User reviews

I saw this on Tubi in the US, in an apparently much edited version, as one long movie. Other reviews talk about the prevalent sex & blood in it, that must have been cut out for this version. I suspect the original had a choppy look to it anyway, but the result not only reduced any shock value but made it even choppier or more "modern" per 2004. The director seemed to want to do things differently than a standard history. Variations that could make a Brit angry matters less to a broader audience.

Part one featured Mary Queen of Scots taking over in Scotland 1561. The sets were disappointing but it should be noted that IRL, MQS was less than thrilled with her Scottish royal accommodations after her raising in France. Characters were believable. Complaints about actor accents in period pieces are easy to set aside because IRL English royals mostly used French anyway.

This part had very little to do with the main half, except to take the story straight to the grown-up version of what MQS worked so hard to create, James 6+1, first king of combined Brits.

Part two has a new cast and shows religious strife around 1605. Minor characters make their cases straight to the camera, relieving us of time spent with their backstories... I'll take this exposition method. We learn the events creating the Guy Faukes UK holiday. As for the odd title: "English Folk Verse: Remember, remember!

The fifth of November, The Gunpowder treason and plot; I know of no reason Why the Gunpowder treason Should ever be forgot!"

This is a BBC historical drama penned by Jimmy McGovern shown in 3 episodes starting in 1561 with the turbulent reign of Mary Queen of Scots and climaxing with the dastardly plot conceived by Robert Catesby, Guy Fawkes et al to assassinate her son King James by blowing up Parliament on November 5 1605. It is a lively piece, full of political and religious intrigue and very bloody in parts - believe me, the sword is not spared. The directorial style, particularly in the final episode was at times a little disconcerting; some of the characters would suddenly turn and speak directly to the camera, but this was my only criticism.

Some great performances, in particular that of Robert Carlyle as a moody, intense and utterly ruthless King James. An unrecognisable Catherine McCormack (remember Murron, William Wallace's young wife in Braveheart?) plays a scheming, all-powerful Queen Bess ("DESTROY HIM!"), whose scenes are sadly brief but memorable. Clemence Poesy, a gorgeous young French actress, gives the character of Mary a naivete and sensuality previously unseen in period pieces covering this time-frame. British audiences will recognise a now fully-grown Paul Nicholls (young Joe Wicks from Eastenders) who clearly relished his scenes playing the doomed Lord Darnley. (A possible future Bond, perhaps). Steven Duffy does well as a treacherous and highly ambitious Lord James, half-brother of Queen Mary, while Kevin McKidd lends dignity and heroism to the character of Bothwell, lover of the young Queen. Tim McInnerny is previously well-known for his comedic performances in the historical comedy Blackadder, so it was a nice change to see him as the cold, calculating Cecil, most powerful man in England.

The accuracy of certain events will no doubt be disputed by historians (the execution of Queen Mary, for example: never before have I seen it portrayed as a plot by James VI to murder his mother in order to get his own hands on the English Crown). But it is a highly enjoyable period drama whose main theme, the eternal struggle between Protestant and Catholics, is used to great effect to portray the events leading up to one of the most infamous plots in British history, commemorated every single 5th November all over these islands ever since.

From the script and from Robert Carlyle's performance, you'd have no inkling that James I was anything other than a degenerate, evil homosexual. Therefore you lose interest in watching the show because his character has no redeeming qualities. Contrast this portrayal with a quote from an historical website: "Along with Alfred the Great, James is considered to have been one of the most intellectual and learned individuals ever to sit on the English or Scottish Throne. Under him, much of the cultural flourishing of Elizabethan England continued; individuals such as Sir Francis Bacon (afterwards Viscount St Albans) and William Shakespeare flourished during the reign. James himself was a talented scholar, writing works such as Daemonologie (1597), The True Law of Free Monarchies (1598), Basilikon Doron (1599) and A Counterblast to Tobacco (1604)." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_I_of_England) There was absolutely no evidence of anything but venality and repulsiveness in the depiction of James I in this TV show.

As soon as I saw the text "Written by Jimmy McGovern" flash up on the promos, I knew that this would be something special. Having watched the first season of McGovern's "Cracker" I knew that this would be history with true grit, venomous dialogue, and buckets of conflict. I wasn't disappointed.

