My Favorite Wife (1940)

Plot:  A woman returns from seven years on a desert island to find her husband remarried. 

Best Scene: Dunne dishonestly presents a shoe clerk as "Adam", her island mate, to appease Grant's jealousy. 

My Favorite Wife, is good,  but its a notch below The Awful Truth despite having the same Producer and stars. Cary Grant and Irene Dunne carry the movie. What great comedic actors they were - and what great chemistry. Not as good as Loy-Powell, but close.

However, some of the best moments of the film are provided by the supporting cast: the psychiatrist who tries to "help" Grant, the Judge who tries to make sense of the whole mess, the Hotel manager who keeps a suspicious eye on Grant, Randolph Scott aka "Adam" the vegetarian super-hunk, and put-upon Gail Patrick. Negatives? The story requires Grant to behave idiotically by refusing to tell Patrick the simple truth. And the ending is too similar to the Awful Truth.  Later remade as Move Over Darling with Doris Day and James Garner.  Rating 3 of 4 

Ironweed (1987)

Not much to say about Ironweed.  Based on the award-winning novel by William Kennedy, the film earned two AA Best Acting nominations by Jack Nicholson and Streep. And yes, they're pretty good, except the movie isn't. There's not a lot of drama and no humor, as we follow two hopeless alcoholics , living their hopeless guilt-wracked lives - hopelessly. The direction and script are slightly above average. Summary: Recommended for fans of good acting, and people with the blues - who want to feel even worse. Rating 2 of 4

Detroit (2017)

A short review.  Good direction -check.  Good action sequences - check. Good acting - check.  The Script? Well, there's the problem. A  two-hour plus movie and I have trouble remembering one line. And I just saw it. Same with the characters, they mostly all blend together except those that  I disliked.

And what was the point?
Yeah, we're all against police brutality - but weren't the Detroit 1967 riots about more than that?  Seven thousand arrests, 43 dead (ten white), 400 building destroyed or burnt down. The 82nd Airborne had to restore order.  Whites fled the city, and it spiraled down into the mess it is today.  A great subject for a great movie, but one that would have to criticize both whites and blacks, police and liberal activists.  And that's one movie Hollywood would NEVER want to make.  So instead, we get a movie about some psycho white cops killing some shady black characters in a motel - when we needed characters we could care about. Or even remember.

Summary:  I'm not  a big fan of The Hurt locker (or Bigelow's work in general) so I wasn't surprised that Detroit didn't thrill me. Not enough story or engaging characters - too much mindless action  and hand-held cameras.   Rating 2 of 4.

Blade Runner 2049

Follow up to blade runner 1982

The Shining (1980)

Plot: In an isolated hotel a sinister presence incites a father to violence, while his psychic son has horrific visions of both the past and future.

Stars: Jack Nicholson, Shelly Duvall, Scatman Crothers 

Like 2001 A Space Odyssey, the general public considers The Shining a great movie - which puzzles me to no end.  Shouldn’t a horror movie be scary, or at least interesting? Clocking in at 2 hours and 20 minutes, Kubrick makes a Mountain out of this Molehill plot/story. 

Things are dragged out forever. 

We get tricycle tours of the massive hotel corridors, endless shots of snow, glorious ballroom/bar scenes complete with Ghosts in tuxedos, and yes, the Hotel certainly is big and beautiful, isn’t it?

Good Lord, it takes 20 minutes to get to the hotel, and another 25 minutes before “Doc” has a scary vision. And then it just trudges on.  Finally, at the 105 minute mark,  Jack goes mad and gets violent. Finally, some action! Yet even the final killing spree, is sluggishly paced. How many times can you show Jack running through the Maze? Or see Duvall blubbering and horrified, complete with quivering mouth? Or some (not scary) Ghosts? 

