Aneesa Wardle The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

Kaydan Christian A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

Fulke Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

Delight Yes, absolutely, there is fun to be had, as well as many, many things to go boom, all amid an atmospheric urban jungle.

lugonian "Mary of Scotland" (RKO Radio, 1936), directed by John Ford, stars the queen of RKO, or at least one of the movie queens for that studio, Katharine Hepburn, in the role of Mary Stuart, "Queen of Scotland," or better known in latter-day terms as "Mary, Queen of Scots." With screenplay by Dudley Nichols, and taken from the 1933 stage play by Maxwell Anderson, as produced by The Theater Guild (starring Helen Hayes), the movie itself reportedly strayed from the play in favor for acting technique/style of Katharine Hepburn. For being a lavishly produced production with a cast of thousands, and under the direction of the recently Academy Award winning director John Ford (for "The Informer"), "Mary of Scotland" should have been an astounding success, but it wasn't. While earlier screen efforts of movie royalty as "The Private Life of Henry VIII" (United Artists, 1933), "Queen Christina" (MGM, 1933) and the outlandish life story of Catherine the Great in "The Scarlet Empress" (Paramount, 1934) being worthy considerations, the failure of "Mary of Scotland" might have been due to Hepburn's recent flop of "Sylvia Scarlett" (1935) or the fact the movie itself was simply, to many, a 123 minute bore.FORWARD: "Like the fateful stars, Mary Stuart and Elizabeth Tudor appeared in the Sixteenth Century, to reign even two great nations in the making … thus were doomed to a life-and-death struggle for supremacy, a lurid struggle that still shines across the pages of history … but today, after more than three centuries, they sleep side by side at peace, in Westminster Abbey." The story, set in 1561, opens in England where the temperamental Queen Elizabeth Tudor (Florence Eldridge), daughter of King Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn, learns that her cousin, Mary Stuart (Katharine Hepburn), is returning to her native land of Scotland after 13 years in France where she is to re- establish herself as monarch. Elizabeth plots with Throckmorton (Alan Mowbray), the Scottish ambassador, to use her half brother, James Stuart Moray (Ian Keith) go against her. After a rousing reception for her return to Leith, Scotland, accompanied by David Rizzio (John Carradine), her personal secretary and only true friend, Mary is denounced as "wicked" by the bearded radical, John Knox (Moroni Olson). Although loved by The Earl of Bothwell (Fredric March), Mary decides to marry Lord Darnley (Douglas Walton), a young drunk who lacks courage. Giving birth to a baby boy, and following Darnley's murder, Mary marries Bothwell, but their marriage is cut short as Holyrod Castle is soon attacked by troops hired by Queen Elizabeth to prevent Mary's claim to the English throne.Under the direction of another director as Rouben Mamoulien, for example, "Mary of Scotland" might have turned out rather differently, possibly better. John Ford, best known for his work in westerns or war dramas, seemed to be in foreign territory here. His visual style, ranging from shadowy images on walls and low-key lighting used for his previous success of "The Informer" (1935), repeats his visual style for "Mary of Scotland," but not so much with the same results. The acting, however, is superb, especially by John Carradine for his stand-out performance as Rizzio. Robert Barrat, Donald Crisp, Frieda Inescort and little Bobs Watson can be seen in smaller roles. While one might have wished for British born actress, Flora Robson, to have played Elizabeth Tudor, Florence Eldridge (Mrs. Fredric March) is given the honor as the spiteful queen. Although Fredric March, whose role is somewhat secondary, might seem miscast at first glance. Once he gets into character, one tends to forget that sort of initial reaction. Memorable highlights include the confrontation between Elizabeth and Mary; Mary's trial and her climatic closing segment. Also notable is the singing of "We Will Fight for the Queen" heard during the story and closing credits.Not historically accurate by any means, "Mary of Scotland" is what it is. The story of Mary Stuart would be retold later as the British- made "Mary, Queen of Scots" (Universal, 1971) starring Vanessa Redgrave. Redgrave had one distinction over Hepburn, that being nominated as Best Actress for her performance. However, this original edition, formerly distributed to video cassette and later onto DVD, has enjoyed frequent broadcasts on cable television, notably American Movie Classics (prior to 2001) and Turner Classic Movies. (***1/2 crowns)

jc-osms Being Scottish myself and somewhat familiar with the historical personnel and events depicted here, I was curious as to how the great John Ford would depict the life of a famous personage in my country's history. Well, the answers are inaccurately and boringly I'd have to say.Firstly, for every other actor's inaccurate attempt at the accent there's another who doesn't even try at all, Katherine Hepburn's title character least of all. Reversing the trend of Britain colonising America, here in Hollywood's version of the 17th Century we have Kate setting foot proclaiming and declaiming in her barely watered down native Philadelphia accent. That said, she does put a lot into her role with much handwringing and top-lip trembling as Mary's woes increase throughout the film until her execution at the end. However her end is a long time coming and while Ford tries to cover all the main incidents of her life in Scotland, including her ill-fated alliances with the drunken sot Lord Darnley, her noble champion and her doomed servant David Rizzio, her pawn like usage by her council if Scottish lairds and of course the enmity borne her by Queen Elizabeth, but it's all very done haphazardly and disjointed,y giving no real flow to proceedings. In support Fredric March at least attempts a Scottish accent although it gets stuck half way across the Atlantic although hs wife as Elizabeth does better in her role. Ford famously lost interest in the movie during filming even allowing Hepburn to (very obviously) direct a lengthy love scene with March, but the artist in him still wins through occasionally with some impressive set constructions, high perspective shooting views and atmospheric chiaroscuro lighting effects, plus the final scene of Mary ascending to the guillotine is genuinely powerful.All together though there are too many characters and not enough action for the film to flow so that it seems longer than its already lengthy running-time. To the best of my knowledge Ford never attempted historical biography again in his long career which shows if nothing else his self-awareness of his own strengths and weaknesses.Rumours that he later referred to this outing as "The Scottish film" are however unfounded.

