Spencer Tracy's last performance was in this well-meaning, handsome film by Stanley Kramer about a pair of white parents (Tracy and Katharine Hepburn) trying to make sense of their daughter's impending marriage to an African American doctor (Sidney Poitier). The film has been knocked over the years for padding conflict and stoking easy liberalism by making Poitier's character in every socioeconomic sense a good catch: But what if Kramer had made this stranger a factory worker? Would the audience still find it as easy to accept a mixed-race relationship? But there's no denying the drawing power of this movie, which gets most of its integrity from the stirring performances of Tracy and Hepburn. When the former (who had been so ill that the production could not get completion insurance) gives a speech toward the end about race, love, and much else, it's impossible not to be affected by the last great moment in a great actor's life and career.
--Tom Keogh
1 Liberal Angst over Interractial Relationship in the 1960s
Guess Who's Coming to Dinner takes place during the course of one day as two families struggle to overcome their concerns about the interracial marriage of their children. This film is a treat for the eyes with lovely sets and beautiful people. It also has a nice 1960's feel that is reinforced by sophisticated wardrobing and an "easy listening" soundtrack--featuring The Glory of Love as the signature tune. The film relies very heavily on the use of dialog and reflects the elegance of a time when people were entertained by stimulating conversation. The San Francisco backdrop also is the perfect setting for a movie that challenged racial convention.
But there are a few serious flaws. This is an introductory role for Katharine Houghton (Hepburn's niece) who plays Sidney Portier's fiance--Johanna Drayton. Her inexperience is apparent, particularly in comparison to heavyweights Portier, Tracy and Hepburn and as a result, she is unconvincing in the part. Moreover, her character is not well-written or well-developed which makes it difficult to understand why Sidney Portier's character--John Prentice-would fall in love with a woman who appears to have so little to offer intellectually --given his significant professional achievements as a doctor. One also must ask why it was necessary for his character to be cast as a doctor in order to be seen as an acceptable partner for a young white woman who had not really accomplished anything accept being born into a privileged family. The answer is simple. Making Prentice a doctor-and not just any doctor-but a world renowned expert in tropical medicine, made the interracial relationship more acceptable to white audiences during the 1960s.
The other cast members are outstanding and the on-screen chemistry phenomenal. Katharine Hepburn (Christina Drayton) and Spencer Tracy (Newspaper Publisher Matt Drayton) deliver brilliant performances as Johanna's parents. John Prentice's modest working class parents are played with great dignity by Beah Richards and Roy E. Glen. Mrs. Prentice and Mrs. Drayton favor the marriage and both characters provide passionate, articulate arguments as to why their husbands should agree. But their husbands voice serious objections and the families spend the evening in intense discussions over the issue, accurately reflecting the racial fears that existed 40 years ago. Prentice's father reminds him that in many states interracial marriage is illegal and that he is "getting out of line." There are also a number of very memorable and funny lines. In the scene in which Matt Drayton wonders why "the colored kids dance better than the white kids", Portier's response is classic--"you dance the Watusi, but we are the Watusi!"(For readers under 40, the Watusi was a popular dance in the 1960s and also an African tribe). Cecil Kelloway, who plays friend of the family, Monsignor Ryan, deftly brings a sense of humor and moral guidance that is effective because it is not "preachy". He challenges Matt Drayton's liberal credentials and suggests that Drayton's misgivings about his daughter marrying a black man reveal his hypocrisy. Isabel Sanford ("Weezy from The Jeffersons TV program) plays the feisty maid of the Draytons.
It's been said that in the final scene Tracy--who was very ill at the time and who died shortly after the movie was completed--delivered one of the longest soliloquies in American film history, in only one take. Katherine Helpurn was clearly so moved by the scene that it's hard to believe that she is just acting as her eyes brim with tears.
Although the some of the sentiments are dated, this film is highly entertaining, and provides a rare opportunity to experience outstanding performances from six gifted actors who bring compassion and depth to Stanley Kramer's film. Its' angst relative to interracial marriage also reminds us of how far we have not come.
2 Dated, idealistic, but Tracy's climactic speech priceless
I finally saw this a year or so ago. While I was too young in the 60's to understand or experience the injustices this film addresses, I still was able to get into the mindset and feeling of the times. Today's young viewer might have to first approach a viewing with an understanding of how very unsettling the concept of mixed marriages were (and still are, to some extent) at the time. Consider that, until around 1968, racially mixed marriages were still illegal in some states! Blows the mind, doesn't it?
Anyway, Spencer Tracy's climactic speech at the end makes this film worth a viewing, and a worthy addition to any classics collection. I recall not being very impressed with the bride-to-be character----too idealistic, simplistic, naive, and without any depth to her personality. Why on earth would Poitier be interested in her, unless she was the proverbial, lilly-white, status-enhancing trophy for the class-conscious black man? Still, a great movie, that is totally supported by the excellent acting that such dialogue-intensive movies require (kind of like "Rope" by Alfred Hitchcock, which is 100% dialogue).
