Buy The Sea of Grass Movie. Watch online or Download
Genres: DramaWest
Starring: Katharine Hepburn, Spencer Tracy, Robert Barrat, Russell Hicks, Robert Armstrong, Melvyn Douglas, Trevor Bardette
Director(s): Elia Kazan
Country: USA
Year: 1947
Available Quality: DivX
IMDB Rating: 6.5 out of 10 (782 votes)
The highly melodramatic western begins with St. Louis resident Katharine Hepburn marrying New Mexico cattleman Spencer Tracy after a short courtship. When she arrives in Salt Pork, NM she finds that her new husband is considered by the locals to be a tyrant who uses force to keep homesteaders off the government owned land he uses for grazing his cattle--the so-called Sea of Grass. Hepburns character, Lutie, has difficulty reconciling her husbands beliefs and passions with her own, and eventually leaves him just long enough to conceive a child with her husbands moral enemy. Two years later, in the midst of a crisis, her husband discovers her infidelity and forces her to leave--without her two children (husbands daughter and other mans son).
 |
The Sea of Grass (DivX) | Resolution: 576x432 px | Total Size: 699 Mb |
|
Movie Photos:
We have taken some photos of "The Sea of Grass". They represent actual movie quality.
Visitors Review
(24 May 2012)
Story Defeats Everyone
Tracy and Hepburn do their best acting-wise and MGM tries to utilizetheir personal traits--her idealism, his stern 'American individualism'but Conrad Richter's allegorical story about a proud man losing andreclaiming his wife becomes soapy when it has to be literallytranslated for the screen--especially when adultery and illegitimacycould not be forthrightly dealt with. There are too many awkward holesin the narrative-for instance how does Hepburn support herself fortwenty years? Why does the Walker character become an outlaw? Havingsaid that I was surprised to see how much affectionate byplay Tracy andHepburn could fit into this story. They do not act like the couple inCasablanka or Romeo and Juliet--they are married after all--as theyusually are in their films and often seemed to act as if they were inreal life.
robertmarburger (22 May 2012)
Sea of soap
Hepburn and Tracy are woefully miscast in this ennui-inducing bore that iseasily the worst of their films -- well, perhaps tied with Keeper of theFlame. The sexual tension, the battle of the sexes, that was the hallmarkoftheir best efforts -- which were the comedies, not the dramas -- isentirelyabsent here. Hepburn seems uncomfortable as the naive nineteenth-centurymarked woman who bears her "shame" stoically and alone. Tracy, whosebrilliant underplaying made him one of the masters of his craft,sleepwalksthrough this thing -- with the exception of the scene where his friendDoc,with his dying words, makes Tracy realize what his rigidity has cost him.The great team and their talented supporting cast are cruelly wasted inthisdreary soap/horse opera.
adamshl (20 May 2012)
Very Insightful Film
"The Sea of Grass" is a most insightful, intelligent film. The heart ofthe conflict is basically that of hopeful homesteaders wanting to plantcrops and raise their families on the new land--with the opposing sideforetelling of the ruin of the land that was essentially "meant" forcattle grazing, not crop planting.It's a potent conflict, with both sides falling short on some importantissues, and both sides eventually learning from one another. Whatcattle baron Spencer Tracey predicted would happen, comes to pass. Yet,the new land is very much going to be farmed by new pioneers. It's afact of evolution, and nothing can stop it. Only conservation measuresweren't adhered to, and farming preceded, at Judge Melvyn Douglas'assistance, without the necessary safeguards put into place.The script deftly weaves into this situation a touching human element,by way of Tracy's marriage to Katherine Hepburn. They come to symbolizethe ideological conflict and the great toll it takes on their marriageand lives.Long considered an average to below average film in many quarters, ithas increased in value over the years. The Dish Network rated it 3 1/2out of 4 stars, and many viewers are finding enhanced value in it.Beautifully acted, directed, photographed and mounted, "The Sea ofGrass" is finally coming into its own. True at 121 minutes, it couldhave been trimmed a bit, yet it is a film of which its director neednot have held in low esteem.The rest of the cast--including Robert Walker and Phyllis Thaxter--alldo commendable jobs. It's a notable piece of work that's growing instature every year.
amb0120 (19 May 2012)
It's the script, silly!
