The film begins with an idyllic scene in France, which shows Mary with her then husband, Francois, the King of France. He dies a premature death, and there being no love lost between Mary and her sharp tongued mother-in-law, she returns to her native Scotland, where she is Queen in her own right. When Mary, a staunch Catholic, arrives with her retinue in Scotland, she is given a most unroyal and barely civil welcome by her half brother, the Protestant Earl of Moray, and the Lords of the Congregation. She is also repudiated by the Calvinist reformer, John Knox, who denounces her in no uncertain terms. Mary is surprised by his vitriolic attack, as she is quite progressive for her time and believes in religious tolerance. She is all for worshipping according to one's own conscience. The terms of her reign, however, are finally made clear to her by her half brother, whom she, understandably, hates by now. She, an anointed Queen, is to be a puppet, and he, the power behind the throne.

Meanwhile, Protestant half brother dearest intrigues with the Protestant Elizabeth I of England. She is concerned about Mary, a Catholic Queen with a legitimate claim to the English throne, as her own kingdom has some unrest between Catholics and Protestants. As a direct result of the intrigue, Mary makes a most unfortunate marriage to the dissolute Lord Darnley, a handsome but morally weak noble with a proclivity for insalubrious activities. She soon provides Scotland with an heir, but her marriage to Darnley is doomed and sets off a chain of events from which would follow murder, regicide, and a second marriage to an ambitious Scottish border lord, the Earl of Bothwell. This event is ultimately the catalyst for an enforced abdication by Mary and exile to England, where she is under house arrest for nineteen years. Her son and husband denied her, this most unhappy of women is finally caught in an intrigue with Catholic English lords. Elizabeth I reluctantly orders her execution upon a finding of treason. In the end, however, it is Mary, who has the last laugh, as Elizabeth I is childless, and Mary's son, James, would one day ascend to the English throne, being next in the line of succession.


gripping drama, if slightly embroidered   August 1, 2000
 37 out of 41 found this review helpful

"Mary, Queen of Scots" is an enthralling and colorful film, with strong performances by Vanessa Redgrave in the title role and Glenda Jackson as the formidable Queen Elizabeth I. Regretfully, the filmmakers couldn't resist the temptation to embellish history by staging a face-to-face meeting between the two monarchs (which never actually occurred), but that's the only complaint I would offer. If you're interested in the intersecting fortunes of the Tudor and Stuart dynasties, played out against a backdrop of court intrigue and explosive passions, then this is a film you won't want to miss.

I note some inaccuracies, however, in the reviews posted by Amazon.com's Marshall Fine and customer Katharine Williams. For example: Mr. Fine writes that Mary "claims the Scottish crown from her mother upon her death," which gives the false impression that Mary's mother was the previous sovereign (whereas Mary's mother was simply Regent of Scotland until Mary reached the age of majority; Mary officially became Queen of Scotland during her infancy, as the only surviving legitimate child of King James V of Scotland). Also, Mr. Fine states that Mary, a Catholic, "runs up against religious prejudice" from her Protestant cousin, Queen Elizabeth I of England (not true; Elizabeth tolerated both Catholics and Protestants in her realm, and she did not engage in religious persecution). Rather, the enmity between the two queens stemmed primarily from political considerations (after all, Mary fomented instability in England by encouraging the plotters who wanted her to seize Elizabeth's crown!) and also, inevitably, from the personal rivalry that existed between the only two female sovereigns of the day: Mary and Elizabeth, related by blood and presiding over neighboring kingdoms, were naturally curious about -- and intensely competitive with -- one another.

Finally, Ms. Williams, in her otherwise very intelligent and thoughtful comments, describes Mary as "Queen Regent" of Scotland (no such title ever existed: one may be Regent, or Queen, but not both simultaneously). Instead, Mary was "Queen Regnant" -- meaning that she was a monarch in her own right, as opposed to being a king's consort. Also, Ms. Williams says that Mary was "Queen Claimant" of England -- again, there has never been any such title. (Clearly, Mary DID attempt to claim Elizabeth's throne, so one should simply describe her as a "claimant" -- a statement of fact, but not a title in itself.)