3 Old, but still so relevent
Last night I started the original "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" from 1967 and this morning I finished watching it. Its an interesting movie, unfolding the racial prejudices of the time like an onion, and manages to be both insightful and flawed. It expertly reveals the characters racial prejudices, both through their words and through their little non-verbal cues. But the film does set John up as the perfect Negro man for their lilly white daughter, a world reknowned doctor. They explore the racial prejudice against him, but say nothing of how they treat their black maid who is supposedly family but ordered around and spoken down to. But these inconsistancies don't ruin the film, and you have to take into account how revolutionary it was for its time. It has the magnificent Sidney Poiter, who gives this electrifying little monolouge close to the end to his close-minded father:
John Prentice: You don't even know what I am, Dad, you don't know who I am. You don't know how I feel, what I think. And if I tried to explain it the rest of your life you will never understand. You are 30 years older than I am. You and your whole lousy generation believes the way it was for you is the way it's got to be. And not until your whole generation has lain down and died will the dead weight be off our backs!
The look on his face when he gets to the part about his whole generation lying down to die is just amazing. Its angry and sad and confrontational and heartfelt all at the same time. Katherin Hepburn and Spencer Tracy are also excellent. And while the film is dated (very dated some may say) I think that is still applicable today. Just read this next bit of dialouge and think of the many challenges facing gay people today, whose marriage is not legal in 49 of our states today:
Matt Drayton: But you do know, I'm sure you know, what you're up against. There'll be 100 million people right here in this country who will be shocked and offended and appalled and the two of you will just have to ride that out, maybe every day for the rest of your lives. You could try to ignore those people, or you could feel sorry for them and for their prejudice and their bigotry and their blind hatred and stupid fears, but where necessary you'll just have to cling tight to each other and say "screw all those people"!
4 Spencer Tracy's Last Role
Guess Who's Coming to Dinner is worth viewing if only to see Spencer Tracy's last film role. He plays Matt Drayton, a San Francisco attorney, married to Christina (Katharine Hepburn), an art gallery owner, with Katharine Houghton as their pretty daughter, Joanna. Joanna has just returned home to inform her parents that while on vacation she has met Dr. John Prentiss (the wonderful Sidney Poitier), fallen in love with him and plans to be married. So where's the problem? Problem is that Matt, Christina and Joanna are white and John is African-American and this is 1967, when interracial relationships were not "the norm". Never mind that they live in the liberal San Francisco and never mind that John is a doctor - - Matt at first is not happy with his daughter's choice . . . and neither is the Drakes' maid, who seems to find it insulting that a man of her own race has intended to marry the daughter of her white employers. John's parents too are shocked with his choice and his father seems determined to talk him into marrying someone of his own race. With the exception of Katharine Houghton, all the performances are strong, earnest and heartfelt. While Houghton is not a poor actress, she seems so flighty, naive and almost tactless that you wonder what Dr. John Prentiss would see in her. Another small fault in the film lies within the character of John himself. Did the writers think that they had to make John a doctor in order to make him acceptable and worthy? Why could he not be a postal employee like his father, but still the same warm, decent person that just happened to fall in love with a white woman? In this respect, the film seems dated. However, the film is saved by the three lead performances. Sidney Poitier is strong, yet cool, as Dr. John Prentiss - - a man who wants to be recognized as just a man, not necessarily as a black man; Katharine Hepburn is warm, maternal and wanting to be happy that her daughter has found a man who loves her but also wanting to support her husband; Spencer Tracy's torn emotions over the man his daughter has chosen, whose only "fault" seems to be that the man is of a different race, is evident in his every scene. Knowing that Tracy would die within weeks of the completion of this film makes this picture a gem. The emotional scene at the end between him and Hepburn, in which real life and "reel" life surely intertwines, is worth sitting through the movie for. A bit overdone, perhaps, but the real love of Tracy and Hepburn shines through.
5 Flawed, but important film
1967's Guess Who's Coming To Dinner probably raised more than a few eyebrows at the time of it's release. Sadly though, if you can not put yourself in the mindset of that time, the potential emotional impact of the film will be lost on you.
Set in the San Fransisco of the late 1960's, Guess Who's Coming To Dinner tells the story of Joanna Drayton (Katharine Houghton) bringing her boyfriend of a mere 10 days, Dr. John Wade Prentice (Sidney Poitier), home to meet her parents. What the parents (played by Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn) don't know is A)she is coming home, B)that she has a boyfriend she is planning to marry C)that said boyfriend is African-American and that D)said boyfriend is 14 years older than she.
Dr. Prentice informs Joey's parents of his intentions to marry their daughter, but also informs them he will not marry Joanna without their permission. To further complicate matters though, they only have this one day to decide if they approve as he is due to leave for Geneva Switzerland for a job. What ensues is a family's hopes and dreams for their daughter being analyzed and re-thought in the span of a mere few hours. Trying to decide if their daughter's happiness should outweigh the inevitable hardships she will face in a relationship such as this.