Why do I get the feeling some folks know little about Spencer Tracy?For example, Kazan's alleged quote of "Tracy did not like horses andhorses did not like Tracy either" (per Ciment's book). Excuse me, buthow could a man who loved to play polo, which Tracy did and did a lotin his younger days and against studio wishes, not like horses? I'veplayed polo and if you don't like horses (and they don't like you) youwon't be playing the game more than once or twice. Maybe the quote wasmade for the more obvious reason: to justify Kazan turning out a moviethat was below his abilities? If true that one of Kazan's excuses forthe painful experience of directing the movie was not filming onlocation, I can't totally disagree, but then again a good many greatfilms were not filmed on location, so this excuse only holds so muchwater. And how can one think that the movie is a "cattlemen vs.homesteaders" film? That's the setting, and it is the trigger of theconflict between the main characters, which leads to the betrayal,which is the center piece of the story, but that certainly isn't themovie. I grant you, it's not one of Tracy's best, but he does the besthe can with the lame Marguerite Roberts' script. Even if this movie hadbeen shot on location, it doesn't change the glaring fact that a badscript is still a bad script. If you believe Tracy was sleepwalking,then you have to also believe Kazan was on life support and Roberts wasdead, from the neck up, while scripting this one. If Tracy's at faultfor anything, it's for trying to save the film, which is more than itdeserved.
AliceAnneAllen (06 May 2012)
Wonderful Movie
I had never watched or heard of this wonderful movie, so was notexpecting such a great treat. Worth every minute to watch it. K.Hepburn is so pretty in it, and you want to know her as the colonel'swife.. Spencer Tracy's sense of humor shines through and is just agreat movie. I wanted to see more when she came home again. Makes youwant to move to New Mexico and be a cowgirl.... The only thing I didn'tcare for was the actor playing Brock when he grew up, felt they shouldhave picked someone more handsome and built a little better. Reallyliked the old guy that played the cook. Just a great all around movieWish they would make a remake of it.
CitizenCaine (29 April 2012)
Kazan's Second Feature A Dud
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 soapopera stretched out over twenty years between a never-changingstern-faced Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn and in an unusual roleas a maternal figure. Kazan specialized in films highlighting greatdialog and characterizations, and this film has neither. The socialconcerns are lost regarding the conflict between the feuding cattlemenand homesteaders without conflict development and plot progressionindependent of the Tracy/Hepburn soap opera. Within a half hour, onebegins to realize this is all there is to the story (based on ConradRichter's novel). The viewer gets enough stereotyped scenariospredating actual soap operas on television by more than a decade. Therejected wife has an affair, gives birth to a son of questionablebirth, is rejected again by her husband, and watches helplessly as herrebellious son lives a ruinous life. Yikes! What nonsense! Hepburn, while more likable than Tracy in the film, is not really asympathetic character, and the ending is very contrived to say theleast. The Tracy and Hepburn teaming overwhelms the story, and it sinksbeneath 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 alittle as the adult children, but it's too little too late. Walker onlyappears on screen for about twenty minutes. Edgar Buchanan and HarryCarey offer able support as Jeff, the cook and Doc Reid respectively.Melvin Douglas tries hard as the homesteader's lawyer and secondarylove interest of Hepburn, but he too seems saddled by the ploddingnature of the film. The film benefits somewhat from its outdoor scenes,framed in precise period detail. The film is possibly the worst of thenine Tracy and Hepburn pairings with absolutely no chemistry betweenthe stars whatsoever. ** of 4 stars.
maryszd (25 April 2012)
A film about flawed human beings
I tuned into this film on TCM expecting to see a familiar prairie epicabout Katherine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy fighting the heroic fightagainst the elements. What I got was a film about two flawed andvulnerable human beings who made a series of disastrously bad personaland parental decisions. Even though there was a lot of talk about Col.Brewton's (Tracy) attachment to the "grass"and being a cattleman, thestory of the Brewton's failed marriage could have taken place inBaltimore. It was nice to see both Hepburn and Tracy acting in flawedways and out of character. From the looks of it, Tracy wasuncomfortable in the role. But Hepburn is the better actor here and herpredicament is more poignant. It's an odd and interesting film that'swell worth seeing.
aramusic (24 April 2012)
What a waste of talent!
