Chirphymium It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

Borserie it is finally so absorbing because it plays like a lyrical road odyssey that’s also a detective story.

FirstWitch A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

Nayan Gough A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

jjnxn-1 Minor entry in the Hepburn/Tracy canon is justifiably obscure. The script is long winded but not terribly deep. As far as the performances Spencer Tracy is right at home as the rigid man whose pride works to his detriment but Kate seems uncomfortable in her role and it doesn't really fit her, a wounded dignity is needed and her tough resilience is at odds with that, Margaret Sullavan would have been much better suited to the part. The basic structure of the film works against what was always so special about the pair and that's their interaction, for great swatches of this they are apart. Robert Walker shows up late in the proceeding and injects some much needed life in the picture but is gone too soon. One good piece of casting is Phyllis Thaxter as the pair's grown daughter, she bears a striking resemblance to both and really does seem as if she could be their child. The best performance in the whole show is turned in by the reliable Edgar Buchanan as the family standby, his involvement with the others is one of the few parts that doesn't feel artificial. The usually reliable Melvyn Douglas is defeated by a stick figure character. The pace of the film is too slow, this was an early film for Kazan and he still had some learning to do, and by the end it becomes a trial too sit though. Not awful but a miss.

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.

moonspinner55 Young woman in 1880 St. Louis marries a cattle-baron who wields a powerful, occasionally unpopular and unfeeling hand. The couple settles into their New Mexico ranch-house, where she soon has a child, but the days and weeks of loneliness get to her and she shares in a flirtation with the smitten local attorney. Conrad Richter's novel becomes somewhat misbegotten vehicle for Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn, though the stars do make valiant attempts to lend believability to these characters. Richter's story is full of stop-and-start melodrama, which nearly sabotages the central relationship (particularly since screenwriters Marguerite Roberts and Vincent Lawrence have given all the best dialogue exchanges to the supporting players, many of whom ultimately fare better than the leads). Melvyn Douglas works very simply with Hepburn and they have an easy rapport; Robert Walker (as the grown son Douglas fathered with Kate) brings along a nice swagger; Edgar Buchanan (as the cook) and Harry Carey (as the local doctor) have seldom been so endearing. It's difficult getting a handle on Tracy's reserved, unimpressed Colonel. Blank-faced and slack jawed, Tracy puts a great deal of thought into this complicated man but walls himself up from the audience in the process. Hepburn, in her early scenes, radiates nervous warmth and good will, but turning her into a black-wearing drudge filled with regrets was probably a mistake. Overlong, not particularly satisfying...yet the film has something. It's handsomely-made, reasonably well-paced and is certainly unusual coming from this high-powered star-duo. **1/2 from ****

bkoganbing Considering that Sea of Grass is helmed by a director who's not familiar with the western milieu it's amazing that it comes off as well as it does. Elia Kazan is so much better in an urban setting like On the Waterfront. Yet Tracy and Hepburn do make this work on some levels.John Wayne in McLintock and Spencer Tracy in Sea of Grass have the same view of the prarie. Both films take the side of the cattle rancher as opposed to the farmer. Certainly other films like Shane make the farmer the good guy. But events here show that Tracy was right about the prarie as his arch rival in politics and love, Melvyn Douglas, ruefully points out.Tracy and Wayne also have spousal problems, although certainly Wayne handles his with a tad more humor. One thing that Maureen O'Hara does and Katharine Hepburn doesn't is share his vision of the prarie. She befriends the farmer family nearby and that is what causes the rift between her and Tracy.McLintock is a comedy and Sea of Grass is a western soap opera. Kazan was lucky in casting folks like Edgar Buchanan and Harry Carey who knew their way around a western. Robert Walker was taking some tentative steps toward a similar role in Vengeance Valley. He only appears in the last half hour of the film as the kid with dubious paternity, but you will remember him.Katharine Hepburn would have to wait another 28 years before doing another traditional western in Rooster Cogburn. Eula Goodnight is certainly light years from Lutie Cameron. Colonel Jim Brewton though is the same type cattle baron as G.W. McLintock.I think the film is more for fans of soap opera than for fans of westerns. And certainly it's for fans of Spence and Kate.