Plantiana Yawn. Poorly Filmed Snooze Fest.

Jeanskynebu the audience applauded

Sexyloutak Absolutely the worst movie.

FirstWitch A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

eagleblossom First of all, Katherine Hepburn is at her most beautiful, and although the director did not like her costumes (it was too late to change them), her dresses were exquisite.This movie grossed the most of the Spencer Tracey/Katherine Hepburn movies, and the story-line was intriguing.Highly recommend!

vincentlynch-moonoi I'm updating my review of this film after reading the new biography of Spencer Tracy, and after spending several days out in the High Plains of eastern Colorado, western Nebraska, and western South Dakota.I'm surprised at the general negativity of most reviews here toward this film. I have a great deal of respect for this film, but I should say up front that I have long been an admirer of Spencer Tracy (second only to Cary Grant in my eyes). I think perhaps this film is too serious to be a "pop" choice. It really is one of the most serious movies I've ever seen. There is no frivolity in it, no humor, just straight dramatic acting. I could almost say that it's not a very "Hollywood" movie.The film begins with an intriguing musical score and settles down in a western-prairie town that seems more authentic than most. In some ways this appears to be just another cattleman - versus - farmer story, but I think it is much more than that. In the scene where Tracy talks about what the High Plains means to him...what he hears in it...well, it's a fine soliloquy. The movie is also the story of an Eastern woman - versus - the West. A story about two people who cannot adjust their views about life in order to come to an understanding.Another reviewer mentioned the lack of passion between Tracy and Hepburn on celluloid. I think that what you see between the two stars here, as well as in other films, is a love based upon deep respect, rather than sex. I'm not sure that it was an issue of age -- he was only 7 years older than she. But he had lived a rough life with his drinking, and seemed much older than she. So while there may not be passion between them on screen, there was a wonderful chemistry that is just as apparent here as in most of their joint efforts. Since beginning the biography, I have been watching all of the Tracy films generally available (and a few you can only find in places such as You Tube), and it's interesting to note that this is the film where Tracy is seemingly suddenly middle-aged and more distinguished looking in his appearance...and that's perfect for this role. As important is that by the mid-40s, he had mastered the ability to be subtle and show strength in that subtlety, and to reserve his powerful outbursts for those points in a film where they are really needed and appropriate.Melvyn Douglas is excellent here, although it's difficult to like his character much. Self-righteous in the beginning and out to get another man's wife. He mellows later in the film when he finds he has lost. In my view, one of his more impressive roles.One particularly strong scene is where the cattle stampede the farmer's land during a blizzard. Very profound, even though the scene does not directly involve any of the major players.There are a number of great character actors in this film. It's always a treat to see Harry Carey, and he was just wonderful in this film. And although I'm not always a fan, in this film I rather enjoyed the fine performance of a rather restrained Edgar Buchannan.A couple of minor criticisms. First, note how freely the characters walk out in the sea of grass. When I was out there, people and signs constantly warned me about rattlesnakes! And the sod house...I was in a real sod house this past summer...not nearly as "nice" as the one portrayed in the film. But I will say that the photography MGM did on-site was top notch in terms of portraying the sea of grass. However, actual on-location scenes with Tracy and Hepburn were apparently filmed in Arizona and New Mexico, though I'm guessing supposed location is eastern Colorado and Nebraska, since Tracy speaks of Hepburn having her baby in Denver.I think this is an excellent, wholly serious film which is well worth a second look. Highly recommended. And worth putting on your DVD shelf if you like serious movies.

maryszd I tuned into this film on TCM expecting to see a familiar prairie epic about Katherine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy fighting the heroic fight against the elements. What I got was a film about two flawed and vulnerable human beings who made a series of disastrously bad personal and parental decisions. Even though there was a lot of talk about Col. Brewton's (Tracy) attachment to the "grass"and being a cattleman, the story of the Brewton's failed marriage could have taken place in Baltimore. It was nice to see both Hepburn and Tracy acting in flawed ways and out of character. From the looks of it, Tracy was uncomfortable in the role. But Hepburn is the better actor here and her predicament is more poignant. It's an odd and interesting film that's well worth seeing.

CitizenCaine Elia Kazan regretted making The Sea Of Grass, and it's easy to see why. Instead of a focus on cattlemen vs. homesteaders, we get a marital soap opera stretched out over twenty years between a never-changing stern-faced Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn and in an unusual role as a maternal figure. Kazan specialized in films highlighting great dialog and characterizations, and this film has neither. The social concerns are lost regarding the conflict between the feuding cattlemen and homesteaders without conflict development and plot progression independent of the Tracy/Hepburn soap opera. Within a half hour, one begins to realize this is all there is to the story (based on Conrad Richter's novel). The viewer gets enough stereotyped scenarios predating actual soap operas on television by more than a decade. The rejected wife has an affair, gives birth to a son of questionable birth, is rejected again by her husband, and watches helplessly as her rebellious son lives a ruinous life. Yikes! What nonsense! Hepburn, while more likable than Tracy in the film, is not really a sympathetic character, and the ending is very contrived to say the least. The Tracy and Hepburn teaming overwhelms the story, and it sinks beneath the weight of a burdensome script lacking in the realism, psychological aspects, and characterization found in later Kazan films. Robert Walker and the beautiful Phyllis Thaxter liven things up a little as the adult children, but it's too little too late. Walker only appears on screen for about twenty minutes. Edgar Buchanan and Harry Carey offer able support as Jeff, the cook and Doc Reid respectively. Melvin Douglas tries hard as the homesteader's lawyer and secondary love interest of Hepburn, but he too seems saddled by the plodding nature of the film. The film benefits somewhat from its outdoor scenes, framed in precise period detail. The film is possibly the worst of the nine Tracy and Hepburn pairings with absolutely no chemistry between the stars whatsoever. ** of 4 stars.