Terrible acting, screenplay and direction.

Boring, over-political, tech fuzed mess

Best movie of this year hands down!

Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

The life story of Mary, Queen of Scots is a thoroughly engaging one. I recommend anyone who wants to know more about the history while being entertained at the same time to check out the two Jean Plaidy books, ROYAL ROAD TO FOTHERINGAY and its sequel, THE CAPTIVE QUEEN OF SCOTS - two great little novels that tell you all there is to know.MARY OF Scotland is an all-too Hollywoodised version of the story that suffers from an exceptionally overlong running time, unfortunately. It's strange, because some parts of the production are exceptionally slow and boring, while 19 years of history is condensed into about five minutes. There are a few eventful bits but for the most part this is a drag.The director is none other than John Ford, but despite the presence of such a cinematic luminary, he seems uninterested in the material which is lifeless as a result. Katharine Hepburn is also a disappointment as Mary herself, singularly failing to make the queen sympathetic in any way. Fredric March does what he can as Bothwell, and there are nice little roles for John Carradine and Moroni Olsen, but it's not enough.I particularly disliked the way that some good little bits of history are omitted or simplified for no apparent reason. For instance, Douglas Walton's final scene didn't happen that way at all and much more drama could have been made of it. Instead all the focus is on the talk and its incessant and goes nowhere. The definitive story of Mary, Queen of Scots this certainly isn't.

Seems John Ford was really more of an outdoorsman, this movie is ghastly. It looks like a von Sternberg movie for Marlene Dietrich with its claustrophobic sets but without von Sternberg's ability to compose beautiful shots or create a layered mis-en-scene. Even worse the sounds is ghastly, every speech echoes off the walls, the worst sound in a movie that I can recall except maybe "Rebecca" which also suffers from terrible sound. This may be a mercy as most of the actors come in and out of a Scottish brogue that would offend even Groundskeeper Willy.Poor Katherine Hepburn seems to have no idea what she is doing, or who she is playing. Ford must have been more comfortable directing men or perhaps he didn't give a damn. At least she doesn't try a Scotch accent, which is historically correct as Mary was raised in France, and if I recall correctly did not speak English when she arrived in Scotland, the country she left at age 5.Even funnier is the portrayal of Elizabeth I who remarks seriously "Ya know what it's like to be born illegitamate? Ta have royal blood in ya veins?" of course Elizabeth I was not illegitimate except in the eyes of Catholics. Supposedly Ginger Rogers wanted to play Elizabeth and it's hard to imagine she would have been any worse. If RKO denied her the part it must have been for non-artistic reasons. Ah well, there is a reason Hepburn (and Dietrich) were labeled box-office poison around that time. Both came back though Hepburn with "The Philadelphia Story" and Dietrich with "Destry Rides Again."

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!

Wow, what a piece of anti-Protestant propaganda this turned out to be. I was shocked, first of all, to see atheist Katharine Hepburn playing a praying Catholic (actors are prostitutes; they'll play any role if the money is right. Hepburn and Tracy proved that way back). "Mary" was praying for guidance. That was fine, even refreshing to see her play that kind of role, to be honest.However, once "Mary, Queen of Scots" arrives in Scotland and encounters John Knox, the Scottish Protestant reformer, we see the bias. Knox is portrayed as some shouting, wild-man lunatic! Sorry, but that's so typical of the film world....even back in the classic film days where Catholic priests/nuns were all portrayed as lovable and beautiful people by the likes of Bing Crosby, Ingrid Bergman, Tracy, Loretta Young, etc. but Protestants did not receive the same treatment...and never have. Of course, nowadays Hollywood is unrelenting in bashing both groups, particularly Catholics.Nevertheless, this film is really biased toward Hepburn's character, and too prejudiced for me. Even with no bias, at 123 minutes this film was too boring - a sin to every movie-goer!