Mary Queen of Scots

Starring: Saoirse Ronan, Margot Robbie, Guy Pearce, Adrian Lester, Joy Alwyn, David Tennant, Jack Lowden, Gemma Chan
Directed by: Josie Rourke
Rating: R
Genre: Drama
2018

Times Seen:
Tim: 1

Summary: Mary (Saoirse Ronan) tries to claim the English throne as her own, which puts her in opposition to the reigning monarch, Elizabeth I (Margot Robbie).

Review:

Tim: I generally enjoy historical dramas like this one- when done well, they inform you about actual historical people and events while entertaining you at the same time. Unfortunately, I simply couldn't get into Mary Queen of Scots. I believe there was a vision for what this movie would be, but the final product feels like a far cry from that initial plan. Quite frankly, I was bored nearly the entire movie. The film doesn't do a good enough job of establishing characters we care about, so all the events of the film feel lackluster. It's missing a true sense of political intrigue, so the betrayals feel surprising not because of the event itself, but just because the context wasn't set up properly for an appropriate amount of shock. It was more like, "Oh okay, so that happened" verses the "How could that happen??" that the movie needed to generate. As a whole, this is a forgettable film and mostly felt like a waste of my time.

Saoirse Ronan and Margot Robbie are both talented actresses, so it was a bit surprising that neither character really made much of an impact. We never feel truly invested in Ronan's Mary and the movie almost doesn't know what to do with Robbie's Elizabeth. Is she supposed to be the film's villain? A tragic heroine? An antihero? The script doesn't quite give us enough insight into this character (but by god, they got the makeup right). I suppose both Ronan and Robbie give good performances, but they both fall flat. I truly believe that a lot of criticism for this has to go to first-time director Josie Rourke. It's so easy to blame an inexperienced director, but I'm not sure why else two accomplished actresses would end up giving such forgettable performances. Neither actress makes the movie feel like it's about them. It feels like the events of the film, the need to move from one scene to the next overpowers their performances. They feel like an afterthought in a movie squarely focused on their two characters. It's interesting because every year, there are film award contenders who fail for the opposite reason- the movie focuses too much on the actors and their performances- and the performances are great, but at the expense of the story. This film had the opposite issue- the performances are lost in the telling of the historical events (which sadly, aren't as interesting as the film believes they are). That right there is the central reason why Mary Queen of Scots is such a failure.

Continuing the theme of the cast not being fully leveraged, I was initially excited to see Guy Pearce here- he hasn't done nearly enough in recent years. If you asked me to sum up his contributions to the film, I'd mostly just shrug. He doesn't get to do much at all here. The same story goes for David Tennant, although he does get a few brief moments to shine. Not nearly enough for his level of talent, unfortunately. Joe Alwyn does get some things to do, but I've seen him much better in other films. Jack Lowden gives a strong performance, but the movie spends a bit too much time on his character. The cast, their performances, and their screen time is just completely mishandled here.

It's fairly obvious I am not a fan of Mary Queen of Scots. 2 hours and 4 minutes isn't an overly long movie, but it felt unnecessarily long here. The film needed to be tighter and more focused- it might have been better if 10 minutes were cut. Now, the film does have its problems, but it deserves credit for the costume design and makeup. Those are such technical areas of the film, but they're both excellent here. It's not surprising that the movie was nominated for two Academy Awards, in those areas. Period pieces often get that level of recognition, but this movie deserved those nominations (I'm very glad it didn't win either). I do need to stress that the makeup, especially with Margot Robbie, was stunning. The depiction of a queen ravaged by smallpox was quite impressive. Robbie's best moments are when she's most desperate and the makeup makes a lasting impression. That's certainly the bright spot of the film, but these successes aren't enough to overcome the many flaws.

Mary Queen of Scots could have been a good movie. However, the mishandling of the cast, but a mess of a script blunts the twists and turns of the story. I didn't care enough to research all the historical inaccuracies, but it's obvious they existed. As a whole, this is a story that has been told on film before and this halfhearted attempt feels like a wasted effort from everyone involved. This is the kind of movie I'll totally forget about in a few months and have to review these notes to remember what happened in the movie and why it was so unmemorable.

Rating 1-10
Tim's Rating: 5.5


If You Enjoyed This Movie, We Recommend:
Braveheart, Atonement