Redwarmin This movie is the proof that the world is becoming a sick and dumb place

Claysaba Excellent, Without a doubt!!

Kaelan Mccaffrey Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

Tymon Sutton The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

MartinHafer I am not impugning the acting ability of Katharine Hepburn--she made some very fine films (any of her films with Spencer Tracy, "Bringing Up Baby" and "Holiday" quickly come to mind). However, when seen today, "Morning Glory" seems incredibly antiquated--and much of it is due to Miss Hepburn's rather bizarre performance. At times, she is likable and engaging while at others I just cringed at her overacting. And yet, oddly, she received her first Oscar for this uneven performance. It's an obvious example of how times and tastes have changed---such a performance would never be allowed today. It also might help to put these early Oscars in some perspective. They were NOT chosen like they are today, but at that time picked by a small group of studio owners and their pawns. So, if the big-wigs decided to award an Oscar, they did. Surely some actress did a better job in a movie in 1933! Perhaps it was just a slow year, but could it have been THAT slow?! Hepburn plays a young lady who has come to Broadway to make a name for herself. However, she is not at all polished and VERY full of herself, so it's not surprising that the going is rough for her career. The only thing that saves her is a strange waif-like quality that makes some men want to look out for her and help her....though she isn't a particularly distinguished actress on stage. However, later in the film, the nasty diva refuses to go on and the writer of the play convinces the producer to give his protégé a chance. Naturally (and magically), it is Kate and naturally she's inexplicably a huge success...and the film soon ends after Hepburn (GROAN) muses about the fleeting nature of success.The plot isn't bad, though the way Hepburn goes from nobody to leading lady is a bit clichéd--even for 1933. "42nd Street" and many other musicals have done the exact same bit, so seeing it once again was a bit disappointing. The main problem with the film was clearly Hepburn. I am not sure if the blame can be entirely placed on her--perhaps the director wanted this campy and uneven performance. The writing, too, cannot be ignored--some of Hepburn's lines were pretty tough to believe. All in all, I see this as a mildly interesting but way, way overrated film. Much, as I said, might be due to changing tastes--all I know is that I would put this in my Top 10 list for least Oscar-worthy Oscar winners.

gladysmichael Yes Katherine Hepburn did a great job and got an Oscar for her role as Linda Lovelace in this 1933 film. It was good to see her in her youth and her first great performance.I was also impressed with the role performed by Mary Duncan, the gorgeous blond actress. I had never seen her before and it looks like Morning Glory may have been her last performance in movies. I am going to see if I can download some of the other movies she was in to see what character she played. Mary's bio states that she lived until 1995 and was 97 when she passed away - I see in this role the satin and lace bombshell that predates, Harlow, Monroe and Madonna.

sdave7596 "Morning Glory" released in 1933, in Hepburn's early career at RKO Pictures, tells the story of stage struck Eva Lovelace. He character is from a small town in Vermont - we hear her tell it a few times. At the beginning of the film, I did not find Hepburn's character likable. In fact, I thought she was downright touched. As the film progresses, we come to understand that her art (acting) is seemingly everything to her and she is obsessed with it, yet she is not very successful. At a party, Hepburn gets tipsy and gets to show her stuff, performing "Romeo and Juliet" in front of the guests (at a cocktail party, no less!). Hepburn falls for Adolphe Menjou, playing a typical stage producer, who sees only the bottom dollar. Exactly why she falls for the aging Menjou over the young and handsome playwright (played nicely by Dougls Fairbanks Jr.) who is kind to her - well, that is indeed a mystery that also strains credibility. This movie has glitches and flaws that don't quite make complete sense, and the film seems to be little more than RKO showing off Hepburn as its newest star. Fortunately for her, better roles lay ahead. Hepburn won an Oscar for this film - not her best by any means, but the Academy Awards were new then and maybe not as picky. Not that Hepburn isn't good here - she's always good - just not great.

hcoursen The TCM version had three confusing glitches. The first, as noted, was that "small part" that keeps getting mentioned, in which Eva failed. but the new play is just opening, so there's been no time for Eva to have done this. Then, she floats out of Menjou's apartment after a one-nighter believing that he and she are soulmates. Are we to believe that she is putting on an act for Fairbanks? The transition to her scrubby career as part of a barrel-rolling team is not charted. Then she turns up as the understudy in the new play, but apparently has had no contact with the impresario, Menjou. Impossible. When Menjou tells her that they are not soulmates, she simply replies "I understand" and goes on from there to cry to the moon that she won't be a morning glory. She's good in her transition from the dull Hamlet clichés to a really strong Juliet -- the quality of the two speeches is nicely contrasted. C Aubrey and Ware are wonderful in the believable roles of people who have fallen from the firmament of stardom. The film itself, though, has the "written" sense and the static sets of a filmed play, which this one is. Oscar? It must have been a bad year!