For anyone who wonders about the basis for Mary's claim to the English crown, Mary was the granddaughter of Margaret Tudor (sister of England's notorious King Henry VIII, who was Elizabeth's father). The kingdoms of England and Scotland were finally united at Elizabeth's death, when Mary's son (already King James VI of Scotland) became King James I of England.


4 good stars... for 2 Greater Stars   July 17, 2002
 37 out of 46 found this review helpful

Although the figure of Mary Stuart has always been distorted by Hollywood, this is a good movie which is actually an attempt at giving us a glimpse at the women, not the Queens, in their historic context.

Unfortunately, even this one is a bit sweet with Mary and goes on hard on Elizabeth.

The players are all first class, starting with a Clash of Titans between Vanessa Redgrave and Glenda Jackson. Two female screen giants fighting out in front of our own eyes. What a feast.

Then come the other giants: Trevor Howard, Ian Holm, Patrick McGoohan, Harry Andrews and many more othe British Screen legends. A real treat in Stardom and a who's who in this movie.

Just for that it is highly recommendable.

Now two points of woe.

First: in all these years (the movie dates back to 1971) do you think that Universal Pictures could have released at least one Widescreen version of it? Noooooh, the Gentlemen went on producing other insignificant stuff, but never cared on re-releasing this one in Letterbox format.

Second: although I liked it when it was released, especially for its cast and more than beautiful music scored by John Barry, why wasn't an attempt made at remaking it in a more true to history perspective?

After all Mary was not as innocent as depicted by Katie Hepburn or even Vanessa Redgrave. This is Folk Lore not History!

Mary was raised in France in exile, but pretty soon took a keen interest in politics and started plotting all by herself to take possession of the English Crown.

These were not the figments of the imagination of Elizabeth, but a hard and harsh reality that the English Crown and the Parliament both took immediately very seriously.

Mary tried it with whomever would have listened to her and would have granted her protection in doing so. She tried to drag the French on her side at first. When this didn't work, she tried the Italians, through the Pope. then came the Spaniards and ultimately the Scots. And they all fell for her.

The reasons for her mad conviction of being the only true Queen of England were inculcated into her by her family due to some contentions they had already back in Henry VIII's Reign.

All this though was certainly not enough to make her the legitimate Queen of England and she should have contented herself by already being Queen of the Scots.

Anyway, she remains a pathetic and sad figure in History and well deserves a movie such as this one as a remainder that at times it is better to be happy with what one already has, rather than wanting the whole pie.

In this instance Mary truly was too immature and too arrogant to admit defeat even if it loomed right in front of her eyes.
And arrogance as we all know, gets so often repaid with a harsh punishment. In her case she lost her head over it.

Some may say that she fought for religion's sake. Is any religion a valid justification for human sacrifice? Especially of other people, rather than your own. Of course not, and yet Mary never hesitated in sending innocent people to be slaughtered in her name.

Some may pity her, some may condemn her, but the fact still remains that she was an intriguing figure wonderfully portrayed by Vanessa Redgrave. And right or wrong, she did exist and should therefore be depicted in at least one movie.

Between Katie Hepburn and Vanessa, I still prefer Vanessa. Glenda Jackson reprises her role Elizabeth R in this one and she's one strong butch of a woman, a hard nut to crack. No wonder that men lost their heads (in more than one way) for her.

Anyway, this one with Elizabeth and Elizabeth R, should be movies to be bought and cherished dearly like good wine. After all it is seldom they make movies like these.

And if you're interested by more Tudor Lore, try also "Henry VIII and his Six Wives", "Anne of the Thousand Days", the filmed Play by Robert Bolt "A Man For All Seasons".

The King is dead, long live the Queen...


Don't be put off by the production date!!! Gorgeous film!   June 25, 2007
 33 out of 37 found this review helpful

This is a beautifully done and fairly accurate movie about the short-lived romance of Anne Boleyn and Henry Tudor. The costumes are wonderful, if not altogether accurate for the period. It is one of the best movies done about the Tudor scandal, though it only covers Anne's story. My only question is this: Why is Catherine of Aragon ALWAYS cast as a modern hispanic woman??? There are several portraits of the lady, all showing her to have been a pale red-head. Spanish royalty of that period were very aryan, thank you very much, all you casting directors out there!!!