|
|
|
Évaluation du client type
Partagez votre opinion avec les autres clients
|
|
|
Le commentaire favorable le plus utile
Le commentaire critique le plus utile
2 internautes sur 2 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile :
Vanessa take the throne as Mary
I love a historical film...hmm...because after watching the movie, you can research online or in a book, and compare differences between the film and what really happen. This film about one of my favorite royal women - Mary Stuart, Queen of Scotland, who was raised in France as a Catholic, claims the Scottish crown from her mother upon her death,after her husband, the...
Publié il y a 8 mois par Frances L. Arsenault
|
› Voir plus de commentaires 5 étoiles, 4 étoiles |
 |
See it for the Score
I was checking this movie out because I was interested in buying the DVD. How disappointing to see it's not available. The movie itself is extremely interesting, but I wanted it just for the soundtrack. This is one of John Barry's best scores. I guess I'll just have to go listen to Moviola again...
Publié le Janv. 30 2004 par Scott Casey
|
› Voir plus de commentaires 3 étoiles, 2 étoiles, 1 étoiles |
|
|
2 internautes sur 2 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile :
Vanessa take the throne as Mary, Mars 10 2009
I love a historical film...hmm...because after watching the movie, you can research online or in a book, and compare differences between the film and what really happen. This film about one of my favorite royal women - Mary Stuart, Queen of Scotland, who was raised in France as a Catholic, claims the Scottish crown from her mother upon her death,after her husband, the King of France died of an ear infection that spread to his brain (there wasn't a cure back then; or much of anything). But she runs up against religious prejudice, both from the Protestant Elizabeth (who had encountered anti-Protestant bias before she took the throne) and from Mary's Protestant half-brother James Stuart (Patrick McGoohan). Elizabeth, whose own reign is shaky (given a strong Catholic presence in her country), is nervous about her Catholic cousin--and made more so by Mary's seeming inability to appreciate the political niceties of the period.
In the film, the ever-luminous Vanessa Redgrave (Camelot) takes on the role as Mary, and the sharp-edged Glenda Jackson as Queen Elizabeth (who knew a thing or two about palace intrigue). And Vanessa received an Oscar nomination for her performance. So overall, I would say about this film is that I love it from beginning to end, and I love the original soundtrack in the film, and as I say many times I love a film with a good soundtrack.
Aidez d'autres clients à trouver les commentaires les plus utiles
Ce commentaire vous a-t-il été utile ?
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 internautes sur 2 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile :
Mary Stuart Was A Failure As A Queen And A Human Being, Mai 12 2001
The major mistake of Mary's life, which led to all her other disasters, was Marie of Guise's decision to have her daughter raised in France as the bride of the Dauphin. Feted and spoiled by the French Court Mary grew into a narcissistic young woman who believed the world revolved around her and it was her absolute right to have whatever she wanted when she wanted it. Political operator she surely was, but alas neither shrewd nor savvy, her penchant for intrigue proved disastrous because of her inability to accurately read other people and tendency to operate on wishful thinking. Her main aim on her return to Scotland was to obtain something better than that remote heretical Kingdom. The success of her early reign was largely due to her indifference to Scottish politics which she left to her highly able, and quite loyal, half brother the Earl of Moray. When her negotiations for the hand of Don Carlos, heir to the throne of Spain and criminal lunatic, fell through Mary's ambitions turned to England. In her mind her claim was much better than Elizabeth's and she was certain she'd get massive support from the English Catholics. Her marriage to Darnley was motivated both by her desire for that worthless young man and for the English Crown - to which he also had a claim. The marriage, opposed not only by Elizabeth but by Mary's own nobles, was the begining of her downfall. Darnley proved to be weak, vicious and a major political liability. Besides Mary met somebody else, James Hepburn, Earl of Bothwell. He was violent and unscrupulous but also completely loyal to Mary, as his father had been to her mother during the latter's troubled regency. That her sexual relationship with Bothwell began long before her supposed rape is proved by the fact she miscarried five month twins during her captivity at Lochleven, after being married to Bothwell a mere three months. Bothwell and Mary had good reasons for wanting to be rid of Darnley but the means they hit on must qualify as the most idiotic in the history of political assassination. Darnley was seriously ill, probably with syphillis, and being nursed by his wife after an eleventh hour 'reconciliation' at a remote house called Kirk o' Fields. The logical course would have been to slip the invalid a quiet overdose instead Bothwell and assorted co-conspirators decided to blow the house up with gunpowder. Mary, just to make her complicity more obvious, after leaving the house on the fateful night to attend a wedding sends back for an expensive coverlet on her bed. Worse still Darnley escapes from the house before the explosion and has to be finished off by hand - his cries clearly audible to the neighbors. As far as Mary was concerned with Darnley out of the way the coast was now clear for her and Bothwell. She either didn't realize, or didn't care, that her Lords opposed the match and her people were appalled by it. The result was outright rebellion that led to her imprisonment, forced abdication and eventual flight to England. From the moment she set foot on English soil Mary intended to steal Elizabeth's crown. Typically she overestimated both the support she could expect from English Catholics and from the Kings of France and Spain and her various plots were notable for their ineptitude. Mary Stuart was accessory to the murder of one husband and abandoned another the moment he ceased to be of use to her. She was a shameless liar insisting that nobody had the right to question the word of a Queen and died with a lie on her lips, swearing on the bible that she had never wanted Elizabeth's death, an oath given the lie by her own written words. She was in short a rotten human being as well as a bad queen.
