If you love Katharine Hepburn and can't imagine how she got her nickname "box office poison", you obviously have never seen Mary of Scotland. Do yourself a favor and keep it that way.In this biopic of Mary Stuart, Queen of Scotland, she's surrounded by those opposing her rise to the throne, including Florence Eldridge as Queen Elizabeth, Ian Keith as her power-hungry half-brother, and Douglas Walton as her effeminate suitor. Not completely alone, Kate has a few allies: Donald Crisp as a loyal Scottish citizen, John Carradine as her secretary, and Fredric March as the love of her life. I'm not well-versed on any of the details, so I don't know how historically accurate Dudley Nichols's script was, but as an audience member, this movie was atrocious. Fredric March was supposed to play someone so incredibly Scottish, he's never seen in anything besides a kilt, but since he's the same actor who notoriously mispronounced his nemesis's name in Les Miserables, could he really have been expected to speak in a Scottish accent? I wasn't the only one who found Fred's lack of accent comedic; Nathaniel Shilkret's music made it clear he thought he was scoring a funny film rather than a dramatic period piece.Kate's portrayal of Mary—and Nichols's screenplay—makes her seem like perhaps the most incompetent queen in cinematic history. Donald Crisp dares to stand up to her in one scene, criticizing her for letting herself become a woman instead of a queen, and I completely agree with him. Time and time again she's given the ultimatum of keeping either her throne or her true love, and she's unable to decide. She claims to not care about the crown, but she won't sacrifice it to run away with Freddy? She's weak, unlikable, and annoying. Trust me, you don't need to watch this movie.

A couple of points just to start out with. First is that this movie (in my opinion anyway) hasn't held up as well as some others of the era. Some movies from the mid-30's still work, but "Mary of Scotland" came across to me as quite dated. It just looked old to me for whatever reason. The second point I'd make in starting out is that although I guess it would have to be classified as a story based on history, it's actually a movie based on a play by Maxwell Anderson. It plays rather fast and loose with history, and the musical scenes - perhaps necessary for a stageplay - seemed unnecessary and frankly kind of silly in a movie of this type. I would also add that the story is ridiculously romanticized, which is fairly typical of even modern movies that deal with the Tudors (and, although it's sometimes forgotten, Mary was a Tudor - the great niece of Elizabeth's father Henry VIII.) In a way, it's her Tudor background that really sets the stage for what the movie succeeded in doing.The heart of the movie, to me, was the contrast between Mary and England's Queen Elizabeth I - Henry's daughter. Mary - played by Katherine Hepburn - came across as passionate and desperately yearning for love, while Elizabeth - played by Florence Eldridge - came across as cold and calculating. Both were immersed in the politics of their respective kingdoms, but Mary came across as something of an unwilling participant, while Elizabeth seemed to relish the political world. Hepburn - as the title implies - was much more central to the movie than Eldridge, and her performance was certainly passable - although I would suggest that Mary was much tougher than Hepburn played her, and was quite capable of holding her own in the rough and tumble world of the 16th century Scottish court.That was the primary background to the movie: the Scottish court and the political and religious battles that were being fought. Mary was Catholic, but Scotland had embraced the reformed religion (ie, Calvinist Protestantism) and while Mary was open to toleration, Protestants never really accepted her or believed her promises. Mary's troubled relationship with her Council was believable. The Council is portrayed as wanting Mary to be essentially what we would call today a constitutional monarch - one who reigned but didn't really rule, except with the consent of her advisors. This would have been quite a normal expectation for the Scottish Council, since for almost 150 years Scotland had been in and out of regency, as a succession of children and teenagers had come to the throne, and so the lords of Scotland were quite accustomed to having their way. The relationship between Mary and the Earl of Bothwell was perhaps the most hopelessly over- romanticized part of the film. Their relationship in real life was at best tempestuous, and it's generally believed that he forced her into marriage by raping her. The movie doesn't make that suggestion. The movie leads up to Mary's execution under orders from Elizabeth, after she had been imprisoned in England for 19 years. Elizabeth's decision to execute Mary is (and was) a controversial one, but in the context of the times, Mary - as a descendant of the Tudors - was a potential rival for the English throne, especially because English Catholics regarded Elizabeth as an illegitimate daughter of Henry VIII, and therefore as an illegitimate Queen."Mary of Scotland" was a box office flop for RKO in 1935, and while it features some good performances it hasn't really held up all that well for today's audiences either. (4/10)

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.

The directors cannot refrain from showing the two queens together in one scene.Charles Jarrot -whose movie is inferior to John Ford's- did the same in 1972.And however,they never met ,not a single time during Mary's captivity.But John Ford's scene is useful for people who know little about the Virgin Queen.It's sure that Mary's childhood in France was a nice one even though her reign was short as king François II's wife.On the other hand,Elizabeth lived in fear when she was a child for her bloody sister wanted to get rid of her.The first past begins in Scotland ,and France is only evoked in Mary's memories.This first part is the most satisfying historically speaking:Darnley's and Ricci's murders are well directed by Ford,and the town criers who ,every ten minutes announce "It's eight'o clock!All is fine!" shows his sense of humor.Biggest flaw is the little part of James Stuart, aka"the bastard" aka Maurey:This man is really the stringman,who plays a prominent part in the queen's downfall,holding Mary like a puppet on a string,travelling to France when rebellion begins -he was not here when Mary was imprisoned in Lochleven-,just coming back to reap the benefits (regency he had lost when his sister came back).Frederic March is a fine actor,but his Bothwell is not credible.Bothwell was a hairy brute ,not the romantic chivalrous fair knight we see here.Mary's abduction remains a mysterious part because the historians have no documents of what really happened.Mary's captivity in Lochleven-where she at last understood how James Stuart fooled her -and her extraordinary escape -worthy of Hitchcock's suspense-lasts barely 30 seconds on the screen.Ditto for Mary's captivity in England.When she arrived,she was in what we would call "under house arrest" today.Only during her last year,when they discovered a plot,she was taken to the fortress of Fotheringay (a wonderful Fairport Convention song by the way),she was really a prisoner in the modern sense of the term.And she had a whole floor for herself though.The trial is unsatisfying.At the time,Mary did not care for Bothwell anymore,she was longing to become a martyr of the Catholic cause.She did not know that the pope did not take her seriously .The scene with Donald is pure romantic fiction.All in all ,and even if the things fall apart a bit in the second part,the movie is magnificently enhanced by Hepburn's presence and Ford -they said they had a love affair on the set- lovingly films her.I've been told that the scene between Bothwell and the queen on the tower was filmed by KH herself.