Rating: 
Summary: A good message movie because it still has some relevance.
Review: When it was made it 1967, "Guess Who`s Coming to Dinner" reflected upon the changing times in America. African-Americans were protected by the law, but still were not respected by everyone, as Stanley Kramer showed in this movie about a debate between two families over an inter-racial marriage. His film is a message that, in such a case, it shouldn't matter as to what color they are but as to how much they love another. While an overall good movie, some of its ideas have dated. First off, Sidney Poitier's character, in order to be worthy of the white girl (Katharine Houghton) has to be wealthy and a doctor who happens to work in Hawaii. Second, the subject of interracial marriage, while still not accepted by some, has become somewhat common in our society. If such a movie were made nowadays, it would probably deal with the subject of homosexual marriage. Spencer Tracy is dominant as usual in this picture. For one thing, he gets reunited with co-star Katharine Hepburn for the first time since the late '50's. And he is in his first major film in about 3 or 4 years. Finally, he gives everything he has because he didn't have much left to live. Ill during the production, he died just days after completion. Both Tracy and Hepburn got Oscar nominations, with Kate emerging victorious (Though some might say voters felt sympathetic for her following Spence's loss). It is surprising that Poitier, who had a tremendous year in '67 (In addition to this, there was Best Picture winner "In The Heat of the Night") was not nominated at all for this or any other film that year. While I can't compare it to his other work (Since I haven't seen any other of his movies), I think he was very good in the role.
"Guess Who's Coming to Dinner", while a bit aged, is still recommended watching. Not just to see how our ideals have changed since it was first released, but because some themes shown here may still have relevance (Homosexual and interracial marriage can be compared and both are subjects much debated about). Watch it also for Spencer Tracy, who is in a moving moment you could easily miss if you don't know its importance. It is during the last scene. Spence is giving a speech about why Houghton and Poitier should get married. The camera takes a look at Hepburn's face. She is misty eyed, not just because of the words he is saying, but because she knew this would be Tracy's last film and thus the last time she would be able to star with him. Now the usage of the song "The Story of Love" seems most fitting...
Rating: 
Summary: Important
Review: This is an important film because it deals with an issue that never seems to be resolved! That issue is prejudice. The form it takes in this excellent movie is racial prejudice. This movie is not nearly as dated as some of us would be happy to believe. Prejudice based on race is still alive and flourishing in the world. It would be wonderful if everyone could come to the conclusion that Mr. and Mrs. Drayton did, that race is not a big enough difference to cause trouble or to divide us. We all CAN live peacefully together, accepting our differences, cultures and traditions - if we choose to do so. This movie is beautifully written and even more beautifully acted. Katharine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy give their finest performances of their careers and they will touch your heart as the movie unfolds. This movie is truthful and real. I appreciate the fact that they chose to have Sidney Poitier play a successful doctor because I believe it clarifies the movies point... the prejudice felt against Dr. Prentice was specifically and fully based on his race! No other issues could play a part in their hesitancy to have him as a son-in-law. He was articulate, passion, strong-willed, intelligent, successful and obviously in love with Joey! This is a vital aspect of this movie. I have experienced prejudice first hand since my husband and I are of different races and I find "Guess Whose Coming to Dinner" to be an important movie for society. So, I encourage you to watch it and recommend it to all of your friends! Please!
Rating:
Summary: Perfect
Review: Stanley Kramer's masterpiece joins two perfect characters -- he's an incredibly accomplished doctor with impeccable manners and a solid family, and she's a gorgeous, charming and idealistic daughter of a newspaper magnate. The only thing that could possibly get in the way of this couple's marraige is the difference in their skin color. The script is funny and first rate, and the hall of fame cast works together beautifully. Like Lubitsch's Ninotscka, the situations at times seem a bit dated, but that just adds to charm of the movie.
Rating:
Summary: 4.5 Stars; Needs Historical/Cultural Context Remembered
Review: The Story: Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn play the parents of young Katharine Houghton, who brings home her well-educated fiancee to meet the parents. The parents are not expecting their daughter's fiancee, a physician, to be African-American, but Sidney Poitier certainly is. The film focuses on the parents' discomfort over the biracial marriage. When the story begins, it's easy to think that the movie studios were aiming to do two things: make one more movie with Katharine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy (this was his last film, and he was quite ill during its making); and make a simple statement about racial tolerance. This film could easily have ended up with a very contrived, forced air to it. But, that doesn't happen when you put Spencer Tracy, Katharine Hepburn, and Sidney Poitier together in a film. The cast rises above the simplicity of the premise. Some have said that making Poitier's character a well-educated doctor weakened the racial conflict potential, but I lived just outside of Detroit in 1967, and ANY biracial marriage was a controversial idea to base a film upon. It also put the race issue right on the table, as the parents had no basis upon which to object to their daughter's marriage, except for their discomfort over the race issue. Overall, if the viewer remembers when this film was made, the quality of the cast makes it a real winner.
