Deeper than the descriptions

A film of deceptively outspoken contemporary relevance, this is cinema at its most alert, alarming and alive.

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

This film reminds us of the unbridled male chauvinism of the 1940's. Spencer Tracey's character ruins the lives of everyone around him with impunity. I am amazed that Katherine Hepburn agreed to do this role. Her "sacrifice" is sickening. The ending especially is truly mind blowing as she totally gives up all sense of self in order for Tracey's character to finally accept her back after years of exile. If she showed up at the end and put a bullet through his head it would have been much more fulfilling and would have rung with much more a sense of justice. If seen from a proper perspective, its a great study of abuse of power.

Elia Kazan regretted making The Sea Of Grass, and it's easy to see why. Instead of a focus on cattlemen vs. homesteaders, we get a marital soap opera stretched out over twenty years between a never-changing stern-faced Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn and in an unusual role as a maternal figure. Kazan specialized in films highlighting great dialog and characterizations, and this film has neither. The social concerns are lost regarding the conflict between the feuding cattlemen and homesteaders without conflict development and plot progression independent of the Tracy/Hepburn soap opera. Within a half hour, one begins to realize this is all there is to the story (based on Conrad Richter's novel). The viewer gets enough stereotyped scenarios predating actual soap operas on television by more than a decade. The rejected wife has an affair, gives birth to a son of questionable birth, is rejected again by her husband, and watches helplessly as her rebellious son lives a ruinous life. Yikes! What nonsense! Hepburn, while more likable than Tracy in the film, is not really a sympathetic character, and the ending is very contrived to say the least. The Tracy and Hepburn teaming overwhelms the story, and it sinks beneath the weight of a burdensome script lacking in the realism, psychological aspects, and characterization found in later Kazan films. Robert Walker and the beautiful Phyllis Thaxter liven things up a little as the adult children, but it's too little too late. Walker only appears on screen for about twenty minutes. Edgar Buchanan and Harry Carey offer able support as Jeff, the cook and Doc Reid respectively. Melvin Douglas tries hard as the homesteader's lawyer and secondary love interest of Hepburn, but he too seems saddled by the plodding nature of the film. The film benefits somewhat from its outdoor scenes, framed in precise period detail. The film is possibly the worst of the nine Tracy and Hepburn pairings with absolutely no chemistry between the stars whatsoever. ** of 4 stars.

This movie is tough to love. Partly this is due to the setting of the film (nothing but grasslands as far as the eyes can see), but most of it is because the two main characters are so flawed and unlikable. In some ways this unlikability is good, as too often Hollywood films of the 30s and 40s present people in a "black/white" fashion and people who fall somewhere towards the middle are seldom seen. However, such "gray" characters are tough to bond with or care about, so I can understand why the film makers generally avoided this. Katherine Hepburn seems like a good character through much of the film, but midway through it, she shows a self-centeredness that make it tough to really see the tragedy in her life. Her initially living with the cruel and lawless Tracy is unforgivable, but her having an affair and then leaving her kids (one the bastard) with Tracy and not seeing them for almost 20 years make her very, very tough to like. Tracy, on the other hand, does stay to care for his kids--but in a very self-serving fashion. He is an emotionally constricted and yet over-indulgent father. As a human being, he's a lot worse--killing or nearly killing farmers because he saw the plains as his own personal property. The central message that eventually these farmers contributed to the destruction of the plains is lost--Tracy's not fighting against the farmers due to any love of nature or a desire to preserve the land. No, he's just a greedy rancher that will do ANYTHING to keep the land without fences.Despite the problems with the characters, the film is exquisitely filmed--with some of the more beautiful camera shots I've seen in a long time. This film is worth seeing, but not one I would recommend you rush to see.

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.