contemporary reviews were generally positive. frank s. nugent of "the new york times" wrote it had a "blend of excellence and mere adequacy." he wrote that the film had "depth, vigor and warm humanity" but had scenes which "lack the vitality they possessed in the play", and considered hepburn's characterization of the title role rather too soft in comparison with the historical mary. "variety" praised the "extra-strong cast" and ford's "sure-footed" direction. hepburn's performance was described as "not really mary stuart but rather katie hepburn. and that is all in the film's favor because it humanizes it all and makes it that much more nearly acceptable." however, the review also found the film too long and the ending too sad, and conceding it could not end any other way without "completely corrupting history." "impressive historical drama finely acted and produced with all-around distinction", reported "film daily". "motion picture daily" called the film "a splendidly powerful drama" with a "sincere, intelligent and genuine" performance by hepburn. russell maloney reviewed the film negatively in "the new yorker", writing that despite its high production values, "it has little or nothing to do with maxwell anderson's play. any other historical drama of the period could have been sandwiched in between these scenes and it wouldn't have made a bit of difference." of hepburn's performance, maloney wrote that she had "the cards stacked against her from the very start, because pageantry naturally interferes with characterization."