Best movie of this year hands down!

Simply A Masterpiece

Plenty to Like, Plenty to Dislike

It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

"Mary of Scotland" is a historical bio-pic of the ill-fated Mary Stuart, commonly referred to as 'Mary Queen of Scots', who reigned over Scotland from 1542 to 1567 before her arrest and eventual execution for treason against Elizabeth I, Queen of England. The movie shows Mary and her 3rd husband, the Earl of Bothwell (Frederic March) in a sympathetic light, portraying them as star-crossed lovers caught up in the times. The movie implies that Mary was set up and betrayed by a paranoid Elizabeth and condemned based on trumped up charges supported by false evidence. The story is much more complex and the central characters likely not as innocent and noble as the movie suggests (Bothwell is suspected in being complicit in the murder of Mary's 2nd husband and Mary's role in the Babington Plot suggests that she was involved in a plan to assassinate Elizabeth). As far as historical films go, the movie is not particularly extravagant – most of the castles shown are obviously just paintings and much of the action is limited to courtyards and rooms. The director, John Ford is clearly more comfortable shooting westerns in the open expanses of Monument Valley than making historical romances in the confines of a set – many of the shots look very 'stagy' and there is an excess of 'shadow shots', sometimes effective but usually just distracting. Hepburn does not make a very convincing Mary and the dramatic shots of her chin quivering with bottled up emotion get old pretty fast. IMO, "Mary of Scotland" is neither nuanced enough to be 'educational' nor exciting enough to be 'entertaining'.

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.

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!

As a history buff, I understand many commentators' criticism of this film because it strays often and far from the facts - as, indeed, most "historical" films made in Hollywood do. If that kind of disregard for history bothers you, then this is probably not the movie for you. Other commentators have provided excellent historical "correction" and delineated the movie's plot; I refer you to their comments for such matters. I will only address the movie, itself, in my remarks.If you require plenty of action in a film to entertain you, this one will probably fail to satisfy you. But if you enjoy costume dramas featuring political intrigue and ensemble acting then I highly recommend this movie. Although modern movie-goers expect verisimilitude in a film's sets and locations, I do not fault old films for being produced on studio sound stages and back lots. In 1936, when this movie was made, films retained a stronger connection to their roots in the theater, and were much less the modern art form into which they have evolved. This is not the least bit bothersome to me.That said, I enjoyed the exterior scenes more than the interiors. When I watch depictions of Medieval and Renaissance times in old films such as this, I am constantly aware of 2 aspects of interior palace shots. The ceilings are incredibly high and never shown - they are nonexistent, of course. Also, the floors are so shiny - seamless, highly polished expanses! I bet a lot of spills occurred during filming! The palace scenes in this movie are no exception. Mary's apartments are suspiciously ornate and sumptuous for an old Scottish castle. Again, this doesn't detract from the movie, it is just an observation about the sets.By contrast, the exteriors are more convincing. The set where the Scots people are harangued by John Knox (Moroni Olson) as they gather to welcome home their queen has the feel of an authentic castle (especially by comparison with the interiors). The nighttime setting and smoky torches create a very gloomy atmosphere in the castle courtyard. The same set is equally convincing during the clash between the conspiratorial Scots nobles and Lord Bothwell (Frederic March) who has come to Mary's timely rescue.I admit (heresy of heresies!) that I am not a big fan of Kate Hepburn. However, here she is prettier and more radiant than ever. She delivers a nicely nuanced performance that evoked my sympathy.Frederic March, however, demonstrates why he is one of the greatest actors in American cinema. Before I saw this movie the first time, I never would have believed that he could be convincing as a dashing, romantic hero in a historical costume drama. But he pulls it off superbly - what a remarkably versatile actor! The costumes, which he wears comfortably and convincingly, show off his broad shoulders to great effect. He is a very robust presence on screen. I loved seeing him in a role that was as big a change of pace as this one.Likewise, I give extremely high marks to John Carradine. In his later career, he was more or less typecast as a cold, sinister bogeyman. But, along with his role in the classic, Stagecoach, this role shows that he had a much broader range. I enjoyed seeing him portray a much more emotional character than usual in this role. Like Hepburn, he portrays an interesting, conflicted character that evoked my sympathy.Alan Mowbray also delivers a surprisingly superb performance that is very different from the roles he typically played - either a comic foil or a sophisticate in films depicting contemporary society of the '30's and '40's. His is not a large role, but it is important, and he comes across as a real sneak. I loved it.I was disappointed by the fictitious meeting between Elizabeth and Mary. Unlike several commentators, I did not think it at all necessary. In addition, it is very predictable. I would have been much more satisfied if the movie had reflected that Mary was Elizabeth's captive for many years. During that time each may have fretted in her own way about a possible encounter. No doubt, contemplation of the ultimate fate of Mary of Scotland weighed heavily on many people for many years - including Mary, herself, and Elizabeth.