It is unfortunate that Spencer Tracey was cast in the pivotal role ofthe Colonel, as he sleepwalks thru the entire picture! The emotionalfireworks come from the relationship between Katharine Hepburn andMelvyn Douglas, as the illicit lovers. As for Robert Walker in the roleof the illegitimate son(and that was quite a stretch in the 1940's), hewalks away with the picture! What a pity that Spencer Tracy was cast-itwould have been a much better picture without him! It is also a greatpity that such a noted director as Elia Kazan was not allowed to filmon location, which would have added so much to the ambiance of thispicture. As it is, Kazan is able to interject great tension is some ofthe scenes, most notably in Robert Walker's death scene. A pity Mr.Tracy was not up to the challenge.
bkoganbing (22 April 2012)
Did anyone notice the similarities between this and McLintock?
Considering that Sea of Grass is helmed by a director who's notfamiliar with the western milieu it's amazing that it comes off as wellas it does. Elia Kazan is so much better in an urban setting like Onthe Waterfront. Yet Tracy and Hepburn do make this work on some levels.John Wayne in McLintock and Spencer Tracy in Sea of Grass have the sameview of the prarie. Both films take the side of the cattle rancher asopposed to the farmer. Certainly other films like Shane make the farmerthe good guy. But events here show that Tracy was right about theprarie as his arch rival in politics and love, Melvyn Douglas, ruefullypoints out.Tracy and Wayne also have spousal problems, although certainly Waynehandles his with a tad more humor. One thing that Maureen O'Hara doesand Katharine Hepburn doesn't is share his vision of the prarie. Shebefriends the farmer family nearby and that is what causes the riftbetween her and Tracy.McLintock is a comedy and Sea of Grass is a western soap opera. Kazanwas lucky in casting folks like Edgar Buchanan and Harry Carey who knewtheir way around a western. Robert Walker was taking some tentativesteps toward a similar role in Vengeance Valley. He only appears in thelast half hour of the film as the kid with dubious paternity, but youwill remember him.Katharine Hepburn would have to wait another 28 years before doinganother traditional western in Rooster Cogburn. Eula Goodnight iscertainly light years from Lutie Cameron. Colonel Jim Brewton though isthe same type cattle baron as G.W. McLintock.I think the film is more for fans of soap opera than for fans ofwesterns. And certainly it's for fans of Spence and Kate.
Eph612 (21 April 2012)
Hepburn wins this round
A western only by virtue of its setting, "The Sea of Grass" isdefinitely one of the oddest in the series of films Spencer Tracy andKatharine Hepburn made together. Though it starts out promisingly, thesoap-opera elements (infidelity, unwanted pregnancy, maritalestrangement) begin to pile up and, as they do, Tracy in particularlooks more and more uncomfortable as the film progresses (though it isadmittedly refreshing seeing him play a man with less noble, sterlingqualities for a change). Hepburn fares better, and she manages to bringa real measure of mature beauty and bruised self-worth to hercharacter. She has a nice, easy chemistry with Melvyn Douglas, and sheseemed surprisingly comfortable and natural in an unusually maternal(for her) role. The photography and costumes are good, and the ending,while contrived, is emotionally satisfying.
_Amidala (21 April 2012)
Soap opera in the west
_Sea of Grass_ is a soap opera set during the turbulent years when farmersand cattlemen fought to control the land in New Mexico. Katharine Hepburnand Spencer Tracy are wonderful as always, and the direction by Elia Kazanis beautiful, sweeping over the lonely, barren setting. But the movielastslonger than it should, and the ending seems all too contrived. This moviewould be easily forgotten if not for the Tracy/Hepburnpairing.
Bill Bomar (20 April 2012)
A sea of feelings.
The "Sea of Grass" was bigger than all of the players of the story and asfragile as the love that the Colonel (Tracey) had for Lutie (Hepburn) andshe for him. The Colonel shared with Lutie a vision of the plains hastheyhad been but could not see what could be as he did with his love for her.Lutie, saw the future but could not honor the past. They lost each otherasthe grass was lost when it wasn't cared for. But as with the plains, thegrass could be brought back with care, understanding, and sacrifice. Butperhaps most of all with time. Somewhere between the extremes is a middlepoint but each must leave the extreme to reach the middle. The ColonelandLutie found the middle point but after many years of standing at theextremes. Each of us can find ourselves in what they had, lost, andregained.
