The sheer bizarreness of Syliva Scarlet is largely what keeps the film afloat. Watching it you certainly must question what everyone involved was thinking.Sylvia "Sylvester" Scarlet (Hepburn) is supposedly French and can speak only a little English or so the movie claims despite the fact that she speaks perfect English throughout the entire film nor are the reasons why Sylvia must dress in drag really make much sense but I digress; I could go on listing the inconsistencies present in this film. It's not hard to see why this film became a cult classic instead of falling into obscurity. Firstly there is Katharine Hepburn cross dressing, although with Hepburn's masculine facial features the idea that anyone would mistake her for a man is more convincing than some other cross dressing movies. This makes the movie full of homosexual undertones; most prominently in the scene in which a woman played by Dennie Moore clearly expresses an attraction towards Sylvia, unaware she is a woman in drag; commenting that her skin is as smooth as a girl's and kisses her after drawing a Ronald Coleman moustache on her. Make of that what you will.On top of that Cary Grant sprouts a cockney accent. Along with Hepburn and her father played by Edmund Gwenn they make for an enjoyable trio of not very good con artists who don't adhere to the philosophy Syliva proposes at one point in the film, "Why don't we all get jobs and go to work". I'm not sure if I can even distinguish the film's moments of humor between intentionally and unintentionally funny. Either way, the whole thing is ridiculous, funny stuff. In fact I could have given this film a higher score but I felt the romance dominated second half slowed the film's pace; I guess you could say the film started to drag (bad dumb tiss). Sylvia Scarlett is one of those films which has to be seen to be believed. The first film of the Kate and Cary quadrilogy can be classified as many things but "forgettable" isn't one of them.

Meandering curio about an embezzler (Edmund Gwenn) and his daughter (Katharine Hepburn) posing as his son as they flee from the police. Along the way they join up with con man Cary Grant. Director George Cukor gives us a real weird one here. Unfortunately its weirdness doesn't overcome its many flaws: hole-ridden script, weak direction, and poor acting. Especially the acting from Hepburn. P.U. she stunk! The more I see of early Katharine Hepburn movies the more surprised I am she ever got anywhere. She was terrible in this. Gwenn wasn't much better. With this director and cast, this really should have been a better film. Obviously, Hepburn and Grant fans should (and will) try it out. Anybody else I would say go watch "The Major and the Minor" instead.

First of all, let me tell you I'm not a stranger to movies of the 30's. I love films of that era, I admire Katharine Hepburn and I truly consider Cary Grant as one of the greatest actors ever. These facts are the reasons why I was really interested in watching this movie, however these same facts don't give me the permission to excuse and admire every movie of the 30's I watch and find average (or in this case way below average!) SPOILERS BELOW! Let's start from the script. What kind of a story is this? It seems to me that after the 3 leading characters are being introduced to us, the writers had absolutely no idea as to there the plot should turn to. So they try hard to write down whatever comes to their mind in a desperate effort to create a standard 80 minute long feature. Some examples: 1) What is the reason why Sylvia cut her hair short and becomes Sylvester? Because her father tells her it is much easier for the authorities to trace an old man with a girl than if he was with a boy. So, what does she do? She cuts her hair...and every problem is solved, even if this means they are able to make it to another country with no papers of Sylvia as Sylvestro. A hair cut was enough. 2)How about Jimmy Monkley? He creates all the mess at the harbor just because he is carrying diamonds on his heels. As if there was a chance that when he opened his suitcase the diamonds would come out of his shoe. What about his second encounter with the Scarletts? He reveals them his secret takes out of his pocket a very large bundle of money and buys them out. And then, 5 minutes later, when they are in London, he is completely broke and so are they. 3) The affair between Henry Scarlett and Maudie. Without any clue, we suddenly watch Henry dreaming and yelling out Maudie's name as if he were her "beau", and when he wakes we suddenly realize by the way he is treating her, that he really is her boy. Completely ridiculous. We never saw not even one hint that something was going on between them until that dream sequence. And it is even more ridiculous considering the fact that Maude is slightly older than his daughter, who is a witness of all this the whole time. 4) Maude's disappearance. Maude didn't fit in the story. That was obvious. But making her disappear on a rainy night, without a further explanation on her whereabouts, is stupid. 5) Henry's death. Henry was a terribly written character. So as the plot evolved something had to be done with him. in order to give Scarlett the chance to end happily the story. So what do we do? We through him off a cliff, Scarlett mourns desperately (about 5 seconds) and 3 minutes later she is all full of nerve and joy chasing Cary Grant. 6) How about the Russian girl? We get convinced she loves desperately the painter, yet at the end of the movie she uses him only as an argument to persuade Jimmy on going to Paris. And how the hell did Sylvia come to the conclusion that she tried to kill herself by drowning? Did you notice anything I didn't? Just because she couldn't swim? 7)The painter (Michael Fane) is equally funny (in a bad way) as a character. He gave Sylvia his car cause he couldn't drive with a hurt finger? Lord have mercy! He loved the Russian girl, yet in 5 days he forgot her and came to be deeply in love with Sylvia dressed as a boy?I could go on forever, but I've made my point. As I watched the movie more and more I had the idea that no one from the creative team really knew what they wanted to do. The characters are made from paper, their feelings and sentiments are completely absent (did Jimmy ever love Sylvia? One moment it seems so, 2 minutes later he runs away with the Russian girl), the dialogue is terrible (I recall the scene where Sylvester becomes Sylvia again and pays a visit to the painter and it gives me the creeps.) Never before have I seen such a terrible conversation. Remember guys, it's 1935 we're talking about, not 1925. The age of the movie is no excuse, 2 years later "The Awful Truth" would be filmed.. A final word about the direction. George Cukor has always been a great director, one of the best artists of his era. However, he also seems to be swept by the total stupidity of his material. At the final scene, the train stops exactly 1 second after the painter pulls the emergency break. And as if this weren't enough during this whole sequence, the outside background from the windows remains the same, as if no one from the crew ever noticed or cared for the fact that it was obvious the train was never moving.I apologize for the size of the comment and I also apologize if some of you fellow lovers of the movies of the 30's find this comment embarrassing or disturbing..but this is truly my view on "Sylvia Scarlett". Thank you for your time.

Legendary flop from director George Cuckor and stars Katharine Hepburn, Cary Grant and Edmund Gwenn concerns a young woman from Paris and her wily con-artist father taking it on the lam from police, eventually hitching up with a traveling vaudeville show with the girl disguised as a boy. Good-looking production based on Compton Mac Kenzie's book, but strident and shrill. Cuckor fails to modulate the scenes in a way that would endear these characters to the audience, and the resulting fiasco seems like an overly-quirky inside joke. Hepburn survives it with her sense of humor intact, but Grant is especially poor as a Cockney chap who gets involved with the sneaky twosome. A meandering, confounding misfire. *1/2 from ****