"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'.

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."

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.

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!