The overlong Scatman Rescue Mission 

Kubrick spells out everything with this character. Late in the movie, we see Scatman in bed in Miami. Something is happening - It’s the shining! We then follow him, step by step from Miami to the Airport to finally arriving at the Hotel in a Snowplow.  Why the excruciating detail?  This whole sequence could have been shown in 4 minutes, and it takes 12. 

And none of the movie makes sense 

Maybe the Novel does, but the movie didn’t. Why can some ghosts see Jack and some can’t? Why does the Ghost help Jack out of the pantry, but not other times? Why was there a beautiful/ugly ghost in Room 237? Why couldn’t those with “the shining” have seen how to escape or avoid Jack? Why was Duvall seeing Ghosts and scary things at the end, but not before? Why is Jack in a 1921 photo? 

Or, more realistically. Why is all the electricity on, if the Hotel is closed? Who’s keeping all those rooms, hallways and carpets clean? Why do the outside electric lights still work? Do Hedges keep their green leaves in 20 feet of snow and below zero temps? If Jack is typing the same thing over and over, doesn’t that make the same sound over and over? Where did Scatman Crothers learn to drive a snow plow? And wouldn’t the hotel have a wine cellar?

Best Scene: Nicholson menaces a Bat wielding Duvall in an acting tour-de-force
Worst Scene:  In a long draw-out toilet conversation "Delbert Grady" admits he's the "Outlook killer." There's one good moment - where Grady talks about his "Correcting" his family. But otherwise, the whole conversation is awkwardly paced, makes no sense, and has Jack on 100% Ham cruise control. Kubrick had ZERO talent in dialogue.

Acting Another problem is that Jack goes crazy way too soon, which spoils the suspense. In fact, he looks unstable from the start. And “Mad Jack” is so over-the-top, he’s laughable not scary. The crazier Nicholson gets, the more idiotic he looks. Meanwhile,  Duvall transforms the warm sympathetic wife of the book into a simpering, semi-retarded hysteric.  At no time is she believable as his wife. Scatman Crothers and the boy actor are adequate. 

Summary: Another puzzling Kubrick “Masterpiece”. Some see greatness, where I see mediocrity. I needed more involving characters and true horror, and fewer tricycle shots. Rating 2.5 of 4.

Holiday (1938)

Plot:  A  man must choose between a long "Holiday" to find himself, and his super-rich fiancee. 

Stars: Katharine Hepburn, Cary Grant,  Doris Nolan,  Lew Ayres, Edward Horton, Jean Dixon, 

One of Hepburn's most beloved films, too bad I didn't like it more. Currently rated at 7.8 IMDB, I can only be mildly enthusiastic. On the plus side, I loved Edward Horton/Jean Dixon and the last 20 minutes when the film finally kicks into gear and Grant and Nolan must choose what they want.  But unlike most fans, I didn't particularly like either Hepburn's performance or her character. I was supposed to root for her - she's the free-thinking, fun loving, nonconformist - but she  came off as obnoxious, and slightly nutty. Heretical thought - maybe they should have cast Irene Dunne!

And then there's Cary Grant, who's also slightly miscast. I never bought Grant as a dreamer - a guy from the wrong side of tracks - alternately bemused and intimidated by all the Wealth. And at 33, he seemed a little too old and classy for the role. Jimmy Stewart would've been a better fit.

Plot-wise it seemed overly familiar. Maybe I've seen Philadelphia Story too many times. Or maybe its all those 1960's movies, I saw in  my youth,  with the stuffy adults vs. freedom-loving kids

Two Different Views of Hepburn

1) In the 1930s, Katharine Hepburn’s wit and nonconformity made ordinary heroines seem mushy, and her angular beauty made the round-faced ingenues look piggy and stupid - Pauline Kael (1965)

2) Miss Hepburn - the "New Hepburn," according to the publicity copy - is very mannish in this one, deep-voiced, grammatically precise (she even remembers, in moments of stress, to say "this must be he") and is only a wee bit inclined to hysteria. We can't get over our feeling that her intensity is apt to grate on a man, even on so sanguinary a temperament as Cary Grant's - New York Times (1938) .

