Sexyloutak Absolutely the worst movie.

Pacionsbo Absolutely Fantastic

StyleSk8r At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

BelSports This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

Robert J. Maxwell This is from a play by Maxwell Anderson, touched up by Dudley Nichols. It is not John Ford territory and it shows. Ford handles the staging and dramatic effects well enough, the photography by Joe August is exceptionally good, art direction by Van Nest Polglase is appropriate, and Walter Plunkett's wardrobe is evocative. The musical score is by Nathaniel Shilkret and is pedestrian.Katherine Hepburn was only twenty eight when this was shot and she hadn't yet developed her acting chops. She was to get much better later in her life and in the proper roles. Frederick March booms his way through the part of her devoted but doomed lover.The problem is that Ford just doesn't seem to know how to handle long, preachy scenes. And "Mary of Scotland" has more long and preachy scenes that anything else the poor sensitive dim-wit ever directed. Boy, do people talk. "No power on earth shall remove me from my throne. I will bide my time until the return of the Earl of Bothwell." Nope. Historical epics based on plays are not his mug of Bass.Ford does what he can with the script. He turns the rigid Calvinist John Knox into a raving maniac. Heavenly music hums in the background when Mary prays before her death -- to a Roman Catholic god. This was Ford's religion but his attachment to the church was kind of leisurely. They had to drag him to mass. And by the time he died he wore a necklace containing a crucifix, a star of David, and various bits and pieces of other religious trinkets he'd picked up over the years.There are occasional touches demonstrating the director's real interests. When Frederick March first appears, he strides over to the huge fireplace in the chilly stone room, and lifts his kilt from behind to warm his rear end. With that part of his anatomy comfortable, he turns around and warms his ventral parts. I doubt he was responsible for Douglas Walton's portrayal of Darnley as a cowardly lush who was barely masculine, what with his mascara and his lipstick and his mincing about.Ford's métier was the small community, not the Empire. He was comfortable with people who knew and respected each other and who spoke their minds openly -- but briefly. He was comfortable with movies like "Stagecoach."

MartinHafer Wow, was the dialog for this film bad--bad especially since this is considered a prestige picture--a costume drama in which RKO had a lavish budget and a nice cast. All too often, the characters tend to talk through exposition--in an effort to explains things to the audience by having the characters stating things that they SHOULD have known. As a result, what they say often just sounds dumb. For example, Mary doesn't just greet her brother but announces his full name and calls him her brother! No one talks like this! And, occasionally the characters do little explanations about what has happened in the past--but again, who talks that way?! Part of the problem was that to understand the movie and the chess-like maneuvers, you either needed a VERY lengthy prologue, some exposition (but not THIS much) or you should be a history teacher--as I am. Now let's talk about the film historically. The film makers had an obvious bent in that they portrayed Mary Stuart in a very, very favorable fashion--even if history shows her as a bit of an idiot and conniver...and probably an accomplice to the murder of her first husband as well as having involvement in various plots to kill her cousin, Queen Elizabeth of England! I have never understood the notion of portraying Mary in any manner that is favorable--though films often have! However, one thing they did get right in this film are the divisions within Scotland--many loved her because she was their rightful queen (even if she was raised in France) but many hated her because she was Catholic and the country was rapidly converting to Presbyterianism. She and John Knox (head of this church) truly did have an acrimonious relationship as her as her reign progressed.As far as actors go, the choice of the very proper Connecticut-born Katharine Hepburn to play a woman raised in France is odd to say the least. And, Frederic March with his very, very Midwestern-American accent is cast as a Scot! Such happenings were pretty common in Hollywood, but it sure makes it hard to believe these actors are playing real-life characters. Still, despite the bad casting, this might have worked--had the dialog been better. I already talked about it some, but found it laughable that Mary always seemed to talk as if she was angry and speechifying--and rarely seemed like a human being. Throughout the film, you also see Elizabeth and her manner is oddly unlike this--and she seems a bit weak and willing to allow her advisers to talk about her illegitimate birth. Considering that Elizabeth had a nasty habit of killing nobles with the slightest provocation, this sort of characterization seemed odd. So what you have are some nice costumes and pageantry but bad history and dialog. The film must have done pretty well at the box office, as more films about the Stuarts and especially the Tudors proliferated during the subsequent decade. Despite this, I can't see these films working at all today--they're just too stilted and unreal to be of much interest. I guess my problem with this movie and most other historicals of this era is that they seldom tried very hard to get the facts straight. And, as a historical purist, I find myself unable to enjoy the films very much because there are so many flaws. You probably won't notice this, but you undoubtedly will notice how dull the film is!

Neil Doyle The complicated historical background involved in MARY OF Scotland is such that unless you know something about British monarchs you'll have a hard time knowing where the truth lies in this epic historical romance. But it's clear that KATHARINE HEPBURN gives a radiant performance as Mary, Queen of Scots--the only drawback being that she never ages a bit over a twenty-five year span. When she goes to her execution, she looks just as young as she did in the opening scene.It's a pleasure to report that FREDRIC MARCH breathes a lot of life into his portrayal of Bothwell. Too bad he didn't exhibit this kind of gusto when he played the title role in ANTHONY ADVERSE the same year. He's all bravado and robust athletic grace and looks good in his period costumes. Maybe we owe his strong performance to John Ford, but whatever it is, he's much better here than he was as Anthony Adverse.JOHN CARRADINE seemed an unusual choice to play Rizzo, the Italian secretary who happens to be a troubadour of sorts, but it's nice to see him in a more sympathetic role for a change. DONALD CRISP, ALAN MOBRAY, DOUGLAS WALTON and FRIEDA INESCOURT are interesting in supporting roles.Walton is another actor who shines here, rather than remaining colorless in the background of many a film. He gives a flamboyant performance as Lord Darnley and it's probably among the best roles he ever had.FLORENCE ELDRIDGE makes an interesting Queen Elizabeth, less showy in the role than Bette Davis or Flora Robson but still with the right amount of regal spirit.John Ford directs the first half of the film with his usual authority but things get a little too repetitious and slow-moving in the second half when tedium really settles in before Mary's final walk to the execution block.Summing up: A mixed bag, some strong performances, a few strong scenes but overall result is disappointing. Here's an historical romance that cried out for Technicolor. It manages to look drab in B&W despite the lavish costumes and good photography.

SkippyDevereaux Don't let my summary get you upset, I would never mean to do that--but although I do love this film--in short it is a bit boring. I loved the period costumes and sets and the acting, but the storyline lacked any real excitement!! Hepburn was fine but any real passion in the acting department has to go to Fredric March. The supporting players were also very good in their parts, especially Florence Eldridge as Queen Elizabeth. I saw somewhere that Ginger Rogers tried out secretly for the role of Elizabeth and almost had it until she was found out by the director!! Would have loved to have seen that one--LOL But it is a nice film, but just a tad too long and boring!!