Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

It is both painfully honest and laugh-out-loud funny at the same time.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

I watched this after viewing Howard's End a few time, which is a movie I like despite a problematic, mechanical supporting performance from Redgrave. She stands out for the wrong reasons. Every scene of competence is matched by one of diva-esque deliberation, incongruity or bewilderment.Jumping to this movie, it's shocking to see how inexperienced she is here too. While she manages to record each scene without falling on her face, the character just adds up to a cipher. Redgrave is quite adrift. She portrays Mary in a perpetually clueless state. So Mary seems like like a wide-eyed dingbat; to the point that viewers can't root for her at all.Timothy Dalton as a risible little snot of a king, is the sole entertainment value, but that that's only as a pure camp, effeminate, preening Snidely Whiplash of no import. He is not a sufficient foil for the piece. By the time he's breaking out of a prison in a nightgown (with what appear to be herpes blisters on his face) it's become a rather eye-rolling endeavor.

I noticed the year this film was made, 1971, and besides the two great lead actresses, I think I was more interested in seeing a young future James Bond, well, and the critics give it four out of five stars. Basically this film is a battle of ruler-ship of both England and Scotland, and the fight is between Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots (Oscar and Golden Globe nominated Vanessa Redgrave) and Queen Elizabeth I (Golden Globe nominated Glenda Jackson). Both Queens have plans to remove each other from their thrones, or better, have each other eliminated. In the end, Mary is the loser after being sentenced to death, and Elizabeth ruled for years after. Even though I do not understand everything going on, there is a lot of discussion with many male characters involved in whatever way to one of the two Queens, including James Stuart (Scanners' Patrick McGoohan), Lord Henry Darnley (young - and blonde? - Timothy Dalton), Lord Bothwell (Nigel Davenport, Jack's father), William Cecil (Trevor Howard) and David Rizzio (Sir Ian Holm). Apparently not all the story is accurate in relation to what really happened, but who cares? Also starring Daniel Massey as Robert Dudley - Earl of Leicester, Tom Fleming as Father Ballard, Jeremy Bulloch as Andrew, Beth Harris as Mary Seton, Frances White as Mary Fleming and Maria Aitken as Lady Bothwell. All actors are suited to their roles very well, especially Redgrave and Jackson, and as for young Dalton, well, an unusually double-edged character, but a good one, and the film is worth seeing. It was nominated the Oscars for Best Art Direction-Set Decoration, Best Costume Design, Best Music for John Barry and Best Sound, and it was nominated the Golden Globes for Best Motion Picture - Drama, Best Original Score and Best Screenplay. Very good!

British history is a particular passion of mine, and i watched this film when it was released in theatres way back when. The gorgeous Vanessa Redgrave, and the incomparable Glenda Jackson! Who could resist viewing a film with these two actors? i felt compelled to write this very late review because i have an opinion about history recording that Mary and Elizabeth never met. Elizabeth had access and motive to meet secretly with her cousin, who's parents gave her father Henry fits. She could also control royal scribes. i personally don't believe that the two never met. And if they had, o what a scene it must have been. This film is remarkable in that. The movie was rather harsh with Elizabeth; she had passion plenty, but she put her crown and her head first. Looking at how close she came to death herself, and how improbable her accession to the throne was, i don't blame her. Technically, she was illegitimate, and Mary was a legitimate descendant of Henry VII. But Elizabeth had the sense to surround herself with loyal, political geniuses, as she herself was. Mary did not. She most likely knew about the plan to murder her husband, her cousin who shared the same grandmother.That might explain her son James and his short of divine character and physique. But he did become king, and he did unite Scotland and England in his way, despite centuries of feuding. So in spite of herself, Mary lost her head but was victorious in the end. So far, i think this is the best Mary of Scots film to date. Even after all these years, the music from this film still moves me...ever notice that the music from films about Elizabeth and Mary are usually beautiful?..and Nigel Davenport! I'm staying tuned for the hopeful 2008 release with Scarlett Johansson. It's interesting to speculate about whom they enlist as the director...

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.