Rating: 
Summary: An All-time Classic
Review: Aside from calmly, reasonably confronting a social taboo of the '60s -- racially mixed marriages -- in a thoughtful, touching manner, this film features career-high performances from several of Hollywood's finest. Spencer Tracy is absolutely brilliant in his final screen appearance as the avowed liberal newspaper publisher Matt Drayton, who, along with his idealistic wife (a role that earned Katherine Hepburn her second Best Actress Oscar) learns that their barely-20-year-old daughter is planning to elope with a black physician (played with cool passion by Sidney Poitier). The story evolves from Poitier's confidence in the two shocked parents that, without their full approval, the marriage will not go on -- and there are only hours to decide. Add his parents to the mix, and as the list of dinner guests grows so does the tension. Aside from the marvelous script, memorable performances and outstanding direction, photography and music there is a chemistry in the mix that truly creates an energy greater than the sum of its parts -- and when the parts are this good, the result is a film for the ages that goes straight to the heart of themes like love, passion, prejudice and family conflict. In the end love does conquor all in Tracey's powerful final speech, made more poignant by a visibly moved and misty Hepburn -- perhaps cognizant that she was witnessing the final curtain call of a great actor. This is the magic Hollywood is capable of, a movie that re-affirms one's faith in the ideals of love and equality, and certainly belongs in every collection.
Rating:
Summary: Timeless, Hilarious, Truthful.
Review: Yes, it pokes fun at racism and voluntary ignorance, but there is a second theme in the movie that I think is often overlooked. "Joey" (the character marrying Sidney Poitier's character) portrays a forthright and intelligent woman that has the strength to stand by her beliefs. She gently, jokingly, but honestly, confronts the racism she and her fiancee are facing -- unlike today where many people are just too lame and gutless to deal with the issue. In that way, she's also fighting against the stereotypes about herself as well. 1967 was an early date for confronting prejudices about women; she can actually think for herself (EGAD!). She's a refreshing champion against the cowardly "hide and seek politics" often used by sexists and racists then and today. An interesting technical point about the movie relates to one scene where the housekeeper privately berates Sidney Poitier. Physically, he is much taller than she is and a berating from her up close would *visually* seem a little funny and somewhat impotent. The director creatively and magnificently fixed this problem with the camera angle: When the housekeeper quickly turned and approached Poitier to berate him within inches of his chin, the camera angle was tilted so that on screen, their faces were at the same level (giving her a more powerful "soapbox" upon which to stand and berate him). Furthermore, the background looked tilted relative to the two of them, adding visual emphasis to the irrationality of her statement. A beautifully crafted scene. This is a classic movie that actually feels like a play when you see it and is without doubt a Five Star movie that one can never tire of watching.
Rating: 
Summary: Yes, Dated and Strained...
Review: Still a nice movie. However, I agree with others who expressed finding the making of the Prentiss character a "super spade" in order to be worthy of a ditzy, White girl with no job, very telling about the perceived status of Blacks and Whites in America. Also, the director must not have hung around any Black folks. If he did, that whole "burnt out old man" speech wouldn't have been given by Prentiss' mom. I don't know of too many Black mothers NOW who'd be overjoyed over their son bringing home a White girl. In fact, I can see Mrs. Prentiss shaking her head while thinking, "ALL the educated Black women out there looking for a husband, and you bring home THIS!" Also, the speech between the doctor and his dad seems to be beating around the bush. Mind you, this movie was released during a time when Black men dealt with often DEADLY consequences of fraternizing, even slightly, with White women. But the father does not refer to this at all. I'm sure ANY Black father of the time would be fearing for his son's PHYSICAL safety over a union with a White woman. Instead, Prentiss Sr. comes across as an ancient anachronism.
Rating: 
Summary: Vivid Social commentary!
Review: On the surface, it would seem that this movie is simply about race relations. How will a white family feel about their daughter marrying a black. But there is more. It is about relationships. The tie between husband and wife, mothers and daughters Etc.. The most intriguing piece of this film is the question in the subtext. How will the "New Black Man" be recieved in America? This is no porter or plumber. Poitier plays the role with Unapologetic Dignity. He is sure of his place in the world and in his mind. The character is rebuffed by the older generation, both black and white. Watch this film and watch these reactions. This film is worth discussing afterward. These questions are more valid today than they ever were.
Rating:
Summary: Cupid versus the Bigots
Review: This was one of the very first films that picked the challenge of examining a mixed race marriage in America a long time ago, before it became acceptable. The film is hence historical about racial culture in America and it reflects a very particular period of the history of this country, of its conscisouness of the need to change inside for many and varied reasons. The film hence shows, without any concession, the resistance of both white and black parents to such a union, set mind you in the upper white middle class and the lower black middle class. The arguments are all different, but the two mothers seem to be shown more positively, more open to change, readier to accept the crazy decision of love, this little capricious angel and god that wants to have nothing to do with the unbearable social limitations of our world. So, in a way, the mothers are more positive in this situation than the fathers and these are shown as resisting harder. We must also note that the future husband is the black side of the marriage and the future wife the white side of it. This makes things both simple and complex. Very complex for the white family because a daughter must be given away in marriage and this time this « given away » takes its full meaning, at least in a bigot's consciousness. But it also makes things very simple in a way by more or less endorsing the traditional sexual attraction of black men for white women and white women for black men. For the bigots it may be nothing but sex and not love, lust and not moral sense or moral feeling. The film then has a great challenge to face : to convince us that we are not in some kind of erotic attraction and nothing else, but that we have real love behind this sudden decision to marry as fast as the parents will agree, can agree, have to agree. The film does that rather well and thus we can say we have here a pretty good film that shows how love, human nature can negate any kind of prejudice provided the humans in question are able to face the opposition they will meet in society, even today and even more than ever today because the more time passes the more vicious and insidious this racism becomes, though when it explodes into some kind of riot or posse or vigilantic attempt it is uglier than anything we can imagine but no more no less ugly than what it has always been. A masterpiece to watch with adult eyes.