Aidez d'autres clients à trouver les commentaires les plus utiles
Ce commentaire vous a-t-il été utile ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
See it for the Score, Janv. 30 2004
I was checking this movie out because I was interested in buying the DVD. How disappointing to see it's not available.The movie itself is extremely interesting, but I wanted it just for the soundtrack. This is one of John Barry's best scores. I guess I'll just have to go listen to Moviola again...
Aidez d'autres clients à trouver les commentaires les plus utiles
Ce commentaire vous a-t-il été utile ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 good stars... for 2 Greater Stars, Juil 17 2002
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...
Aidez d'autres clients à trouver les commentaires les plus utiles
Ce commentaire vous a-t-il été utile ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
IN OLD SCOTLAND., Juil 14 2002
Redgrave does a spirited job in the title role as the headstrong and romantic queen who came to an unfortunate end. Mary is raised and educated in France by her mother's Catholic family, from whom she inherits the Scottish title after her mother's death. Mary claims the throne much to the dismay of her Protestant half-brother James Stuart (McGoohan) and England's equally Protestant Queen Elizabeth - who eventually decides to "eliminate" her dangerous cousin...Vanessa Redgrave brings a tremulous, romantic-goddess quality to Mary; Glenda Jackson is likeable but contemporary in this version: she gives Elizabeth a sort of campy humour. Her red wigs seem almost prankishly terrible: she looks like a ragpicker hag dressed by Orry-Kelly! Director Charles Jarrott struggles to give it all a little lift, but without a better script, Hercules couldn't raise this story off the ground...Periods of history "fraught with intrigue" - as they used to say - don't film well. Mary's "tragical destiny" has always been a movie flop - box-office-wise, anyway. The film falters for a number of reasons: First of all, the leaden script by John Hale lacks romantic spirit and a zestful dramatic sense. Secondly, there's no real motovating idea visible in this version, which was produced abroad by the legendary Hal B. Wallis.
Aidez d'autres clients à trouver les commentaires les plus utiles
Ce commentaire vous a-t-il été utile ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
"In My End is My Beginning"..., Nov. 28 2001
I read once that this phrase was the last bit of embroidery Mary Queen of Scots did before her execution, and meant that even though Mary herself was to be executed and never assume her rightful place as Queen of England, her son James would indeed become King on the death of the childless Elizabeth I.This movie does not include that embroidered piece, but we certainly cannot miss the thread of the disputed inheritance of England's throne. What always struck me about Mary Queen of Scots was why she thought she could succeed as Queen of England when she couldn't even manage to control Scotland; since then, I have visited Scotland and learned more about its turbulent history and so have a better appreciation of what Mary was trying to do in Scotland. However, what I have noticed about most of the reviews here is that they speak of the actual history of the rival cousins, and don't say all that much about the movie, so perhaps that is where I shall now turn my attention. Nutshell plot for those out there who really can't follow the complicated history involved (and historians take note, this is how it is in the MOVIE, not how it was in real life): Mary (played by Vanessa Redgrave) is the only legitimate heir to the Scottish throne, but ever since she was a small child has lived in France, where she was even married to the Dauphin (heir to the French throne). Elizabeth's (Glenda Jackson's) claim to the English throne can be contested because according to the Catholic Church, her parents' marriage was invalid and she's a bastard. Elizabeth's chief rival would be Mary since she is a direct legitimate descendant of Henry VII, but whew! everyone expects Mary to spend her whole life in France as Queen of France. If only! Mary gets widowed at 19, and goes back to Scotland to claim her birthright. She's a product of the French court, lively and laughing (and Catholic), while the Scots are dour and poorly dressed and not laughing and becoming Presbyterian. Culture clash? Oh yes. And then there's Mary's illegitimate brother (Patrick McGoohan), who's used to running things and wants to