Disclaimer: This site does not store any files on its server.

Watch Mary Shelley

Mary Shelley is a movie starring Elle Fanning, Bel Powley, and Owen Richards. Life and facts of Mary Wollstonecraft Godwin, who at 16 met 21 year old poet Percy Shelley, resulting in the writing of Frankenstein.

Romance, Biography, Drama, History
Haifaa Al-Mansour
Owen Richards, Joanne Froggatt, Bel Powley, Elle Fanning

All Systems Operational

Product details

Genres Romance, Biography, Drama, History
Director Haifaa Al-Mansour
Writer Haifaa Al-Mansour, Emma Jensen
Stars Owen Richards, Joanne Froggatt, Bel Powley, Elle Fanning
Country Ireland, USA, UK, Luxembourg
Also Known As Mary Shelley - Die Frau, die Frankenstein erschuf, メアリーの総て, Mary Shelley - Un amore immortale
Runtime 2 h
Audio Português  English  Deutsch  Italiano  Español  Français  Gaeilge  Svenska  Nederlands
Subtitles Português  日本語  Čeština  Australia  한국어  Filipino  Tiếng Việt  हिन्दी 
Quality 480p, 720p, 1080p, 2K, 4K
Description In 1814, Regency-era London, Mary Wollstonecraft-Godwin is a 16 years old aspiring writer who works in the bookshop of her renowned father writer William Godwin, married in second terms after the passing of his first wife, philosopher Mary Wollstonecraft, with the too married by second time Mary Jane Clairmont, where Mary Jane's daughter of her first marriage Claire turns in a close and lovely stepsister for Mary. When Mary and Claire travel at the house of one of William's friends in Scotland, Mary meets the 21 years old poet Percy Bysshe Shelley, rising instantly a love interest between them. Returning to London little time later, Mary unexpectedly meets Percy again when he appears at her house in order to ask William to take him on as an apprentice. Fascinated by Percy, Mary begins a bohemian and torrid relationship with him despite the opposition of her father and her stepmother, especially after they discover that Percy is married with a little daughter whom he supports but he loves no longer. Determined to be free and live on her own terms, Mary flees with Percy to live together accompanied by Claire, who wants to get far from her abusive mother. Their initial happiness turns to tragedy due to the debts and poverty, in addition to the terrible loss of Mary and Percy's daughter, who dies only a few months after to born. Broken by suffering and pain, as well as a season living with the rich, eccentric and hedonist Lord Byron and doctor John Polidori, Mary turns into a shadowy being, becoming more and more obsessed with the idea of resurrecting the dead, while Claire lives a stormy and painful romance with the own Byron. All these events will lead Mary, motivated by a Lord Byron's bet about who can write the scariest horror novel, to find her own voice and exorcise her innermost demons by writing "Frankenstein; or The Modern Prometheus". But when prejudices of these times cause the novel to be attributed to Percy Shelley, it forces Mary to fight by claiming the novel as her own to prove that a woman can be the writer as she is.