Summary: I've been critical - but Holiday its still an enjoyable 100 minutes. Just don't expect a laugh riot like The Awful Truth or Bringing up Baby. Rating 3 of 4

The Last Detail (1973)

Plot: Comedy-drama about 2  Navy Shore-Patrolmen escorting an 18 y/o Sailor Convicted of theft to the Portsmouth Naval Prison.
Stars: Jack Nicholson, Randy Quaid,  Otis Young.

The Last Detail is a relentlessly gloomy 70's movie made bearable by a good cast . Once again we get implausible characters along with Hollywood's dumb idea of how Navy Sailors behave.*  The story is a simple one, with 3 characters. Nicholson is the  profane 35 y/o "lifer", who loves whores, drink, and fighting the Marines (cliche city). Otis Young is the solid, dull, citizen, and Quaid is the pathetic loser, who's stolen $40, and is on his way to Prison.  We're supposed to laugh a little and cry a little,  as the men "learn about life and each other" on their "road trip" to prison.

But the Characters are all Fakes -Especially Quid
He's a harmless schlub, so impossibly weak and stupid he can't send back a badly cooked cheeseburger. So, why did he steal $40 from the Polio fund? Oh, he's a kleptomaniac. See, its not his fault. How  he got into the Navy & through Basic training without stealing and being caught is never explained. Nor were his mental problems brought up at his trial. And why did he get 8 years for petty theft? Oh, the "Old man's wife was angry". Absurd.

Nicholson's Performance
Which brings me to Jack's Oscar nominated performance.  Its a good one, but ultimately there's something "off" about it. These's too much  macho bluster and  Jack playing *Jack*. Some actors - like Aldo Ray - could play a Sargent or workingman without any falseness. because they WERE working class. They didn't have to ACT it.   But Jack  does.  He needs the F-bombs, cigar props, and tattoos**. And it comes off as wrong and exaggerated. Uneducated does NOT mean unintelligent!

Story Could have been a 1930's Movie
That's the weird thing. You can imagine this same type story back in the 1930's with Clark Gable and Spencer Tracy as the sailors and Robert Montgomery as the thief. Only it would've been fun and interesting, and played for mostly for laughs - with Montgomery freed at the end. But because its the 1970's everything is ugly and it ends badly. The early 70's were the age of "Everything stinks" as Pauline Kael put it.

Summary: Another one of those depressing 1970's dramas with fake military guys, nice acting and some nostalgic location shots. If you're a 14 y/o boy, or a Jack Nicholson fan, you might like it.  2 of 4

Notes  
*As expected, nobody in the film was in the US Navy . Director Ashby was a  hippy, Screenwriter Robert Townes was a writer - not a fighter. And Jack Nicholson? He did a couple years in the "California Air National Guard" as a part-time fire-fighter.

**Supposedly, Townes was upset when the Producers cut his 250 F-bombs to 50 in the script. "That's how the powerless talk" said the millionaire screenwriter. Of course, plenty of Sailors swear  - but not everyone is a foul-mouthed lunkhead,  Some of the toughest military men don't drink, smoke, or swear.

They Came to Cordura (1959)

Plot: Set in 1916 Mexico. Five Soldiers (Congressional Medal winners to-be) accompany a Major, and woman accused of treason, in a dangerous journey back to base.
Stars: Gary Cooper, Rita Hayward, Van Heflin, Richard Conte, Tab Hunter
Best Quote: Heroes? Saints living in the desert? My God, they tried to rape me! And blackmail you! It's a wonder they haven't shot you already! No, Thorne, they're only men - and damned poor specimens at that!

