Customer Reviews

Mary, Queen of Scots [VHS]

5 star:		(69)
4 star:		(28)
3 star:		(11)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

I was so glad to hear that both films were being released as a duel set. "Anne of the Thousand Days" and "Mary Queen of Scots" are independent enough to stand alone, but even more charming when watched back to back, since the latter references minor details in the former.

"Anne of the Thousand Days" is the story of Anne Boleyn and how she was pursued by Henry VIII at the cost of his marriage and the fate of England's understanding with the Catholic church. It is both a charming retelling and one that has a particular bite to it, particularly as Anne's world starts to fall apart when Henry's eye is cast upon the beautiful Jane Seymour. For a late sixties production, the value of filmmaking is excellent; the costuming is absolutely gorgeous, and the performances are memorable. If nothing else, Anne's final speech to her husband while imprisoned in the Tower of London will linger with you -- that it will be their daughter, Elizabeth, who is remembered for her reign.

"Mary Queen of Scots" does not deal merely with the title lady, but also her cousin Elizabeth, whose performance is beyond brilliance. It does dally a bit with the facts but no one really cares since it is presented in such an interesting manner. There are some gruesome aspects that seem a bit startling in contrast with the beauty of the film, but nevertheless it carries quite an impact, and the chance to see Mary and Elizabeth head to head in a couple of different scenes is well worth your time. I particularly liked the depiction of Elizabeth as something of a jealous, temperamental woman, since she was known for her tantrums, just like her dear father.

I pre-ordered this the moment I learned about it, and look forward to viewing both films in all their former glory. And if you're anything like me, a fan of the Tudor generations, you'll want to add it to your collection as well.

This is a stunning period epic, though not historically accurate. Then again, these historical dramas seldom are. Nonetheless, Vanessa Redgrave, in the title role of Mary Stuart, the first Queen Regnant of Scotland, is luminous. She plays the beleagured Scottish Queen to perfection, at times skittish and capricious and, alternately, commanding and royal. Patrick McGooghan is marvelous as her bastard half brother, the dour Earl of Moray, who is coldly implacable in his ambition and desire to sit upon the Scottish throne. Nigel Davenport is excellent in the role of the virile and sexy Earl of Bothwell, whom he plays as a man of some integrity, who, while ambitious, is loyal to Mary, whom he loves. Glenda Jackson is magnificent in the role of Elizabeth I of England, imperious, wily, and intelligent, a master of political intrigue and statesmanship. Timothy Dalton strikes the only discordant note, as his portrayal of the dissolute Lord Darnley is one dimensional and falls flat, leaving the viewer to wonder what Mary saw in him in the first place.

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.

"Mary, Queen of Scots", despite its occasional diverging with historical fact has always been a favourite history drama of mine. Being as fascinated by Tudor and Stuart history as I am I was always bound to love this lavish production but it is the lavish production, beautiful location photography in France and Scotland, exquisite costumes and historical attention to detail that always intrigue me. They all come together in an engrossing chronicle of the story of the tragic young Mary, Queen of Scots from her early years of a priveledged existence at the refined French court, through her years of personal rule in Scotland to her abdication and then her nineteen lonely years as Queen Elizabeth's "unofficial" prisoner in England till her execution for treason. Here is a historical legend if ever there was one.