keep on running things--she's upset with that, but not up to overcoming him. Meanwhile back in England, Elizabeth gets a brainstorm idea: what if she sends Mary's captured white horses back to England along with a really worthless but handsome young claimant to the throne, Lord Darnley (Timothy Dalton)? Yep. Lonely Mary falls hard for the guy, proposes, and marries him after a really whirlwind courtship. Morning after, heck no, not even that long, Darnley starts bossing everyone around, including her, saying he's the King of Scotland, and he's also a bisexual. Dour presbyterians and half-brother are unimpressed, but use him to knock off Mary's most trusted advisor (who here is also Darnley's lover). Mary bears a son, the future King James of Scotland/England. Then Earl of Bothwell (actor unknown to me) decides he wants in on the action, and before long, he, the brother, and the dour presbyterians (and so it seems Mary) cook up a scheme to blow up the house where Darnley is being kept now that he has syphilis. Plan goes awry somewhat, because Darnley climbed out the window and escaped the blast, but luckily others are on hand to strangle him. Mary then marries Earl of Bothwell. Elizabeth doesn't like this much. She considers Mary bad news and a bad queen, acting in this immoral fashion. When Mary eventually flees to England because she has been overthrown and forced to abdicate, Elizabeth promptly has her rival imprisoned for the next 19 years, until evidence surfaces that Mary is conspiring for the assassination of Elizabeth. Then, she is beheaded. So much for plot. Is this a good movie, though? Well, parts of it are. Great costumes for the women (those Son of Frankenstein sweaters that the presbyterians wear are not quite stylish, though). Patrick McGoohan's portrayal of the brother is also on target; Timothy Dalton is unsavory as Darnley. This is really the first time I've ever seen either Glenda Jackson or Vanessa Redgrave act. Glenda is wonderful: her portrayal is sympathetic--I understood perfectly her concerns. Vanessa is playing a type of plaster saint; her Mary is a victim, never having to take responsibility for her actions. If she were really this stupid, frankly, she shouldn't have lasted as long as she did. I find this a major problem with the movie, and that it makes it difficult to stomach such length with so little personal complexity in Mary's character. How can she be portrayed as a good woman when she helped blow up her husband? How can she be portrayed as a good mother when she was doing nothing in particular to safeguard him or even be with him? Good people don't usually act in these ways, and that's why I didn't like this movie, all in all. Up with Elizabeth!
Aidez d'autres clients à trouver les commentaires les plus utiles
Ce commentaire vous a-t-il été utile ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Beautiful movie, Oct. 15 2001
While there are some historical inaccuracies - this is still a lovely movie. For any interested in costuming it's a feast for the eyes!
Aidez d'autres clients à trouver les commentaires les plus utiles
Ce commentaire vous a-t-il été utile ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
THE QUEEN WHO RULED WITH HER HEART AND LOST HER HEAD..., Sep 28 2001
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.
Aidez d'autres clients à trouver les commentaires les plus utiles
Ce commentaire vous a-t-il été utile ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
This Film is a Waste of Time and Effort !!!, Sep 13 2001
What a dissapointment! Among other things, when the film opens it takes atleast 10 minutes to figure out where the story is taking place, and it depicts two meetings between Mary and Elizabeth that never happened!! Historically very irresponsible!Don't waste your money. If you want to watch a great Royal story and performance see "Anne of the Thousand Days" starring Burton and Bujold.
Aidez d'autres clients à trouver les commentaires les plus utiles
Ce commentaire vous a-t-il été utile ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mary and Liz's Not-So-Excellent Adventure, Nov. 2 2000
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.
Aidez d'autres clients à trouver les commentaires les plus utiles
Ce commentaire vous a-t-il été utile ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ce produit
|
|
CDN$ 24.95 CDN$ 19.99
En stock
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
Les clients qui ont vu cet article ont aussi vu
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Accueil Amazon
