So what did everyone else think about part II?
Essex was a cute but slimy fellow, wasn’t he?
I thought the second part was weaker than Part I. The relationship between Essex and Elizabeth was strange – part mother/son, part unconsummated lovers. Very borderline icky. I thought the actor who played Essex played it way over the top, while Mirren was almost forced to be all over the place emotionally. She played much better against Jeremy Irons.
Having said that, Essex as portrayed here, was an idiot with romantic delusions. He was foolish and reckless. Perhaps you could chalk it up to youth.
In certain scenes, Mirren was the spitting image of Elizabeth II. I thought I read in the other thread that she would be playing her next – if that’s the case, great casting.
Was the real James VI a misogynyistic homosexual?
Much weaker than the first.
Now correct me if I’m wrong, but Elizabeth never met either James or his mother Mary, Queen of Scots in person. The script even alluded to the fact that these two scenes were made up. Geek that I am, I’m annoyed by that.
My 7 year old thought the execution of Mary in part I was awesome. We taped last night’s episode so he can watch the even more graphic Essex beheading this evening.
And, yes, James was a misogynist homosexual.
Elizabeth and Mary did plan to meet at least once, but they never did. Filmmakers don’t seem to be able to resist portraying what their meeting might have been like. I’m pretty sure they meet in the Glenda Jackson version too, and I think I’ve seen a Mary Queen of Scots movie where they meet.
They meet in both Mary Queen of Scots movies that I know of, the stately one with Vanessa Redgrave and the laughably crappy one with Katharine Hepburn. (It had Katharine Hepburn and was still crap, that’s how bad it was.)