The production boasts a stellar cast of seasoned British acting greats and in particular alot of the film's majesty comes from the brilliant playing of the two leads in their only meeting on screen Vanessa Redgrave who plays Mary and Glenda jackson repeating her Emmy Award winning interpretation of Queen Elizabeth 1 from her earlier stunning BBC mini series "Elizabeth R". Nominated for an Academy Award as Best Actress for her performance here Vanessa Redgrave has never been more luminous than in her playing of the romantic young Queen torn from her comfortable surroundings at her beloved French court for an uncertain future in the Protestant dominated far north of her native Scotland. She is at turns innocent, wily, stunningly beautiful, and unfailingly brave and optimistic, in short a perfect representation of the fascinating real life historical Queen. Glenda Jackson matches her every step of the way as her rival and enemy and ultimately her goaler and executioner. Her's might be the smaller of the two roles but she is magnificent in her scenes and makes all the recent portrayals of Queen Elizabeth seem very pale in comparison. I wont spend alot of time debating the fictional events that are woven into the story here but I will say that this film must first be viewed as part fact, part fiction, and there is no point in getting upset of some of the scenes included here. First and foremost a lot of discussion is always spent around the two meetings between Mary and Elizabeth in the film. As any avid reader of the history of this period will know, despite the fact that both women's lives were torturously intertwined for many years they never actually met. That said and done these two scenes in "Mary, Queen of Scots", showing the two women meeting are superb and the sparks ingnited between Vanessa Redgrave and Glenda Jackson add up to wonderful acting and drama. Here are two extremely gifted actresses in roles totally suited to their characters and they achieve memorable work together.

The film is rich with other stunning performances as well. Ian Holm is first class as the tragic Riccio, Mary's private secretary who pays the ultimate price for his loyalty to her. Timothy Dalton an actor who I have long admired excels as the vain and beastly Darnley, Mary's second husband who helps lead Mary to her eventual ruin. Nigel Davenport plays the Earl of Bothwell more as a roguish cavalier than as the uncouth adventurer that Bothwell was in real life. Nevertheless his acting with Vanessa Redgrave in the scenes just prior to Mary's abdication are matchless in their romantic passion. Patrick McGoohan plays James Stuart the wily illegitimate brother of mary with just the right levels of malice and superficial grace. At the English court the British acting talent is just as much on display with veteran Trevor Howard portraying a superb Sir William Cecil, Elizabeth's cunning Chief advisor and Daniel Massey, who just prior to this role had made a great impression portraying Noel Coward in "Star!", plays Robert Dudley, Elizabeth's supposed lover for most of her reign.

The production is blessed with sceneic views that will take your breath away and the overall production has a wonderfully lavish look about it as befits such a sweeping historical saga. I've always enjoyed this drama and if you appreciate fine acting despite the divergence from historical fact then this production cannot be bettered. Certainly it gives a sympathetic view of Mary's life and career but I feel where possible all the elements of her fascinating character have been included. I highly recommend this very dazzling production of "Mary, Queen of Scots", to all lovers of history and those that admire fine acting.

"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.

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!!!

I've been waiting for "Anne" to come out on DVD for years! I saw it the year it came out when we were on a family vacation in Florida and fell in love with the movie. Genevieve Bujold is a feisty, flirty, and highly ambitious Anne Boleyn. "Mary" is an excellent movie as well--Redgrave creates a queen who rules with her heart instead of her head, which leads to her downfall.
It's about time these two films became available.

Great Movies. Watching Anne of the Thousand Days as an adult, I was surprised to see so many moral implications in the decisions of the protagonists, from Thomas Moore's refusal to renounce his beliefs, to Anne's choice of offering her daughter a chance to become queen at the expense of leaving her an orphan.

I was slightly disappointed with the package. Despite the thumbs up on having each movie on a separate DVD, the movies do not have an option to select an individual chapter. (there are chapters and you can jump from one to the next, for example in order to get to chapter 10 you have to jump through 1 - 9 instead of going to a separate screen to select chapter 10, like on 99% of DVD-s out there ...). The image is shaking in some minor instances - this may have something to do with the transfer.

Here we have two terrific films, appropriately packaged together. You get two DVDs packaged in a single case, each individually labeled. Perhaps if the distributor would have included Cromwell (1970, Richard Harris) it would have been the ultimate CD package ever, (considering the great price in this instance).

"Anne of the Thousand Days" is the superior of the two entries for a couple of reasons. First, it stars Richard Burton whom, as expected, plays his role brilliantly. Secondly, all the scenes are brightly lit and colorful, thereby overcoming a frequent problem with films such as these.