jotix100 (11 April 2012)
The green, green grass of home
"The Sea of Grass" showed up on cable recently and out of curiosity, wewatched it, based on the great director at the helm, and the castinvolved in it. Unfortunately, Elia Kazan wasn't up to the task ofdirecting the Conrad Richter novel about the post pioneering days. Infact, this film sort of falls flat as neither Mr. Kazan, or its stars,show any semblance they were much interested in the project.One would imagine that to bring together Spencer Tracy and KatherineHepburn to play the leading roles would inspire the rest of the cast,but alas, it wasn't meant to be. The film is, by no means, a totalfailure, on the contrary, but there are no sparks in it to keep theviewer interested.As someone remarked in this forum, we don't get anything from theColonel and Lutie in the way of love, from the start. For the romancethey were living on the sly, the stars don't light up for the camera togive us a hint they are in love in real life. The only one that showsany spunk is Melvin Douglas, who as Brock, can't hide his love forLutie. The supporting cast is good, with some excellent minorperformances by Phyllis Thaxter, Edgar Buchanan, Ruth Nelson, JamesBell, and the rest.Watch "The Sea of Grass" if there's nothing better playing at the sametime.
vincentlynch-moonoi (11 April 2012)
Underrated and misunderstood
I'm updating my review of this film after reading the new biography ofSpencer Tracy, and after spending several days out in the High Plainsof eastern Colorado, western Nebraska, and western South Dakota.I'm surprised at the general negativity of most reviews here towardthis film. I have a great deal of respect for this film, but I shouldsay up front that I have long been an admirer of Spencer Tracy (secondonly to Cary Grant in my eyes). I think perhaps this film is tooserious to be a "pop" choice. It really is one of the most seriousmovies I've ever seen. There is no frivolity in it, no humor, juststraight 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 awestern-prairie town that seems more authentic than most. In some waysthis appears to be just another cattleman - versus - farmer story, butI think it is much more than that. In the scene where Tracy talks aboutwhat the High Plains means to him...what he hears in it...well, it's afine soliloquy. The movie is also the story of an Eastern woman -versus - the West. A story about two people who cannot adjust theirviews about life in order to come to an understanding.Another reviewer mentioned the lack of passion between Tracy andHepburn on celluloid. I think that what you see between the two starshere, 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 wasonly 7 years older than she. But he had lived a rough life with hisdrinking, and seemed much older than she. So while there may not bepassion between them on screen, there was a wonderful chemistry that isjust as apparent here as in most of their joint efforts. Sincebeginning the biography, I have been watching all of the Tracy filmsgenerally available (and a few you can only find in places such as YouTube), and it's interesting to note that this is the film where Tracyis seemingly suddenly middle-aged and more distinguished looking in hisappearance...and that's perfect for this role. As important is that bythe mid-40s, he had mastered the ability to be subtle and show strengthin that subtlety, and to reserve his powerful outbursts for thosepoints in a film where they are really needed and appropriate.Melvyn Douglas is excellent here, although it's difficult to like hischaracter much. Self-righteous in the beginning and out to get anotherman's wife. He mellows later in the film when he finds he has lost. Inmy view, one of his more impressive roles.One particularly strong scene is where the cattle stampede the farmer'sland during a blizzard. Very profound, even though the scene does notdirectly involve any of the major players.There are a number of great character actors in this film. It's alwaysa treat to see Harry Carey, and he was just wonderful in this film. Andalthough I'm not always a fan, in this film I rather enjoyed the fineperformance of a rather restrained Edgar Buchannan.A couple of minor criticisms. First, note how freely the characterswalk out in the sea of grass. When I was out there, people and signsconstantly warned me about rattlesnakes! And the sod house...I was in areal sod house this past summer...not nearly as "nice" as the oneportrayed in the film. But I will say that the photography MGM didon-site was top notch in terms of portraying the sea of grass. However,actual on-location scenes with Tracy and Hepburn were apparently filmedin Arizona and New Mexico, though I'm guessing supposed location iseastern Colorado and Nebraska, since Tracy speaks of Hepburn having herbaby in Denver.I think this is an excellent, wholly serious film which is well worth asecond look. Highly recommended. And worth putting on your DVD shelf ifyou like serious movies.