Based on the bestselling, critically acclaimed novel, They came to Cordura is interesting rather than good. Obviously, everybody wanted to do something different. Hefflin gets to play a villain, Cooper gets to play a coward, and Dick York, Tab Hunter and Hayward get to do some serious acting. And the film is a different kind of western, covering the rather obscure 1916 Pershing Expedition. Even more unusual is the intellectual discussion regarding courage.

But while the story is interesting - it fails in execution. Cooper is too old and tired, and the talk of courage isn't insightful - just dull. Even worse, all the characters are unlikable. Rita is a traitor, Conte a blackmailing/rapist, Heflin a murderer/rapist, Hunter a liar/coward, and the other two soldiers are ciphers. Although the opening battle is exciting, the movie soon devolves into a never-ending cycle of shouting matches and in-group conflicts. Everyone is insubordinate, and Cooper threatens to shoot someone at least six times. The action is surprisingly lackluster, and there’s little visual flair. And despite the heat/thirst we never feel the group will perish.

The Implausible Characters
All five men have all shown bravery “beyond the call of duty”, but everyone is shown to be a creep. Which is ridiculous! For example:

• Conte tries to blackmail Cooper into getting him out of combat (and letting him rape Hayworth), he wants a safe/easy job in the QM corps. So why did he risk his life in the battle? And what's his reason for declining the MOH? He "doesn't want to be a lead mule"? Absurd.
• Heflin only joined the army to escape a murder charge. He’s insanely selfish and constantly threatenss to attack/kill the Major. He’s a criminal in uniform. In the novel, this is partly attributed to an untreated concussion. But a borderline criminal would never risk his life in battle – without some personal return.
• Tab Hunter is absurdly inconsistent. He’s an ambitious “by the book” Calvary officer, a West Point Grad - but declines the MOH because "it would hurt his career". Say What? During the siege, he demands the group fight to the death for "Honor"  but afterwards turns on a dime, and wants to leave the sick man to die. And despite being a West Pointer,  he allows Van Heflin to mock and attack him - and sides with the enlisted men over Cooper. At the end, he cracks up and almost kills Cooper.
• Cooper is a Major, the Executive Officer of one of the US Army’s forty-five Infantry/Calvary Regiments. An important man. He’s a 20 year Veteran, and fought in Cuba and the Philippines. Yet, he constantly tolerates insubordinate behavior. When Van Heflin threatens to murder him in his sleep, Cooper does nothing. This makes zero sense - not only from a discipline standpoint - but from a character standpoint   Cooper was a coward who hid during a battle - and logically would've killed Van Heflin out of justifiable fear that Heflin would kill HIM.

Nobody Acted Like this in 1916
US Army Majors and Lieutenants did NOT allow insubordinate behavior and if they encountered it, dealt with it harshly. In 1916, there were only 180 Majors in the Infantry/Calvary. Being a Major was a big deal.  A real life Major would’ve never spoken to the enlisted men except when necessary and issued his orders through Hunter. Further, Rape was regarded with horror, and offenders were often hanged. A US Major in 1916, after catching Heflin raping Hayworth, and  being violently threatened by him, would've shot him. And all five of the enlisted men are volunteers. Had they been insubordinate, it would have come out way before we meet them.

The Journey itself is ridiculous
Not only do Cooper and his band get ambushed by Mexicans, they lose their way and can’t find their way to Cordura. Why didn’t Cooper have a map or a compass? Why is he going through a howling Wilderness - with no water?  Why is he taking a route no one else has taken?  The sensible thing was to go back the way he came, back to Colonel DeRose - and take the wounded with them. After all, the Calvary unit at the Hacienda had a supply line.  But then there'd be no movie.