Top reviews

Sunday, 18 Oct 2020 05:29

I'm looking at the reviews here and wonder what the fuss is all about. Well, here is my take. I was surprised to see such a low rating. I thought the film was wonderfully made. It captures the mood of its era, just as Elizabethan times did. The production is top-notch, and the acting is, indeed, superb. The film does not shy away from the brutal details of death, nor does it overdo the cinematography or gore. It's an accurate portrait of the time in which it was made, not some day-in-the-life piece. Like Shakespeare, it makes its own rules, and doesn't shy away from dark and bloody themes. However, it also makes its own rules and doesn't tell you how to interpret the script. It tells you what you will see. If you're looking for an action-packed film, one that will fill you with blood and passion, you won't find it here. The main character is not a maniac. He's the sort of guy who would rather take a break from what he's doing, instead of dealing with the consequences of his actions. He may get pissed off, but he does not want to give up. So, you don't get a totally unrealistic portrayal of him. I was especially impressed with the period detail. For instance, in the film, there is a scene where a young man is hanged by his wrists. There is a matching pair of shirts on the hanging man, in which the young man is wearing one of the shirts. On the other side of the table, is a pair of typical English shabby suits, and on the walls in the background are pictures of all the other hanged men. The scene itself is not that interesting, but the fact that it is presented like that makes it more realistic. I was especially pleased to see that the director was careful to choose the clothing for each hanging man. You can clearly see that they were in different periods of the period. I think it was a very clever thing to do. In the original play, there is the story of two young men, one hanged and the other alive. One is an apprentice painter who is paid to hang the other. The one who's still hanging is not an apprentice. He's an experienced painter. The other one, who is hanging, is a squire. He is the teacher who instructs the young one. The painter is a peasant, and the squire is a commoner. He is told to hang the one who is still hanging, to be in a position where his throat can be slit. This is important in the story, but it is very much ignored in the film. He hangs this one, but not the one who was dying. This is a little detail that I think the director did very well. I think it worked very well for this film, because the characters are interesting, the setting is authentic, and the setting is present
Tuesday, 28 Jul 2020 22:21

I watched this movie last night. I know how this movie's going to end, and I was not disappointed. I enjoyed the film because it was about a very talented woman, but also a woman who is a gifted artist and a brilliant scholar. The dialogue was very strong, and the actors did a wonderful job. I really enjoyed the whole cast. I did not like the movie's ending, which I think was just a little disappointing. I would have preferred a different ending. I thought that a better ending would have allowed for a better ending. The film is about a woman named Mary Shelley, who is accused of writing a novel about the husband of a philosopher. The movie is about the book and the woman's life before and after the accusations. There are many famous figures in the movie, such as W. Somerset Maugham, Virginia Woolf, and Jack Nicholson. The only actor that I did not like was Peter O'Toole, who plays the man who is accused of the wife's murder. I thought he was very good. However, I do not know if he was in the film for the whole length of the film or if he was just in it for a few scenes. This movie is also about a woman who wants to be a writer. I enjoyed the acting of the woman portrayed by Nicole Kidman. I also enjoyed the acting of Hugh Jackman, who plays her husband. I also enjoyed the writing and directing of the film. The film's soundtrack is very good. I have a CD of the music, and I am very pleased with the music. The cinematography was very good. I also enjoyed the use of the music in the film. Overall, I did not think that the movie was bad. It was a good film. I also thought that the ending was disappointing. The film is worth watching, and I hope that other people will enjoy it as well. I rate this film 7/10.
Wednesday, 22 Jul 2020 15:37

What happens when you put a woman on the wrong side of history? On a continent where women were castrated and slaved in the name of science and society and where they were sold as wives and concubines to foreign monarchs? "The Last Queen" tells the tale of Elizabeth II, who rules the British Empire during the nineteenth century. The film is a rich and profound look at the difficulties of doing such a thing, as well as the sense of duty to be at the center of it. I liked the idea of a woman being in charge, and the fact that Elizabeth has an almost pathological ability to be able to fix things in such a way that there's no room for error. But when you cut to the end, you realize that something is missing. The film's ending suggests that Elizabeth is going to be the last ruler of the British Empire, yet she's just barely not around to see it. Perhaps the problem is that she's not the ruler she seems to be. Elizabeth is probably quite normal, and in her final days there's no indication of having a mental illness that might be the cause of her inability to recognize what is going on around her. One wonders if there's something more going on in her mind. The film doesn't answer that question. I think the way the film ends is ambiguous, and I don't think the viewer can get the impression that Elizabeth is mad at all. I would have preferred to have seen the film come to a close with the last scene with the two of them, Elizabeth with a bowl of apple juice, and Edward with a glass of wine, and then we'd have seen Elizabeth's own power gradually overtake Edward, and the power that we saw in her eyes become apparent. But the ending is a bit muddled.

Write a review