dtruxaw-2 (06 April 2012)
A portrait of mean-hearted male chauvinism
This film reminds us of the unbridled male chauvinism of the 1940's.Spencer Tracey's character ruins the lives of everyone around him withimpunity. I am amazed that Katherine Hepburn agreed to do this role.Her "sacrifice" is sickening. The ending especially is truly mindblowing as she totally gives up all sense of self in order for Tracey'scharacter to finally accept her back after years of exile. If sheshowed up at the end and put a bullet through his head it would havebeen much more fulfilling and would have rung with much more a sense ofjustice. If seen from a proper perspective, its a great study of abuseof power.
moonspinner55 (05 April 2012)
Semi-western with soapy trimmings...Tracy and Hepburn working with underwhelming material
Young woman in 1880 St. Louis marries a cattle-baron who wields apowerful, occasionally unpopular and unfeeling hand. The couple settlesinto their New Mexico ranch-house where she soon has a child, but thedays and weeks of loneliness get to her and she shares in a flirtationwith the smitten local attorney. Conrad Richter's novel becomessomewhat misbegotten vehicle for Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn,though the stars do make valiant attempts to lend believability tothese characters. Richter's story, full of stop-and-start melodrama,nearly sabotages them; screenwriters Marguerite Roberts and VincentLawrence have given some terrific dialogue exchanges to the supportingplayers, however, many of whom ultimately fare better than the leads.Melvyn Douglas works very simply with Hepburn and they have an easyrapport; Robert Walker (as the grown son Douglas fathered with Kate)brings along a nice swagger; Edgar Buchanan (as the cook) and HarryCarey (as the local doctor) have seldom been so endearing. It'sdifficult getting a handle on Tracy's reserved, unimpressed Colonel;blank-faced and slack jawed, Tracy puts a great deal of thought intothis complicated man but walls himself up from the audience in theprocess. Hepburn, in her early scenes, radiates nervous warmth and goodwill, but turning her into a black-wearing drudge filled with life'sregrets was probably a mistake. Overlong, not particularlysatisfying...yet the film has something. It's handsomely-made,reasonably well-paced, and is certainly unusual coming from thishigh-powered star-duo. **1/2 from ****
dbdumonteil (04 April 2012)
The green green grass of home.
In Michel Ciment's book " Kazan par Kazan" which is actually a verylong interview (Ã la "Hitchcock by Truffaut"),the director recalled howpainful the filming of "sea of grass " was for him:first of all,hecomplained for a subject like that SHOULD have been filmed on locationand we can find little fault with his opinion;besides ,he had to usethe Tracy /Hepburn pairing,two actors he admired but who were miscasthere;"Tracy did not like horses and horses did not like Tracy either".His wife should have been a frail young girl,which Hepburn was not:"she was clever but she was part of the high society.." The one thingKazan seemed to appreciate was her crying;but reportedly Louis B Mayerwatching the rushes complained: her tears does not flow from her eyes,but from her nose;it looks like snot!" Among all my movies this is theone I like the least" he concludes.With hindsight,the film retains qualities and I do not think anywaythat it is worse than the disastrous "last tycoon" which IMHO,isKazan's absolute nadir.Hindsight displays its charms.Considering thelimitations Kazan was working under,it's a wonder that the scene whereHepburn and Tracy are in front of the "sea of grass" listening to thenoise and to the silence (of the Buffalos -now they are gone- and ofthe Indians -now in the reservations-) is really poetic.We can alsosave the scene of the storm ,where the farmer (David) has to fight hiswealthy neighbor (Goliath).The historical context ,the end of theprairie of grass and the coming of the farmers ,is interesting.Robert Walker's character ,an unstable boy ,predates James Dean in"East of Eden" by eight years:too bad the part is underwritten.The factthat he was born of adultery is almost passed over in silence ,exceptfor one scene or two.It is not my Kazan's favorite or even among my favorites,but it's afilm to watch if ,like me,you are interested in the director's oeuvre..Like this? try this......"Giant" Georges Stevens 1955
oldblackandwhite (03 April 2012)
Lumbering Western Melodrama Slow On The Draw But Mostly On Target