The subversive attitude toward the Military & medal of Honor
Supposedly, John Wayne disliked the movie for "Dissing" the Medal of Honor and the men who won it and "The Duke" was absolutely right. The movie puts forth the idea that Military heroes are just lunkheads who don't know WHY they behaved courageously. Even worse, anyone can be a "Hero" -rapists, murderers, blackmailers and even former cowards. Except in real life that's about 99% untrue. The entire movie is a subtle, cynical put-down of the US Army. We have:

• Major Thornton who's made awards officer to cover-up  his Cowardice
• Cynical Colonel DeRose who wants medals given out for PR purposes
• Colonel Rodgers who demands an undeserved medal to increase his Retirement pension.  
• The Victory at the Hacienda - which is knowingly described as a tactical blunder
• A West Point Grad who's a  backstabbing,  hysterical weakling.
• And the most intelligent courageous person in the movie?  Its the female traitor.

They came to Cordura - Film vs. Novel

They Came to Cordura – The Film	The Novel
April 1916, Somewhere in Mexico. Major Cooper arrive at Col. DeRose's field command.  Newspaper men and staff officers are present.  The Colonel tells Cooper (Major Thornton) he's the awards officer and to give out some Medals of Honor (MOH)  because "America Needs Heroes"	Almost exactly the same, except the "Colonel" is General Pershing. And Thorton is already the Awards Officer.  Also, Thornton gets Pershing to write an order saying any future MOH winner should be taken out of Combat and sent to the safe rear base at Cordura.
Cooper goes and meets up with Robert Keith who's planning a Calvary Charge on the Hacienda. We see Hayward toasting the Mexicans at the Hacienda.  We witness the calavry charge and battle with the focus on the 5 men (Hunter, Heflin, York, Conte, Callan) fighting courageously.	Again, almost the same. Except we only meet Mrs Geary after the battle. And Herrington (callan) has already won the award in a prior action and watches the battle with Thornton.  The novel's battle description and the film match almost exactly
After the battle, Keith asks Cooper for a MOH write up and  Cooper refuses. Angry, Kieth orders Cooper to take the 5 MOH winners, and Hayworth to Cordura.  Cooper then talks to Hayworth about her situation, and the next morning all seven set out for Cordura.	Almost like the novel, except the Colonel is upset at losing the 5 men, and only allows Major Thorton to leave for Cordura when he's shown Pershing's order.  Thornton attends a funeral for those killed in battle, and asks a Mexican officer how to get Cordura - since he doesn't know.
During the first day,  Hayward offers herself to Cooper in return for her Freedom. Cooper asks each man why "he was so brave", and four of the five decline the MOH. Heflin complains of Hayward not sharing her booze and cigs. Later they kill her bird while she sleeps and Conte has a boil removed by Cooper. Next day they are ambushed by Mexicans and ride into a box Canyon. Cooper refuses to make a run for it, and Hayward saves them by advising them to give up their horses. The Mexicans Ride away - with the American's horses.	Right out of the novel, except there is more shooting and "the Siege" lasts longer. The dialogues on the question of bravery and the solider's reason for declining the medal, is less prominent in the book.
On foot, the seven continue on to Cordura with sick Callan on a stretcher and York nursing a wounded ear. Hunter suggests they leave Callan behind, but Cooper says no.  Later, despite thirst and exhaustion, Conte and Heflin try to rape Hayward, Cooper arrests them and takes away their rifles.	Exactly like the novel, except the Seven are forced to march up and down over cut up mountainous terrain.
The group fights. Conte tells everyone that Cooper was a coward. Hunter disowns Cooper "as an officer" and tells Cooper "he's on his own". That night, Heflin tries to kill Cooper in his sleep but Hayward saves him by sleeping with Helflin.  The group walks on despite dying of thirst finally arrives at the Railroad tracks. They find  a handcart, and use it to keep moving.	The Novel and film agree.
With Cordura nowhere in sight, Hunter hysterically claims Cooper is trying to kill the group by going the wrong way. Everyone ignores him. Soon, Cooper collapses from exhaustion, and Hunter knocks him unconscious with a big rock.   The men find Cooper's notebook and discover he's praised all of them. When Cooper comes to, he and the group walk up a small rise and see the green valley below - its Cordura.  The end.	Except Thornton is killed, not knocked unconscious.