esteban1747 My comment is not positive, therefore it will be brief. This story is far away from the real one. In the film Bothwell is not the ambitious man whom Mary loved, the relationship of Mary with her English "sister" is touched shallowly showing Elizabeth, the queen, as an evil but avoiding to show the complexity of the English - Scotish problem at that time and the influence of France on the ongoing events there. Moray, the Mary's half brother, was a very smart man and knew how to move himself with his well invented intrigues, in the film one cannot see much of that. The film was made to show Mary as a heroe, killed because England wanted to do that. Very simple, in my opinion, and not good for educating on history the new generation. Katharine Hepburn played well the role given to her, Fredric March and John Carradine performances were poor.

catuus "Mary of Scotland" (1936) is presently not in print save for used copies (which are of good quality). The film stars a luminous Katharine Hepburn and a powerful Frederick March, a combination that ought to guarantee a good film. Yeah. Well -- -- -- The fact is, "Mary of Scotland" is in many ways not a good film. Considered as pure storytelling, it's fairly OK. As a biography of Mary Stuart, in the words of Jay Sherman ("The Critic"), it stinks. The actual life of Mary Stuart is all but lost in a melodramatic plot, over-ripe dialogue, and inexplicable gaps.The film opens with Mary's (Hepburn) return from her long stay in France -- with nary a trace of a French accent. Well, be that as it may. Opening at this point makes sense, one of the few good choices made by its writer and director. Mary arrives in Scotland despite the intention of Queen Elizabeth I of England (Florence Eldridge) to prevent her. A niece of Henry VII, Mary's claim to the throne of England is even better than Elizabeth's (whose legitimacy has always been a matter of debate). Mary's assertion (in the film) that she "did it all for love" would, if she actually said it, have been a self-serving lie. Mary may have liked love, but she loved power.Eldridge as Elizabeth: There may have been less effective portrayals of the Virgin Queen, but this one is right down there near the nadir. Aside from her tepid portrayal, she just doesn't have the height. It's a good thing she isn't required to appear in scenes with (or against) Hepburn, as the comparison would be too awful to contemplate. They appear together only once, in a phony pre-execution tête-a-tête that reduces the motivations of both queens to petty spleen. Droll, but the meeting never took place. By the time of this alleged interview was in a deep state of denial, believing that although she had signed an order of execution her people would know she didn't want it carried out.The film follows Mary's attempt to establish her rule in fractious mid-16th Century Scotland. The Scots, generally, are half Pict and half Irish, so fractiousness was the leading personality characteristic. In her efforts she's supported by the Earl of Bothwell (March). He loves her and she loves him, but the marriage of queens is way more complicated than that Mary instead marries Lord Darnley, an English lord whose claim to the English throne is at least as good as hers. This marriage is part of Mary's hope to replace Elizabeth as Queen of England. It also results in the birth of the future James VI of Scotland and later James I of England. Darnley is played with earnest foppishness by Douglas Walton. Walton had a lot of minor roles in almost 60 films, oddly uncredited in many of them. He does pretty well in this one. The film, however, ignores most of the complex machinations that lay behind Mary's decision to marry Darnley.Mary's attempt to rule as well as reign is opposed by a number of Scottish lairds -- particularly her half-brother James Stuart, Earl of Moray, the former Regent of Scotland. Moray is played staunchly by Ian Keith, a Broadway fixture who also played a large number of "B" roles in major and minor pictures. Mary was also opposed by John Knox, the voice of Calvinism in Scotland, a pompous bigot with a big mouth and a very narrow intellect. He is played here very effectively by Moroni Olsen, a talented actor who did well playing self-important idiots of that sort.Mary's mainstay early on was David Rizzio, an Italian troubadour with a talent for politics and intrigue. Although he has a reputation as rather a pretty boy, he's played here by the great John Carradine -- an excellent Shakespearean on the stage whose stentorian voice eventually landed him in a lot of "B" (and worse) horror films. Rizzio's assassination marks the beginning of Mary's fall from the Scottish throne.Mary's final defiant marriage to Bothwell leads to her final defeat. Soon after, she flees to England to seek Elizabeth's protection. The latter is too wily to let Mary run loose in England, and quickly converts refute into house arrest. The film then cuts immediately to Mary's trial for treason, skipping over years of her plots and machinations to escape her prison, overthrow Elizabeth, and make herself Queen of England. In fact, the implication of the film is that Mary was innocent. Fat chance. The important (nay, central) character of Sir Anthony Babington is barely mentioned.The film ends at the scene of Mary's execution, which is not shown. She is finally shown mounting the scaffold. This whole scene is the most laughably stupid in the film. Although the photography is in black/white, it seems clear that Mary isn't wearing the red dress she is known to have worn. Hepburn's Mary is still young and radiantly beautiful ... although Mary at the time was old and worn and reduced to wearing a wig. The dog is missing. Before mounting the scaffold, Mary removes her ruff (as would be necessary), but retains a high collar. Had she worn such a thing, it would have taken more than 2 or 3 strokes of the axe to take her head. Of course, in fact, her neck had to have been laid bare. (Yep, Mary gets beheaded. If anyone is stupid enough to consider that a "spoiler", I checked the little "spoiler" box.)As a biographical study of Mary Stuart, this film is wholly unsatisfactory. It says damn little in reality about Mary and even less about her great rival, Elizabeth. The final scenes in the film present events in such an inaccurate and fragmentary manner as to amount to a complete fiction. All that we are left with is a fine performance by Hepburn in an expensive -- yet cheap -- melodrama.