Obviously liberties have been taken, but it never claims to be 100% true to life, it felt very theatrical. I've seen a lot of stuff about both queens and I'd put this up there with Elizabeth: The Golden Age (which btw was far more anachronistic as far as I'm concerned)
Also I really enjoyed the repeated use of the intro music to Zadok The Priest and then never giving us the pay off of that moment of glorious majesty. It gave a sense of Mary as a Queen who never really got going.
politicly correct bushtit. black nobleman in 1587 England . Japanese locking maid
that's the problem, u can't force diversity in everything. particularly a historical drama with fact
The problem with this movie is that it brought nothing new to the table in comparison with the 1971 film and to my knowledge it was not pitched as a remake. Both movies are good, 1971 is more coherent and less "artsy", but I cannot definitely say I like it better. One thing which surely is different is that Bothwell went from almost a "Disney Prince" to a violent thug that he allegedly was.
weren't the Zulu's intruduced to England in 1980 ? that ambassador ?!!
This film is far too long and boring in most parts.
Skip this imo
Saorise Ronan is so overrated, every film I've seen her in was either boring or just plain awful (don't get me started on Hanna) . But Max Richter's score was beautiful.
Have your guys endlessly march very very quickly and purposefully around and into rooms before coming to a comically abrupt halt and then march them out again. Really overdo the marching around sound effects. Throw yet another ridiculously stunning vista at the audience to make up for a lack of any engaging narrative Do some LGBT stuff but not really commit to it and so on. The movie flips from stagey to overly stylistic too often which just makes it seem kind of goofy and quite unbelievable if not actually awful. Good individual performances - Robbie would make a great QE1 in another film and David Tennant hams it up wonderfully in his handful of scenes.
I really don't agree on the point of the score. Really weak. sounded like the Runescape theme tune half of the time.
This move sucks!
Margot Robbie is overated as an actress. Ronan is a master.
So many narrow-minded people.
Call people narrow minded because they believe a historical film should be accurate?
You are trying to transpose 21st century values into an Elizabethan drama.
Read some history books, then come back with some constructive points, rather than resorting to name calling.
narrow minded? u know what is offensive, casting my ancestor as a different race just because u want to promote a 21st century divesity value. it's a historical drama. some facts u can't change. i have no problem wesley snipes as blade even though in the comic, blade is white. in fact, snipe is defintely cool playing as blade.
One of the worst I've had the displeasure to see in my life. The writers of this film deserved to be flogged in public square. Just kidding. Do not watch it! 2 hours wasted in my life. Terrible movie!
It's a terrible film. Prove me wrong.