The Actress (1953)

Plot: Comedy-drama film.  Set in 1913 Massachusetts, a teenager pursues a theatrical career over her Father's objections. Based on Ruth Gordon's autobiographical play Years Ago.
Stars: Jean Simmons, Spencer Tracy, Teresa Wright, and Anthony Perkins

Its hard to believe but Ruth Gordon was an old woman of 57, when she wrote the screenplay looking back on her Youth of 1913.  Little did anyone know she'd keep working for another 30 years!

Anyway, I wanted to like The Actress a lot - but was disappointed. Everyone acts well, they just seem miscast. Simmons is too old* to play a very girlish 17-year old  and overcompensates with a high voice.   Tracy is supposed to be a "lovable Grump" - but mostly he's just a  Grump.  And, rarely for Tracy, he tries too hard**.  As for Wright (35 y/o), she looks like Jean Simmons older sister.  Side Note: having oddball Tony Perkins as the Suitor doesn't help.***

The story? Its very slight and needed more charm, energy, and a better third act****.

Summary:   Based on a Broadway smash, with an all-star cast, The Actress should've been a hit.  But it did poor Box Office, and its been forgotten.  And you can see why.  Its low on conflict, laughs, or romance. But its a well-done, modest movie.  Rating 2 of 4

Notes
*Debbie Reynolds desperately wanted to do the part, and probably would've been more energetic and credible.
** Tracy's role should've been played by a Character actor, but some box-office heft was needed.   Looking back, was Tracy ever "Lovable"? In most of his movies, he's likable, but his humor can be classified as "dry wit".
*** Tony Perkins was fine when he was playing an offbeat character. Like, Robert Walker, I never buy him in standard/straightforward roles.
**** Should Gordon have adopted her own play?  Probably not. Maybe Cukor/Tracy just liked Ruth Gordon a little too much.

Broken Lance (1954)

Plot:  Remake of House of Stranger as a Western. In 1880, a Father and his four sons battle over his thousand acre Ranch..
Stars:  Spencer Tracy, Richard Widmark, Robert Wagner,  Katy Jurado  Jean Peters, and Hugh O'Brian

After my experience with Sea of Grass I was dreading Broken Lance. Oh no, more dysfunctional family theater with a bored, way-too-old Tracy, as the Big Rancher AND the dreaded Earl Holliman.

And…. I was wrong.

Broken Lance is way better than Sea of Grass. Its 30 minutes, shorter, has a lot more action, and it’s in Technicolor. Even better, Tracy plays his age. In this one, he’s a tough old bird with 3 sons who hate his guts. Even better, it has nasty Richard Widmark, who does some excellent acting with Tracy. In other words, there’s lots of conflict to keep things interesting; along with Katy Juarado and pretty Jean Peters, as icing on the cake.

Drawbacks? There’s a weird race angle. Katy Jurado is supposed to be a “Comanche Princess” and Robert Wagner is the “Half-breed” result of Tracy’s marriage to Jurado. Now, I’m not big on genetics, but if you put Spencer Tracy together with Katy Jurado you might get Anthony Quinn or Ricardo Montalban, but I doubt you'd get Robert Wagner! And because Hollywood was trying to push Civil Rights, we get a lot of malarkey about the Indians and Widmark not wanting an “Injun” for a “Step mother” - Yawn..

Summary: This isn’t the kind of Western you’d show a 13 y/o boy. Its short on gunplay - and long on talk. It’s really a modern family drama in Cowboy boots and Ten gallon hats. But its well-acted and directed. I enjoyed it. 2.5 of 4. 

