Moviezz

Thinking about them just in terms of their visual appearnce, Saoirse Ronan probably should have played Queen Elizabeth I instead of Mary, and Margot Robbie probably should have played Not In This Movie.
Perhaps it could have performed better, had it not come out the same year as both Outlaw King and The Favourite, as its content lies somewhere between the two, but its quality pales to either.
Final rating:★★ - Definitely not for me, but I sort of get the ap...

This movie is complete trash. 
Watch only if you want modern politics shoved down your throat.
The movie focuses more on LGBT rights then events related to the setting the movie takes place.
Poor casting choices, horrible acting from A-list actors and low budget sets.
Not worth streaming. Not worth pirating. Not worthing Seeding. 
Not worth the popcorn.

We have a scourge upon our land. 'Tis worse than pestilence and famine. 'Tis a woman with a crown. 
​
Mary Stuart's (Saoirse Ronan) attempt to overthrow her cousin Elizabeth I (Margot Robbie), Queen of England, finds her condemned to years of imprisonment before facing execution. 
Directed by Josie Rourke and written by Bau Willimon and John Guy, Mary Queen of Scots is the latest in a long line of historical costumers that fudge history to suit heir own ends. From a technic...

We have a scourge upon our land. 'Tis worse than pestilence and famine. 'Tis a woman with a crown.
Mary Stuart's (Saoirse Ronan) attempt to overthrow her cousin Elizabeth I (Margot Robbie), Queen of England, finds her condemned to years of imprisonment before facing execution.
Directed by Josie Rourke and written by Beau Willimon and John Guy, Mary Queen of Scots is the latest in a long line of historical costumers that fudge history to suit heir own ends. From a tec...

Unfortunately there are just too many flaws in this depiction of the life of Mary Stuart to itemise. The writing rather clumsily imposes a 21st century slant on 16th century Scottish history and seems more bent on imposing the morals and opinions of the former on the times and scenarios of the latter. Neither principal performance is particularly engaging; and Jack Lowden and Joe Alwyn are frankly hopeless as the sexually ambiguous "Darnley" and "Leicester" respectively. T...

Well, I guess the good new is that you don't have to worry at all. It is not historically accurate, and by that I mean it falls under the title of "revisionist." Normally I don't care if a film is historically accurate, I understand it is Hollywood...but I do care if it is a total re-write of history.
This is a rewrite, it is so far from accurate that it is a clear attempt to change people's knoweldge of the historical figures and the era.
But, the good new...