Judging by the other comments some people found McGovern's style too harsh, that he belittles the both Royal family and the Protestant and Catholic branches of church, and overuses sex and violence. It's a fair criticism, but so many over-starched interpretations of British history have been made that this gritty drama becomes a breath of fresh air.

The show is evenly divided into two parts, both riveting stories. The first is the reign of Queen Mary I of Scotland, a French Catholic girl now ruling over Protestant Scotland. Clemence Poesy turns in a brilliant performance as the young queen faced with her conniving half-brother Lord James, Queen Elizabeth I of England, her misogynistic husband Lord Darnley, and her brash suitor the Lord Bothwell. The whole story is turbulent, as a state of war with the English gradually precipitates.

The second part is much higher drama, though. It is concerned with Mary's son James I, a repugnant, bitter cripple, who promises the Catholics tolerance, and then reneges on his promise at the behest of the manipulative Lord Cecil, one of the most powerful men in England. This proves the catalyst for the famous attempted bombing of the houses of parliament on November 5, lead by the ruthless Spaniard Guy Fawkes.

It is true that McGovern revolves the entire show about the us-and-them viewpoint of the Catholic and Protestant, BUT this works to great effect. Emphasising the conflict in this war really ups the ante for the drama, making for some very high-octane television. Add to this brilliant performances by Robert Carlyle, Tim McInnerny, Kevin McKidd, Sam Troughton, and Michael Fassbender (Playing Guy Fawkes as a silent Clint Eastwood type delightfully)

This is, without a doubt, the greatest telemovie I've ever seen. However, if you're at all squeamish this definitely isn't for you: this is history with the filthy bits left in for a change...

Given the pronounced anti-Catholic bias of most contemporary English history, one might think that any attempt to redress the balance might be welcomed. Alas, Jimmy McGovern's drama, 'Gunpowder, Treason and Plot', proves this not to be the case. Its greatest problem is its unfortunate tendency to encapsulate complex political issues in slogans, and those slogans, in turn, in characters - the portrayal of John Knox (who does little more than storm about and utter his most famous quote) exemplifies this. This, and the number of historical liberties taken (James I, for example, discovers the Gunpowder Plot in person) make the story a less accurate guide to the past than even 'Braveheart'.

The series is not helped either by some substandard acting. Clemence Posey, with her bizarre French-American-Scottish accent, is mostly inaudible as Mary Queen of Scots and seems to take most of the cues for her performance from Mila Jovovitch's disastrous turn as Joan of Arc in 'Messenger'. Sira Stampe is robotic as James I's wife, while Robert Carlyle's James is as unconvincing as he is unhinged. Also detracting from our enjoyment are the understaffed battle scenes, the histrionic tone, and a decidedly anachronistic portrayal of sexuality.

Surprisingly, given McGovern's own politics, there's almost no hint of republicanism here, although within a few decades Britain was engulfed by a civil war that disputed absolutely the relevance of monarchy: perhaps this is ignored because it was a Protestant rebellion. Instead, we get a boring, linear drama of good queen Mary, bad queen Elisabeth and mad king James. I'm still certain that somewhere, behind the propaganda, there's an interesting story - how did hatred of Catholocism spread so rapidly when only a handful of years previously, everyone in England was Catholic? But this film does little to open one's eyes.

One of the best historical dramatisations I've ever seen: McKidd's passion is palpable, as are the blood and gore of the Catholic purges when James I came to power, the dust and dirt on costumes, the primitivism of the lifestyles--all seem as realistic as could possibly be. Of course, we have nothing but the literature of the time to document what life was really like, but this seems to me a fine imagining of the vulgarities, barbarisms, discomforts, passions and violence of the time. I can't think of a better film to introduce young people to the history of this turbulent period--it will certainly grab their attention!

After viewing the first two episodes (shown together on the UK terrestrial channel BBC 2), I wanted to recommend the series.

The title brings to mind "Guy Fawlkes", but the mini-series is actually the story of Mary, Queen of Scots - a tale which is amongst the most dramatic in the whole of Scottish history.

Given that all Scottish school children study this period in great detail (myself included!), the responsibility of all concerned is high.

It was with great delight that I found the series an honest and compelling human drama, and the (historically known) actions of the characters made perfect sense in the light of the characterisations and script.

I was concerned that the whole affair would be dragged down by either the weight of historical authenticity or the need to create a drama for modern sensibilities.