Gambit (1966)

Plot: A Cockney thief hires a Hong Kong Eurasian to impersonate his wife in order to steal an art masterpiece from a Middle Eastern Millionaire.
Cast: Michael Caine, Shirley MacLaine, Herbert Lom

Gambit is a 1966 movie done in the style so popular in that era, the "comic caper" film. Inspired by the success and style of Topkapi, the 1960s brought us How to Steal a Million, The Italian Job, Thomas Crown Affair, et al. - sophisticated, international, breezy fun. In Gambit, Lum and Caine are solid, and Maclaine has never been more adorable or better outfitted. The set design and customs were deservedly nominated for Oscars. It’s an entertaining 100 minutes, but the movie sacrifices character development, witty dialogue, and even plausibility, for a barrage of clever surprises*.

Summary: Gambit gets by on charm of its lead stars and its plot twists. Pauline Kael hated it**but it’s an amusing delight. They don’t make ‘em like this anymore Rating 3 of 4

Notes:
*  Avast, Ye Readers - Spoilers Ahead.  The “heist” and various plot twists in the movie are fun, but make no sense. For example:

• Lom is the “richest man in the world” but has to *personally* be in his Penthouse to keep his Art collection safe. All his guards are useless.  And Caine simply unscrews a panel from the Elevator shaft to gain entrance to the art collection! 
• After only one brief visit, Caine knows exactly how to break into the apartment, and how to steal the masterpiece and escape. 
• MacLaine has no problem entering the Penthouse and warning Caine its “a Trap”.
• Caine and MacLaine make a wonderful Comic duo, but there’s no romance. So Caine’s sacrifice of the artwork and declaration of love at the end, makes zero sense. 

**   Pauline Kael. For some reason, Kael disliked the movie intensely:  "It wants to be a jaunty heist-caper like Topkapi but its of quintessential mediocrity, not hip enough to sustain interest - not dreary enough to walk out on. As a cockney thief, Michael Caine, still new to movies, isn’t secure enough to waltz through. Shirley MacLaine needs help— she can’t keep her timing from slipping. With Herbert Lom (the cut-rate Charles Boyer)"

Leaving aside that 46 y/o Pauline was hardly "hip" in 1966, its hard to know what to make of this. Caine, Lom, and MacLaine are excellent. If the movie is "Mediocre" the problem lies with the script.

Sea of Grass (1947)

Plot: Based on the Bestselling Western Novel. A hard-headed New Mexico Rancher with 70,000 acres, battles his soft-hearted St. Louis wife and small-farmers.
Stars: Spencer Tracy, Katharine Hepburn, Robert Walker, Melvyn Douglas, Edgar Buchanan
Best Quote: They make impressive, admirable still pictures every few minutes, but they are about as convincing as waxworks. The one, always fabulously dressed, suffers prettily and, because they are very rich, with ladylike restraint; the other endures in heavy dignity, looking older than Adam. The story may have been a good idea, but it never comes off. There are such great gaps in it that it is hard to understand how it can seem so long. - New Republic

Sea of Grass sorta reminded me of the 1st Act of Giant.
A tough Cattle Baron goes "back east" and gets a upper-class city girl who tries to soften and civilize him. The difference is, the rancher never gets softened until the very end, and the girl has an illegitimate child and leaves her husband for 10 years.

The 2nd Worst Tracy-Hepburn movie

Extremely popular at the time, it hasn't aged well.

• We expect beautiful technicolor Western landscapes, and we get B&W process shots and studio backlots/sound stages. 
• We want some real Western supporting types, and we get dreary Melvyn Douglas and oddball Robert Walker.  The only bright spot is Edgar Buchanan. 
• We need a Western Lead with some macho energy And we get subdued, 47-year old Spenser Tracy. I can buy Hepburn as the big-city girl gone West, but I've never bought Tracy as a Western Rancher. He's too much of a 20th Century Suit-and-tie man. 
• We want some fast-paced action - and we get slow-motion soap-opera. The second hour really drags. As for Eli Kazan, he considered Sea of Grass his worst picture, the one he was least proud of. 

