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.

The Sea Of Grass is slow moving and talky, but not as bad as many have portrayed it. If I told you without cluing you in on the title I had a top-production 1947 MGM picture staring Spencer Tracy, Katharine Hepburn, and Melvyn Douglas, you would be expecting a glossy white telephone movie with a love triangle and lots of high melodrama from the three stars. That's essentially what you get here, only replace the white telephones with elk antler hat racks, the swank park avenue apartments with rambling ranch houses, and the busy New York street scenes with a dusty, one-horse, Nineteenth Century New Mexico town. The Sea Of Grass is a soap opera dressed up as a Western. If that is what you are expecting, instead of a traditional shoot-'em-up, you may be much more pleased with it.The three stars deliver their usual stellar performances and three fine, textured character studies. Old, smoothie Douglas is particularly effective as a hard-edged attorney and later judge, cattle baron Tracy's stalwart opponent and Katherine's illicit lover, father of her second child. The large supporting cast shines, led by Edgar Buchanan and Harry Carry. Over rated Robert Walker is over-the-top as usual, but fun to watch. Production values are superb with terrific luminous, old nitrate black and white cinematography typical of the era, a rich Herbert Stodhart score, good, authentic costumes, great sets with some spectacular location scenery dovetailed in for long shots of Southwest grasslands and cliffs. Principally concentrating on relationships, the story moves along at a glacial pace, but the stars and an intelligent, if messy, script hold interest. Some of the dialog is a little preachy and overblown, but it is generally believable and satisfying. There is hardly any action until the last reels, and even then it is half-hearted and ultimately just peters out. The major subplot is the traditional Western theme of cattlemen versus homesteaders, but the eventual showdown comes early and is anti-climatic. Nevertheless, the movie is engrossing and enjoyable for the acting and the production values. It is refreshing to see a movie about the Old West that concentrates on decent real people and their real life problems instead of just dwelling on brawls between lowlifes who hang out in brothels and saloons.The Sea Of Grass is not bad, but not as good as it should have been with all it had going for it. Director Elia Kazan reportedly said he was ashamed of the picture, and he should have been. The overly slow pacing, lack of spark between Tracy and Hepburn (they were off-screen lovers!) , and other problems clearly resulted from his flabby direction. With three top stars at the peaks of their careers, an intriguing story, and a big budget, The Sea Of Grass should have been a much better picture. And it would have been if Raoul Walsh had directed it.

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.

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 and horses did not like Tracy either" (per Ciment's book). Excuse me, but how could a man who loved to play polo, which Tracy did and did a lot in his younger days and against studio wishes, not like horses? I've played polo and if you don't like horses (and they don't like you) you won't be playing the game more than once or twice. Maybe the quote was made for the more obvious reason: to justify Kazan turning out a movie that was below his abilities? If true that one of Kazan's excuses for the painful experience of directing the movie was not filming on location, I can't totally disagree, but then again a good many great films were not filmed on location, so this excuse only holds so much water. And how can one think that the movie is a "cattlemen vs. homesteaders" film? That's the setting, and it is the trigger of the conflict between the main characters, which leads to the betrayal, which is the center piece of the story, but that certainly isn't the movie. I grant you, it's not one of Tracy's best, but he does the best he can with the lame Marguerite Roberts' script. Even if this movie had been shot on location, it doesn't change the glaring fact that a bad script is still a bad script. If you believe Tracy was sleepwalking, then you have to also believe Kazan was on life support and Roberts was dead, from the neck up, while scripting this one. If Tracy's at fault for anything, it's for trying to save the film, which is more than it deserved.