Rating:
Summary: Landmark film about racial prejudice
Review: Considered a landmark film, it addresses racial prejudice and interracial marriage in a time when sixteen states in America still upheld laws that made miscegenation a crime. It is important to pay attention to past racial and ethnic issues, in order to understand those today and to see whether any 'progress' towards a more 'tolerant' society has been made. Guess Who's Coming to Dinner is an entertaining, straightforward and well-meant film that will hopefully make students aware of the controversy of interracial relationships throughout the decades and centuries even. Being a child of mixed race parents, I find the film meaningful in showing two people of different races, being very much in love and very willing to face all the social obstacles their interracial relationship is bound to encounter.
Summary
In Guess Who's Coming to Dinner the 23-year-old, white, upper class Joanna "Joey" Drayton (Katharine Houghton) brings home her fiancé John Wade Prentice (Sidney Poitier) to meet her parents. When he turns out to be a distinguished 37-year-old black doctor, the "liberal" progressive parents (Katharine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy) are forced to re-examine their beliefs regarding interracial marriage and are given one single day to do so. Before the parents can get all of their objections sorted out, they have John's parents coming to dinner as well. Both sets of parents have reservations about this union, but try to come to terms with the interracial marriage.
Discussion
Guess Who's Coming To Dinner? raises several questions or issues that might be interesting to discuss after viewing it. The film's main themes are interracial relationships and prejudice, and it advocates a mixed race marriage, which makes it a very progressive movie for the 1960s. Considered progressive as well are Joey's 'liberal' parents who have raised their daughter not to be prejudiced and they have done this successfully, with her 'lack of' prejudice extending to her being able to fall in love with an African American. The parents are then left to consider whether they really believe in their acclaimed 'liberal thinking' and this may raise important questions with the viewing audience. Are human beings really as liberal or conservative as they think they are when it comes to practicing what they preach?
If it is not race that prevents the parents (the fathers in particular), both Joanna's and John's, from approving the marriage, what is?
The only objection to the interracial marriage vocalized in the film is the harsh treatment they will most likely receive from society. Although this is a valid and probably accurate objection, it is debatable on whether the fathers do not have more personal objections. The movie glosses over the subject of interracial marriage without getting too detailed, but the concern on whether the couple understands the adversity they will face if they go ahead with their interracial marriage is very clear.
The themes addressed in the film were still much of a taboo in the 1960s, so in order to merely create a 'mild controversy', the director seems to have made the relationship between John and Joey as 'acceptable' as possible. Infallible and with impeccable credentials as a prize-winning doctor and working for the World Health Organization, John is portrayed as an in-laws dream. The character is in every socioeconomic sense a 'good catch': What parent would not want him as a son-in-law? But what if the director had made the fiancé a factory worker? Would the audience still find it as easy to accept a mixed-race relationship?
Also, to reduce the seriousness of the racial themes, the film is presented as a comedy. This means that conservative viewers can laugh about it while telling themselves that these events would never really happen. Finally, Joey and John avoid their biggest challenge by intending to live abroad for John's work. Therefore, they will not have to cope with the racial tensions in the country and they will not have to combine two communities and identities or have to pick one over the other.
When it was released it 1967, Guess Who`s Coming to Dinner reflected upon the changing race relation in America. Interracial intimacy and marriage in particular were delicate themes to discuss, which makes this film so important, both at that time as well as today. The individual right to choose a sexual partner, select a spouse and raise a family could not be fully exercised in all of the United States up until the Loving decision in 1967, which banned anti-miscegenation laws. Although these laws disappeared, the prejudices that had always accompanied them, could not be banned so easily. They persisted, despite the colour blind ideal.
The fact that the Joey's father is an intellectual liberal forced to face his own buried prejudices gives the film an important message that should still be considered today. On some deeply personal level many people are still prejudiced, no matter how hard they try to tell themselves otherwise. In Guess Who's Coming to Dinner Spencer Tracy's character comes to this realization, but is able to put his objections for his daughter's happiness. The film chooses to be colour blind like Joey's father and lets pure and simple love instead of race be the basis for a successful marriage. Or as Matt Drayton argues in his 'final analysis' in Guess Who's Coming To Dinner:
"[...] in the final analysis it doesn't matter a damn what we think. The only thing that matters is what they feel, and how much they feel for each other. And if it's half of what we felt ... that's everything".