Rating:
Summary: Themes beyond race and love
Review: This movie is a definite 4 thumbs up.
Its themes, unlike what everyone usually says, is beyond the conflict of race and the times, in the 60s.
It's about generational gap, how parents hope for the best for their children yet, are still too trapped by conventional values in which they were brought up.
When you watch this movie please notice how Sidney Poitiet's charaster speaks of the relationship between parents and children: that every parent has an obligation to give thier child the best they can possibly give, and that the child owes the same to his child and not to the parent--- meaning, times change and the best way to deal with generational gap is for a parent not to expect too much from his/her child but love them and just hope for the best.
What do you think?
Lots of viewers seem to have miss this point...
Rating:
Summary: Don't miss this one
Review: Simply put,this is the best movie ever made. Sidney Poitier has no equal when it comes to acting in general, and is at his best in this classic. This movie was very forward thinking in content, as it deals with an interacial relationship and the families that are asked to come to terms with it. There is no political agenda here, just a well told story. It is very light hearted and funny, which is not hard to believe with Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn playing one set of parents. Isabel Sanford (remember Louise Jefferson from the Jeffersons?) is also a member of the cast. Her biting sarcasm is hysterical. The acting provided by the entire cast is wonderful, as is this gem of a movie.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent
Review: Excellent yesterday and today. Wish they did interracial stories which capture all the drama that goes on with couple and the families. Having someone determined to live their life as they choose. How dare you tell me who to love.
Rating:
Summary: KRAMER MAKES ANOTHER IMPORTANT AND TIMELY MOVIE
Review: A prominent Australian filmmaker once commented, the job of a film director is to entertain. If he can teach or get a message across while entertaining that's even better. Kramer is one of those filmmakers who managed to do both, and he generally succeeded.Look at what Kramer made, before he put GUESS WHO'S COMING TO DINNER on the screen: ON THE BEACH (1959 about nuclear war); INHERIT THE WIND (1960 about religion versus the Darwinian theory of evolution in Tennessee); JUDGEMENT AT NUREMBERG (1961, raising question about world culpability in the crimes against humanity perpetrated by the Nazis). There are no flies on Kramer. I recall the stir created by GUESS WHO'S COMING TO DINNER when it first came out in 1967. Americans were being tested and challenged, to say the least, by the Vietnam War and the civil rights movement. At one end, white liberals were risking their lives in the south along side African-American civil rights activists. At the other end, racist bigots north and south were calling activists of any color communists, and much worse. Sometimes, in the heat of the summer with racial tensions and frustrations rising, some cities were torched. Into this cauldron Kramer dropped GUESS WHO'S COMING TO DINNER. I can still recall white liberals and radicals condemning Sydney Poitier's character with slurs such as "super spade" because Kramer seemd he felt obliged to create an African-American male hero who could walk on water. In Kramer's world, an American black man had to be superman merely to qualify for marrying a middle class attractive, white air head. The bigots condemned the film because .... well, that's what bigots do. I believe that Kramer did what he thought was necessary for telling the story of an interracial marriage in1960s America. And, as a matter of fact, when all is said and done he may have hit the nail on the head. He showed what kind of fantastic credentials an African-American male needed for even the most super liberal white father to accept him as a son-in-law for his carefully cultivated, racially oblivious daughter. So then, while today's racially enlightened viewer may be offended by such directorial excesses, Kramer's point was, I think, that this is how bad things are in America. A white super liberal has a lot of trouble with his daughter marrying an African-American superman. If that was what Kramer was up to with this film, then his point was well taken! For the many Tracy-Hepburn reasons others mentioned here, a lot of pathos was added to the film. My complaint is somewhat trivial .... but it has some merit, I think. The occasional crude and rude manner in which the character played by Tracy expresses himself to his daughter and wife seemed out of character. He was supposed to be a gruff two-fisted, newspaperman. But when near the end of the movie he barks at his daughter to "shut up" and later asks Tillie their maid, "when the hell are we eating?" this was out of character. It was poor directing rather than poor acting. Of course, Tracy was literally only a few days from actually dying of cancer. And so one can jump to the conclusion that Tracy's medical condition caused the lapses. But after Tracy's absolutely superb soliloquey in the last minutes of GUESS WHO'S COMING TO DINNER, Kramer owed it to Tracy to make his excit scene both in the film and in life perfect. Tracy could have done it with Kramer's help. Because Kramer allowed his film to be made less than perfectly, I couldn't give it a perfect 5-star rating. Otherwise, Kramer succeeded in getting an important social message across while at the same time entertaining. This makes GUESS WHO'S COMING TO DINNER an excellent, if occasionally flawed, work of art.
Rating:
Summary: A true Classic
Review: I have read the reviews that call this dated. Sadly, the issue of inter-racial relationships and how various family members react is still with us in 2002. Oh how I wish this were a nostalgic little piece of how America used to be. Many note that Sydney was a doctor and that made it easier to accept him.But this movie is about love and character, and his character and his love put him over the top. I agree that I don't see any chemistry between the couple, but I think the movie gets the point across that love should be color blind, and people no matter how liberal they think they are, when put to the test, sometimes find themselves lacking.
|