The story is a well-known one about the first failed marriage of Henry VIII of England and his solution to rid himself of this unwanted wife so that he could pursue his lust with a second, the lovely Anne Boleyn (circa 1525 C.E.) The tale is a complicated one but this film yields the story in a coherent and comprehensible manner. Henry was initially guided to marry his recently dead older brother's wife (Catherine, a Catholic), a princess of Spain whom was said to have not consummated her marriage with Henry's brother. She had a child, Mary, but produced no male heir which Henry desperately desired.

In order to rid himself of Catherine and marry Anne, Henry had to proclaim himself to be head of the church of England, thus the Pope had him ex-communicated. Still, he married Anne who produced yet another female child, Elizabeth. (So do you see why the next film in this package is "Mary Queen of Scots"?). You probably know what happened with Anne as a result of her failure to produce a male heir for Henry but I'll stop there anyway.

The focus of this 1969 film is centered on how Anne, having seen her own older sister's mistake of becoming Henry's mistress and receiving nothing, learned to exploit her own sexual power over the King to entice him into marriage. She is portrayed as both evil (in her power-monging) and good (as a devoted mother). This is a pretty fair rendering of the actual story.

This film was directed by Charles Jarrott and the original music (very good!) was composed by Georges Delerue. It runs at an epic length for a full 2 hours, 26 minutes.

The second film of the package, "Mary Queen of Scots," is of course a follow-up to the first movie, albeit Henry VIII had many wives after Anne Boleyn and a great deal of politics transpired in the period between the two. Still, "Mary Queen of Scots" seems a natural sequence for this movie package.

The cinematography in this 1971 feature is excellent and the brisk writing moves this one right along, again a frequent complication with such films. The scenes, sets, scenery, and casting are all excellent here. Vanessa Redgrave plays Mary Queen of Scots (Mary Stuart) and Glenda Jackson plays her cousin, Elizabeth I.

This film was more difficult for the writers in that Mary Stuart was looked at, and is still viewed, differently by various people and factions -- some still consider her to be conniving and evil while others see her as a heroine and a heraldic victim of Elizabeth I. This film leans more toward the latter view, so the correctness of the history here is somewhat called into question. You can tell which way the wind is going to blow in the film, though, because Elizabeth is made up to LOOK mean and evil while Mary's appearance is lovely.

Mary returns to Scotland from France where her husband (the king) had died and so she accedes as the rightful heir to the Scottish throne. Her half-brother becomes her advisor but he clearly has his own agenda. Mary makes some missteps in love and in marriage which is mostly what led to her ultimate demise.

At one point, she is forced to meet with her cousin Elizabeth face-to-face in England (a "fact" which many astute historians still assert never happened) and the meeting does not turn out to Mary's benefit. I'll stop there to avoid a spoiler but most folks are aware of the conclusion of this sordid tale.

Again, this is a fine film and while it's not quite as good as "Anne of the Thousand Days," it still fully earns the five stars. It was directed by Charles Jarrott and the original music was by John Barry and Sidney Margo (the latter being uncredited). This film runs for 2 hours, 12 minutes.

Both movies are Universal releases and they are beautifully conveyed in color, letterbox format. When I received this DVD package, the shrink wrap had a "Made in Mexico" sticker on it, a fact that appears not at all to have affected the quality of these excellent film prints.

These two DVDs (in a single package) are high-up amongst the treasures of my ever-expanding film collection and I highly recommend them.