The Sea Of Grass is slow moving and talky, but not as bad as many haveportrayed it. If I told you without cluing you in on the title I had atop-production 1947 MGM picture staring Spencer Tracy, KatharineHepburn, and Melvyn Douglas, you would be expecting a glossy whitetelephone movie with a love triangle and lots of high melodrama fromthe three stars. That's essentially what you get here, only replace thewhite telephones with elk antler hat racks, the swank park avenueapartments with rambling ranch houses, and the busy New York streetscenes with a dusty, one-horse, Nineteenth Century New Mexico town. TheSea Of Grass is a soap opera dressed up as a Western. If that is whatyou are expecting, instead of a traditional shoot-'em-up, you may bemuch more pleased with it.The three stars deliver their usual stellar performances and threefine, textured character studies. Old, smoothie Douglas is particularlyeffective as a hard-edged attorney and later judge, cattle baronTracy's stalwart opponent and Katherine's illicit lover, father of hersecond child. The large supporting cast shines, led by Edgar Buchananand Harry Carry. Over rated Robert Walker is over-the-top as usual, butfun to watch. Production values are superb with terrific luminous, oldnitrate black and white cinematography typical of the era, a richHerbert Stodhart score, good, authentic costumes, great sets with somespectacular location scenery dovetailed in for long shots of Southwestgrasslands and cliffs. Principally concentrating on relationships, thestory moves along at a glacial pace, but the stars and an intelligent,if messy, script hold interest. Some of the dialog is a little preachyand overblown, but it is generally believable and satisfying. There ishardly any action until the last reels, and even then it ishalf-hearted and ultimately just peters out. The major subplot is thetraditional Western theme of cattlemen versus homesteaders, but theeventual showdown comes early and is anti-climatic. Nevertheless, themovie is engrossing and enjoyable for the acting and the productionvalues. It is refreshing to see a movie about the Old West thatconcentrates on decent real people and their real life problems insteadof just dwelling on brawls between lowlifes who hang out in brothelsand saloons.The Sea Of Grass is not bad, but not as good as it should have beenwith all it had going for it. Director Elia Kazan reportedly said hewas ashamed of the picture, and he should have been. The overly slowpacing, lack of spark between Tracy and Hepburn, and other problemsclearly resulted from his flabby direction. With three top stars at thepeaks of their careers, an intriguing story, and a big budget, The SeaOf Grass should have been a much better picture, and it would have beenif Raoul Walsh had directed it.
g.vecino (27 March 2012)
I want to comment about the film "The Sea of Grass"
One thing that surprised me in this movie "The Sea of Grass", as well as inmost movies by Tracy-Hepburn, is the lack of sexuality between them in thelove scenes. When they are about to marry [in the movie] there is nokissing, only hugs. On the contrary twenty minutes later in the movie,Hepburn meets again Melvyn Douglas, who is hopelessly in love with her, andthen they have a passionate kiss. Considering the long relationship of thetwo stars for over thirty years, its funny that the producers or the studio,or who else? not considered proper a passionate kiss between Tracy andHepburn.On the other hand, I enjoyed seeing the movie once again after many years.The Elia Kazan direction is superb and and the secondary roles of actorslike Edgar Buchannan and Harry Carey give luster to the movie, but thecharacter of Tracy is simply hateful.
edwagreen (27 March 2012)
There is No Splendor in this Sea of Grass ***1/2
In my opinion, this was probably the best of the long list of SpencerTracy-Katharine Hepburn films.The two really get the opportunity and to their credit deliver fineperformances in this 1947 film dealing with the settling of land byHomesteaders and the resulting conflict between them and the landownersand the eventual dissolution of a marriage between Hepburn and Tracy.The film also gave us matinée idol's Melvyn Douglas the chance toperform in more of a supporting role and he also delivered as the judgewho loved Hepburn and their love produced a tragic end.When Tracy realizes that he can no longer fight the "encroachment" ofsettlers on the land, the story takes on a different fold with hismarriage to Hepburn breaking up. This is also a story of male dominancechallenged by a strong-willed Hepburn.Harry Carey is terrific in the role of the sympathetic doctor, friendlyto both. In fact, Carey was even better here than in his supportingOscar nominated performance 8 years before in "Mr. Smith Goes toWashington." There is also ample support given by Robert Walker andPhyllis Thaxter, as the Hepburn-Tracy adult children in the film.The film also takes on the meaning and results of town gossip andscandal and how it ultimately leads to tragic consequences.Another great job by director Elia Kazan.
Review total: 20, showing from 1 to 20