Linbeymusol Wonderful character development!

BelSports This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

Mischa Redfern I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

Micah Lloyd Excellent characters with emotional depth. My wife, daughter and granddaughter all enjoyed it...and me, too! Very good movie! You won't be disappointed.

mark.waltz This takes much patience to stick with, especially if you are going into this expecting a traditional western. It's as if somebody realized that there were more stories than cattle rustling and Indian attacks and decided to focus on the largeness of the great outdoors. It's a saga, much like "The Big Country" and "Broken Lance" with a bit of "The Violent Men" thrown in. This is "the thinking man's western", one you would not send your young sons to on a Saturday afternoon in the 1940's. This is the type you'd see at Radio City Music Hall in New York City or the Chinese Graumann's in Hollywood, and expect all the glitter and gloss that MGM could provide.For it's star performances, this is superb, another winning turn for Katharine Hepburn, yet the two men (Spencer Tracy and Melvyn Douglas) play characters that are not extremely well defined. Coming from St. Louis society, Hepburn is engaged to Tracy, a ruthless land baron who refuses to allow his property to be sold to be developed past the sea of grass, idealistic for sure, but cruel to the settlers desiring to farm and ultimately do the earth some good. Tracy's speech about the sea of grass is as poetic as Truman Capote's proclamation about "the grass harp" where the whistling winds among the blowing tall weeds have a music all its own. Hepburn finds out early enough about the many enemies that her husband has made, culminating in tragedy when Tracy has a family she has befriended thrown off his land where they have settled in desperation. This leads Hepburn to leave him briefly, becoming involved with Tracy's bitter enemy, Melvyn Douglas, culminating in Tracy's ruthless revenge in taking away Hepburn's children.If you are patient and keep attentive to the lagging plot, you can be sucked in to the period soap opera, a bit more earthy than most, but filling the screen with all the large emotions that can fill the screen. There are excellent performances by Edgar Buchannan as a soft hearted cook, Harry Carey as Tracy's one voice of reason that he listens to, and Ruth Nelson as the hopeful wife of the squatter who defies Tracy by settling on his land. Robert Walker and Phyllis Thaxter come on in the last quarter of the film as the pieces of this convoluted puzzle come together. This is where the interest for me started to go south. It's a shame that this isn't better, as under the direction of Elia Kazan it had potential but the lack of a clear cut well rounded script prevent it from being fully successful.

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.

MartinHafer This movie is tough to love. Partly this is due to the setting of the film (nothing but grasslands as far as the eyes can see), but most of it is because the two main characters are so flawed and unlikable. In some ways this unlikability is good, as too often Hollywood films of the 30s and 40s present people in a "black/white" fashion and people who fall somewhere towards the middle are seldom seen. However, such "gray" characters are tough to bond with or care about, so I can understand why the film makers generally avoided this. Katherine Hepburn seems like a good character through much of the film, but midway through it, she shows a self-centeredness that make it tough to really see the tragedy in her life. Her initially living with the cruel and lawless Tracy is unforgivable, but her having an affair and then leaving her kids (one the bastard) with Tracy and not seeing them for almost 20 years make her very, very tough to like. Tracy, on the other hand, does stay to care for his kids--but in a very self-serving fashion. He is an emotionally constricted and yet over-indulgent father. As a human being, he's a lot worse--killing or nearly killing farmers because he saw the plains as his own personal property. The central message that eventually these farmers contributed to the destruction of the plains is lost--Tracy's not fighting against the farmers due to any love of nature or a desire to preserve the land. No, he's just a greedy rancher that will do ANYTHING to keep the land without fences.Despite the problems with the characters, the film is exquisitely filmed--with some of the more beautiful camera shots I've seen in a long time. This film is worth seeing, but not one I would recommend you rush to see.

jotix100 "The Sea of Grass" showed up on cable recently and out of curiosity, we watched it, based on the great director at the helm, and the cast involved in it. Unfortunately, Elia Kazan wasn't up to the task of directing the Conrad Richter novel about the post pioneering days. In fact, 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 Katherine Hepburn 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 total failure, on the contrary, but there are no sparks in it to keep the viewer interested.As someone remarked in this forum, we don't get anything from the Colonel and Lutie in the way of love, from the start. For the romance they were living on the sly, the stars don't light up for the camera to give us a hint they are in love in real life. The only one that shows any spunk is Melvin Douglas, who as Brock, can't hide his love for Lutie. The supporting cast is good, with some excellent minor performances by Phyllis Thaxter, Edgar Buchanan, Ruth Nelson, James Bell, and the rest.Watch "The Sea of Grass" if there's nothing better playing at the same time.