The historical ambiguities in the character of Mary were perfectly realised as drama: the transition from a French childhood to become a champion of the Scottish cause was credible. Her involvement in political assassinations was cleverly presented as "for the good of Scotland" rather than as cold-hearted scheming. So in this drama Mary is a heroine, though historians will argue endlessly on this one. My recall of school history is not good enough to know where liberties have been taken with historical fact.

Some flaws were present - the character of David Rizzio was not fleshed out sufficiently. The feel of the production could be criticised a little as a McGovern "housing estate drama" in costume e.g. the simple-minded Protestant/Catholic vein pervading the production. However, as the drama really gets going through the romance between Mary and her "bit of Scottish rough" (Lord Bothwell), perhaps one should acknowledge the universality of the human condition.

This is not an "Elizabeth" which re-wrote the book for cinematic historical realisations. However, "Gunpowder, Treason and Plot" is a likable and worthy production, which may not be absolutely top notch, but does seem a little tucked away on BBC 2 on a Sunday evening, when it deserves wider viewing.

I await the remaining episodes with interest.

Clemence Posey stars as the young and beautiful Mary, Queen of Scots in this thrilling tale of murder, deceit and religion. Upon the death of her mother the young Mary travels back to her homeland of Scotland from France after 13 years in exile. Discovering that her religion is considered evil Mary tries to allow Catholics and Protestants to worship in there own way unbeknown to her, her half brother Lord James is conspiring with Mary's rival, the Protestant Elizabeth 1st to plan Mary's downfall and replace her as King of Scotland.

When Mary marries the English, and powerful Lord Darnley, James begins to fear for his ambitions even more, when Mary becomes pregnant, and with the birth of her son, the future King James. Lord James realise his plans are destroyed.

With her marriage becoming tempestuous and violent Mary seeks solitude away from her violent husband in the arms of her faithful guard Bothwell, a move which was to become her downfall, for the sake of her son Mary places herself in the hands of her enemy and abdicates.

The series picks up again around 20 years later with James VI ruling Scotland and awaiting the death of the English Queen Elizabeth so he can claim her crown, when he does ascend to the throne all seems well, the people welcome him and except that they have a Protestant King, what he doesn't count on is a group of powerful Catholics, determined he will not destroy their faith and set to blowing up Parliament and the King. Learning of the plan James enlists the help of his adviser, the questionable Lord Cecill and his ill-fated spy Lady Margaret, to identify Guy Fawkes and his group and bring them to justice.

You'd think that combining a good director, excellent actors and fascinating

historical events would make for an entertaining miniseries -- but you'd be

wrong. The writing stank, the history was worse than inaccurate, and I can

barely believe excellent actors such as McKidd and Carlyle were able to deliver some of their lines with a straight face. Historical inaccuracies aside, the story itself was delivered so disjointedly it was downright choppy -- almost as if an entirely different director and writer made each half. Skip this one.

I loved every minute of this show! Both episodes were action packed and full of intrigue, just as the real events must have been 500 years ago! The acting was excellent, and the accents were superb! Mr. Robert Carlyle as James I of England and VI of Scotland was especially good, as was Catherine McCormack as Elizabeth I! An A+ from me!

Another entry in the revisionist-history-as-told-with-human-body-fluids school of European melodrama. Whereas "Elizabeth" showed the execution of the queen's enemies as a recreation of "The Godfather"'s wedding-cum-massacre scene, this anachronistic masterpiece revels in outdoing Quentin Tarantino in execrable behaviour, gratuitous gore, meaninglessness and sexual perversion. Not even enjoyable as sadistic pornography, this portrayal of James VI of Scotland (James I of England) as an R-rated video game Richard III will give you nightmares and the heaves. O times, O mores! I wonder how these films and mini-series ("Vatel", "The Affair of the Necklace", "Le Roi danse", "Saint-Cyr", etc.) get written. Do producers lure satanic literary failures with delusions of artistic misogyny and misanthropy and lock them up in unholy writing workshops, with promises of money and drugs, until someone comes up with a suitably repulsive script? Whatever the method for this madness, it works, the plays get produced and they make money. Some people even like them.

You know there is something fundamentally flawed with this "historical" production when the list of stuntmen is longer than the list of speaking parts and the songs on the soundtrack are in Romanian...