Rating:
Summary: Powerful Drama
Review: Guess Who's Coming To Dinner was a ground breaking film upon its release in 1967. The story revolves around a liberal San Francisco couple whose twenty-three year old daughter comes home from a trip to Hawaii and surprises them by announcing she's engaged to an older man who also happens to be black. The couple, Matt & Christina Drayton, is played by screen legends Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn. Sidney Poitier, Dr. John Prentice, is the fiancé and Katharine Houghton, Joey Drayton, (who is Ms. Hepburn's niece) is their daughter. Matt & Christina are obviously shaken by the news and concerned about the situation. It is not because they are prejudice against minorities as their daughter is marrying a black man, but it is against the struggles she will face in such a relationship. Also, the doctor has put it to them that if they do not approve and give their blessings, he will call the marriage off. They have less than twenty-four hours to make their decision and they struggle with it, especially Matt. He is a crusading newspaper publisher who has championed liberal causes all his life, but faced with this situation, his beliefs are shaken to their core. Throughout the day they get council from their best friend, Monsignor Ryan (a superb Cecil Kellaway, who provides them with guidance and a voice of reason. Joey invites John's parents (Roy Glenn & Beah Richards) up from Los Angeles to dinner. Upon finding out Joey is white his parents voice their displeasure with the situation as well. When the two sets of parents get together, the mothers agree that they will support their children because they love them, but the fathers take an opposing view. Mr. Poitier gives a powerful and forceful retribution to his father about the state of black men in the current day and it shows why he is such a brilliant actor. In the end, Matt gives an impassioned speech to John & Joey about the struggles they will face and the unkindness that will be heaped on them, but that if they truly love each they will survive. Director Stanley Kramer does a brilliant job of making the film poignant yet not sappy. The cast are all brilliant and Ms. Hepburn would end up taking home her second Best Actress Oscar (after a thirty-four span from her first for Morning Glory in 1933) and the film won a second Oscar for William Rose for his screenplay. The film is definitely dated as interracial marriages are not as shocking as they were at the time and interracial couples have been the basis of countless films since then. The film is still powerful, because prejudices still exist in this country and the quandary one has when they have their beliefs tested is all too real. Mr. Tracy was gravelly ill at the time and it turned out that this would be his final film. He died two weeks after its completion, but he was posthumous given his final Academy Award Best Actor nomination and he delivered a powerful and lasting reminder of why he was one of the greatest actors in film history.
Rating:
Summary: Even with its faults, it's still a good watch
Review: A white liberal couple's beliefs are tested when their daughter announces her engagement to a black man. I liked this movie, but I found a couple of things in the plot to be quite unbelievable...like the Poitier character and his white fiancee didn't really seem to have any kind of rapport. If these two were in love, maybe I missed something, because it didn't show. Plus the girl seems to be TOO naive not to see that her marrying a black man would cause some controversy. I can't believe the writers made her that dumb. I guess they were trying to make her so much in love that her man's race wasn't even a factor, so I can kind of understand what they were going for. But other than that, the performances in this film are great. Spencer Tracy's speech at the end is priceless, and watching Katherine Hepburn watch HIM is too much...This movie, even though it was made in 1967 when interracial couples had a rougher time of it, does make you think, though...how would you feel if it were YOUR son or daughter in this same position? Just how liberal are you?
Rating: 
Summary: Bit Prepackaged for My Taste
Review: More like 3.5 stars. There's nothing particularly wrong with this movie but it's not the genius its been made out to be either. It's not nearly as daring as it likes to think it is. He's a wealthy, smart, sophisticated mature professional. She's an airhead. He's black and she's white. He's a catch and a half and she's a twit. The real question should not be why does she want to marry a black man but rather what he sees in her. Of course they will have problems with the intolerant aspects of society. Of course their children will be teased and mistreated by racist adults and ignorant children. But this film was made in the late 60's, not the late 30's. It's also set in San Francisco (Liberal Heaven) and not in rural Mississippi. The white girl's parents are liberals through and through. Poitier's character's parents are a working man & his wife from Los Angeles. Notice how Tracy's character does not object to his daughter marrying a black man but is deeply concerned by how a mixed couple & their children will be received in society. This movie gives itself every break it possibly can to ease its way down a receptive audience's throat.
Rating: 
Summary: Boring...
Review: This movie has been hailed as being a great piece of work; I tried to watch it. I really did and I could not do it. Portier plays his role well; but then again it is not like he has to act; he just has to be himself. Stay away from this miserable piece(...).
Rating:
Summary: I'm coming to dinner
Review: Bad music, carnivorism (I'm a vegetarian), and a sachrine-sweet atmosphere. So what makes this movie so great? It's wake-up call to anyone who still thinks interracial relationships are taboo. Seriously though, it sets a good message despite the dude being about 15 years older, it's hillarious (especially the dance scene with the maid's assistant and the deli delivery boy), and Katharine Houghton is NOT a bad actress, despite what others may say. I think she plays her over-enthusiastic character quite well.
This review is not sarcasm, I assure you. No, I don't support the killing of animals, but that's such a small part of the story (turtle soup and deli) that it's hardly worth mentioning. A great move made in a time of racial turmoil. This may have even inspired the kiss between Captain Kirk and Communications Officer O'Hura.
|