The conflict between Mary Stuart and Elizabeth I is one of the truly great matchups that history has to offer -- which is why it is nothing short of astonishing that, to date (2000 talking), no filmmaker or playwright has done anything remotely approaching justice to it. What makes this film's failure to break that cycle particularly acute is that no two actresses have ever been better suited to these parts than Vanessa Redgrave and Glenda Jackson.(Redgrave is even tall, like Mary!) Jackson, of course ,had already given the definitive performance of Elizabeth in the superb British television miniseries "Elizabeth R" -- the difference being that there she had a script that at least attempted to be worthy of its epic subject. This film, like virtually all of its predecessors, treats Mary like a refugee from a Barbara Cartland romance novel, a woman concerned first and foremost with finding the Right Man. The real Mary was a shrewd and savvy political operator who, for the first five and one-half years of her six-year reign, defused a complex religious situation that might have taxed the abilities of Elizabeth herself, successfully suppressed three rebellions (by taking the field against them in person, something her Tudor cousin never did), and instituted the first decrees on religious tolerance in the British Isles. The eternal mystery about her is why, in those last six months of her reign in 1567, she went utterly to pieces, behaving in a scandalous fashion that virtually compelled her subjects to overthrow her (in what was arguably the first popular revolution in European history). The most plausible explanation is that she suffered a complete moral and physical collapse after being raped by Bothwell, and having been led by him to tacitly connive at the murder of her husband. (The dreadful paradox of being a queen, whose entire position depended upon being seen by the world as an inviolate being, having to cope with the ultimate violation, with all of the political and religious explosiveness that would have entailed -- now THERE'S a theme to engage a real writer!)Also, this film seems not to know, or care, that to invent not one, but TWO meetings between the queens is not only to change history -- it is to be writing about two completely different people. The fact that Elizabeth had never seen Mary was probably what ultimately gave her the courage to execute her; while Mary lived and died never having laid eyes on the person who had controlled her destiny more than any other. The film's failure to develop any number of the rich characters in the story is really inexcusable. What, for example, about Mary's several confrontations with John Knox, the father of the Scottish Reformation? The perfumed and bejewelled queen, sitting on her throne, and arguing theology (including a woman's right to wield political power) with the fiery-eyed, ascetic, bearded Knox, a prophet right out of the Old Testament -- any writer who doesn't thrill to the prospect of dramatizing THAT ought to turn in his word processor.I give this film two stars only because Redgrave and Jackson are goddesses among 20th-century actresses,and can never be really dull.Too bad that this time around they are a pair of emeralds in a tin setting.

The film world in the 1960s and 1970s exhibited a fascination with Tudor England as demonstrated by a number of fine films and PBS/BBC television productions: A Man for All Seasons (1966), Anne of the Thousand Days(1969), Mary Queen of Scots(1971), Elizabeth R (1972). And The Six Wives of Henry VIII (1970). Recently that fascination has returned with cable productions of Elizabeth I, and The Tudors, and the anticipated Elizabeth the Golden Age. Universal Studios has determined to use two of the earlier films in part as promotion for this October's release of Elizabeth the Golden Age. The fact that Anne of the Thousand Days and Mary Queen of Scots should be released on a single DVD set would otherwise be curious indeed. Together as a promotional DVD or separate, no matter, many viewers will just be happy to see these films released in this format. They are both tour de force productions that show off the acting talents of major actors. And it should be noted neither pretends to be purely historical; they are historical dramas. And both are commendable even with the passing of time. Anne of the Thousand Days gives us one of the better later performances of Richard Burton as Henry VIII, and a young Genevieve Bujold as Anne Boleyn, a sound script (based on an earlier play), solid production values, and a wonderful score by Georges Delerue (who also scored A Man for All Seasons). Mary Queen of Scots suffered from a bit of a convoluted plot but a literate script nevertheless (also loosely based on a prior play), and still had dependable performances across the board with Glenda Jackson reprising her portrayal of Elizabeth I from Elizabeth R with great gusto, and Vanessa Redgrave in a very believable interpretation of Mary (ironically, she did a cameo as Anne Boleyn in A Man for All Seasons). Many of the supporting roles are notable as well, Patrick McGoohan, Trevor Howard, Daniel Massey and Nigel Davenport. The production is grand, and the score by John Barry is one of the highlights of the film, so much so that Universal has provided the musical track only option (with commentary) on this disc which is an unexpected treat. This is one of Barry's best works! The music of Delerue and Barry really set the standard for films in this genre, and nothing has really equaled them to date. The two films counted fifteen Academy Award nominations between them. Good production values,and nicely packaged.