So, why did MGM choose these Actors and Director Kazan?
Partly, they were under contract. But mostly because MGM saw this as a Woman's Picture. Its especially why Kazan, the New York City director of "A Tree grow in Brooklyn"  was chosen to for this Western.  The movie really revolves around Hepburn and her struggles.  Tracy's just the taciturn, macho rancher, who changes little.  And you have to give the MGM Suits credit - their approach won at the 1947 box office. Sea of Grass was one of the Hepburn-Tracy's biggest grossers. Incredible is as it may seem,  Hepburn's Top hits of the 1940's were State of Union, Sea of Grass, and Dragon Seed - in that order!

Best Scene:      Hepburn arrives at the Train Station and sees her new Home.

Worst Scene:   Anything with Melvyn Douglas.  What a Drip!

Summary:  Justifiably considered a dull, overly long, mediocrity.  Its not enough to have great talent, a movie needs energetic direction, a good script, and and appropriately cast actors. Rating 2 of 4 

Guess Who's Coming to Dinner (1967)

Short Review. Fusty old Civil Rights drama-comedy* about a brilliant UN Doctor (Sidney Poitier) who wants the approval of Liberal Middle-class Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn before marrying their daughter. People were hooting at this silly movie in 1967** and its not gotten better with age. Tracy looks ill (he died soon after filming), and Hepburn doesn't do much except look adoringly at "Spence". There are few laughs, and little action. as Director Kramer  has everyone plod from room to room for two hours.

Summary:  For fans of the actors - only. The real question isn't "will Tracy approve of interracial marriage?" - but why Handsome, Super-smart Poitier is settling for their drip of a daughter.  Rating 2 of 4 

Notes

* - Interestingly, the movie was NOT Stanley Kramer's idea. William Rose had wanted to do a "Race Comedy" for years, and when the Studio cancelled Kramer's 1966 Andersonville production, Kramer decided  - as recompense - to produce/direct William Rose's "race comedy" with Spencer Tracy, Katherine Hepburn, and Sidney Poitier. Everyone signed up for the "package deal" seven months before the script had been written.
** - John Simon called it "Mendacious and sanctimonious drivel" while English Film Critic Penelope Mortimer labeled the film "Embarrassing Rubbish".  But it won Academy Awards because Tracy died, and the film meant well.

Without Love (1945)

 Plot: Due to a Housing shortage, Hepburn and Scientist Tracy enter into a platonic marriage, so he can use her House for his military research. Keenan Wynn is the "wacky neighbor" and Lucille Ball has a small part as Wynn's girlfriend. Based on the 1942 Phillip Barry play written for Hepburn.

Analysis. Although a box office smash, Without Love is widely considered the worst of the 5 Tracy-Hepburn rom-com pairings,* There are some truly funny Hepburn/Tracy moments and Lucille Ball is great** -  but the story has dull patches and is too serious. Who really cares about the Oxygen mask? And the film lacks the usual  Battle of the Sexes - which decreases interest. Side note: Per his biography Tracy hated his role ***

Best Scene: Tracy Pretends to apply for a Caretaker job from Hepburn.
Worst Scene: An endless Taxi Scene with Tracy and a drunken, unfunny Wynn.

Best Quote: You never want love in your life again and I never want it in mine. But our reasons are as different as the sun is from the moon. You don't want it because you've had all the worst of it. I don't want it because I've had all the best.

Summary: A product of its times.  There's too much patriotism and Keenan Wynn, and not enough wit.  But 2nd Rate Hepburn-Tracy is still better than most Rom-coms.  2.5 of 5

Notes:
*     I'd place it tied for 4th with Desk Set.
**  As is Gloria Grahame in a funny 60 second scene. She has "it".
** Unlike their other Rom-Com's Tracy's part wasn't tailored for him. His Scientist part is somewhat bland, and while Tracy has some funny lines, he's mostly a straight-man.