HotToastyRag It'll be very difficult to describe just how much I hated the film The Sea of Grass because part of what I loathed was the ending, and I never give spoilers in my reviews. In one sentence: From the first to last scene, I hated this movie.Katharine Hepburn is seen in the first scene in her wedding dress, and her father is getting ready to give her away. All of a sudden, she receives a telegram from her fiancé, saying he can't make the ceremony and requesting she travel to his town-he lives on a vast ranch-and they'll marry there. Kate shrugs, packs her things, and boards a train. How is that realistic? Why wouldn't she be hurt, livid, humiliated, or all of the above? But no, she leaves her city life and her family and transports herself to an entirely new and foreign environment for the sake of her husband-to-be, Spencer Tracy. Spence doesn't pick her up at the train station and isn't available to meet her in town when she arrives. Melvyn Douglas is, and he cautions Kate against her upcoming marriage; Spence isn't very well liked in town and he's known for being a cold, immoveable man. But no, she marries him anyway and gets ready for a life of misery.The Sea of Grass is a pointless, offensive film. I don't usually jump on the feminist bandwagon, but from a woman's point of view, this is an abhorrent film. Kate is repeatedly treated badly, and yet is blamed for things that aren't her fault. Spence is absurdly conceited, thinking only of his land and never of his family. Why did he seek out a wife in the first place if he was planning on ignoring her? Even if you love Hepburn-Tracy movies, or especially if she's one of your favorite actresses, don't subject yourself to watching this two-hour "Man is Boss" propaganda. The only good part of the film are Kate's beautiful dresses, designed by Walter Plunkett. But just look at some still pictures and call it a day.

kenjha A hard-headed cattleman clashes with homesteaders. Supposedly this is the only film of his that Kazan was embarrassed about. It is easy to see why this would not be something that one would want in his filmography. It is a shame that the script is so inept because it does have a good cast. The good news is that this film somehow did not end the team of Tracy and Hepburn, allowing them to go on and make such worthy films as "Adam's Rib." It is odd seeing Hepburn in a Western, a genre in which she made three forgettable films. Douglas is always worth watching and he does nothing here to embarrass himself. Walker turns in a rather bizarre performance as a gunfighter.

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.

aramusic It is unfortunate that Spencer Tracey was cast in the pivotal role of the Colonel, as he sleepwalks thru the entire picture! The emotional fireworks come from the relationship between Katharine Hepburn and Melvyn Douglas, as the illicit lovers. As for Robert Walker in the role of the illegitimate son(and that was quite a stretch in the 1940's), he walks away with the picture! What a pity that Spencer Tracy was cast-it would have been a much better picture without him! It is also a great pity that such a noted director as Elia Kazan was not allowed to film on location, which would have added so much to the ambiance of this picture. As it is, Kazan is able to interject great tension is some of the scenes, most notably in Robert Walker's death scene. A pity Mr. Tracy was not up to the challenge.