Solemplex To me, this movie is perfection.

Titreenp SERIOUSLY. This is what the crap Hollywood still puts out?

FuzzyTagz If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

Sammy-Jo Cervantes There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

grc46 Wonderful movie but suffers severely for the inclusion of 'Rock Music' in a film that takes place in the 16th Century. Really an incredible mistake and I'm just trying to fathom 'why'? It rates so well in all other categories so I just can't quite figure the reason. I saw the series 'The Tudors' and it was just astounding with such attention to every detail including the music. If anyone can 'clue' me into the reasoning then I would be grateful. Possibly the producers felt the rest of the production would be too weak without the inclusion of such inappropriate music but everything else is so obviously up to snuff and then some so I am still left with this question. However, please make this a must on your list of historical series to view just hold your noses when the music is played. Henry the VIII would probably lop the head off of the producer who made this decision.

fustbariclation I really was impressed. It's a good film - I can only assume that the poor ratings are a result of people watching it expecting a Mel Gibson blood-fest with blue, kilted battles every few minutes. If that's what you want, then this certainly isn't for you.It's interestingly atmospheric - and it draws you in to the complexity cleverly. I really warmed to Mary, despite not being that keen on queens generally.You can see the problem, one queen is bad enough, certainly otiose to requirements - but two must have been a, literally, bloody nuisance.She was, to be polite, mixed-up and confused, but, if you're brought up as a pet, you can't really be expected to turn into a sane and well-rounded human being. Despite that she did well.I can't understand why sub-title technology appears stuck in the 1950s. Surely it isn't beyond the wit of man to avoid white writing on white backgrounds. Not that there's all that much French, it's mainly in English, but it's annoying to have the intrusion of subtitles, but be unable to read some of them.You have to feel for people, living in such violent times with so many people hating them that they have to live in castles, obviously very uncomfortable, draughty, gloomy places.I'd recommend it. It's certainly my cup of tea.

adiv23 Mary, Queen of Scots, she lived a full life and more as this historical film shows. The actress, who played Mary, Camille Rutherford, is a revelation. I wish to see her in more films. I felt the film was quite well-done and I am surprised it has not been seen, reviewed or commented on by more film buffs. Definitely worth it for those of you who enjoy period films based on historical figures and past events. Costumes, screenplay and direction was exceptional. The sound track was a bit off but I suppose it was more in tune with the impending doom that was to come to Mary. It isn't melodramatic at all. Very to the point, and I liked the fact that it took you in to her thoughts and mind and not be merely an observer to her life. Well done. 7/10.

director1616 This version of the story of "Mary, Queen of Scots" comes from Switzerland. Though the story of the most famous Scottish monarch of all has been told on the big screen several times before, this European-produced version is very credible. Its USA premiere was in November, 2013; and had a second screening at the AFI Fest in Hollywood. By the sizes of the audiences who wanted to see the picture, it confirms the fact that there is still much interest in Mary Stuart.The film stars French-Swiss actress Camille Rutherford, who plays the title role with honesty and truthfulness. Rutherford portrays Mary as neither a complete heroine nor a complete villain, but rather a human being who inherits the trappings of being royal; as well walking the very thin line of trying to solve the problems of religious divisions. Rutherford has a earthy natural beauty to her (she is as attractive in-person as she is on the big screen); which lends itself to the character of 'Mary, Queen of Scots'. But she never allows her natural beauty to overshadow or become the main focus of her character. Rutherford allows her character's flaws to resonate with audiences; and does such a masterful job of portraying her character with a quiet subtlety, that movie patrons root for 'Mary' to be successful, though many know of her well-documented doom.Director Thomas Imbach could have fallen into the trap of turning this costume period piece into a soap opera-like drama. But with Imbach at the helm, he avoids all the usual clichés, and gives this well-documented story a different slant. Is there drama within the life of Mary Queen of Scots? Yes, historical accounts do nothing but that otherwise; but Imbach and the screenwriters (including a Stuart descendant)keep close to historical accuracy by telling the story with dramatic believability. He manages to bring us into the world of Mary Stuart and Queen Elizabeth I of England, yet we never see Elizabeth I on the screen as a real person. The cinematography by Rainer Klausmann makes the most of the beautiful landscapes of Switzerland and France.Sean Biggerstaff plays the 'Earl of Bothwell' very deliberately without going 'over-the-top' with his performance. Aneurin Barnard had the unenviable task of portraying the very flawed 'Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley', and did so without calling attention to his character over the title role of 'Mary', as well as does not overshadow the rest of the cast. Tony Curran does a marvelous job as the caustic 'John Knox"But the real point-of-note in this picture is the performance of Camille Rutherford. Mary, Queen of Scots is such a real, 'larger-than-life' historical character with such a tragic ending that portraying such a figure has to be accomplished with an affirmative integrity for audiences to even care. Rutherford does that brilliantly.This cinematic version of the story of Mary, Queen of Scots is better than the 1936 film, "Mary of Scotland" (starring Katharine Hepburn); and is just as good and looks better than the 1971 version "Mary, Queen of Scots" (starring Vanessa Redgrave). No doubt this 2013 version will be compared to the American-produced cinematic version, starring the very talented Saoirse Ronan. This European-produced version of the story of "Mary Queen of Scots" is one not to be missed by those who love movies.