The film spares no time in setting up just how happy the new couple are, and also does not waste time in letting you know the difficulties an interracial couple will face at this time in American history. Sadly though, it goes wrong in several other areas that are disturbing. The cookie-cutter characters in this film abound. The Irish Catholic Monsignor, the wise-to-the-world African American housekeeper and the busy-body friend of the Mother who has to be put in her place. If you can look pass these worn out, two-dimensional characters though, there is a poignant story of how love truly should conquer all.
Going back and watching a film that deals with race relations from a different time period can, however, be enlightening. Not once do you hear the term "African American". You do hear the "N" word once, but it is used by the housekeeper towards Dr. Prentice. It is still shocking to hear it blurted out all of a sudden, but again, you have to remember the time frame the film was made in.
This is a difficult review to write though. This movie is flawed, but do you rate it based on its obvious film making flaws, or the merits of a story that needed to be told? I think in the end you have to go with the story. The story is basic, simple and timeless, don't judge a book by it's cover, and don't care what the rest of the world thinks. For that, and its place in cinematic history, it deserves 4 stars.
Sadly, the DVD though only gets 2 stars. It does feature a gorgeous transfer of the film, and does offer both widescreen and full screen versions. However, the lone extra is the original theatrical trailer. Certainly there must have been something they could have included in the form of a commentary track for one of AFI's Top 100 Films Of The 20th Century. A sad, little trailer is all it gets? Pathetic.
On a side note, this is also a sad movie to watch as you know Spencer Tracy passed away only 17 days after filming completed. You can also see the early signs of Katherine Hepburn beginning to show signs of trembling that would later be so well known. It was a fine film for both noteworthy actors.
Four stars for the film
Two stars for the DVD
6 good but very offensive
this was a very good film just because it was spencers goodbye to kate, other than that the film was very offensive to me, what i couldn't understand is why would a fine , educated, succesful, nobel-prize winning black man, would feel as if he has to get some nothing white girls parents approval for marriage,in to days eyes that white girl would have been totally out of her league dating a man as accomplished as sydney's character was, but other than that the film is pretty good
7 Excellent thought-provoking film
I watched this film last night and was blown away by it. Evidently there are many caricatures that seem superfluous to the plot - the 'obviously Black cook/nanny,' the sexualised Black help, the PC speech by Mrs Drayton to her collegue and the drunken Irish Monseigneur.
BUT all that aside, this film provides many avenues for critical thought that are still relevant today. This film not only explored race relations(the most obvious visible challenge) but also issues about age, about marriage and about the aesthetic ideal. Would you be happy to let your (very optimistic and somewhat naive) 23 year-old marry a man 15 years her senior after an 11 day holiday? Does Joey merit becoming his wife when she is not as accomplished as John so clearly is?
There is also the tension between what was the liberal progressive tune in that film with the conservative line when Joey says 'When I marry him, I will be important too.' That's hardly a progressive feminist stance is it? She clearly feels that her personality can be and should be subsumed in his achievements. Neither is the position that the two mothers take. They defer to their husbands' disapproval of the marriage.
What I found most interesting was how relevant the issue of race still is for many people in the audience. While we would all like to hail 2004 as a different era in terms of race (and in someways it is) are inter-racial marriages so easily accepted? I think people too easily forget the difficulties many couples face TODAY and the hurdles have to negotiate among their own communities and across their spouses'.
I think this is a film worth watching, if only to see far away we are now, today, from the idealised picture of liberalism that was painted then in the 1960's.
8 Boring??? Oh Pha-leeease!
This is one of, if not the best, love stories of all time! To B. Viberg of Atlanta, you have obviously never been in love. Emotionally powerful throughout the entire movie!
9 An older person's perspective....
I saw this movie in the theatre the week it was released. From a perspective of nearly 40 years later, I believe it still holds up.
There is much evidence to show that it was not a realistic portrayal of the subject matter, even in the late sixties, and that it is even less recognisable now. But Guess Who's Coming To Dinner is not documentary, or even that later invention; docudrama. It is theatre, and in the theatre, characters are given a point of view, a goal, and obstacles.( Notice that reality is not a prerequisite for any of these.)
So given that we are watching art, what can we say about it? Well we can say that this film contains some of the strongest performances ever committed to celuloid; Spencer Tracy, Katherine Hepburn, Sidney Poitier. Katherine Houghton sings more softly for she carries the torch for youth and innocence (supposedly representing the generation that does away with racism - from 40 years on how we wish that THAT at least were true!)
But even if you think you know the story, and you think there's no reason to see it because it is so dated, BUY THIS DISC and add it to your collection for the performance of a lifetime: Beah Richards as Mrs. Prentice (Sidney's mom) will, in the middle of a movie designed to make you think, reach right into the center of your being and break your heart, just as her's is breaking. Her scenes bring this movie to a higher level - high and deserved praise seeing as Tracy and Hepburn set the bar.
It wasn't meant to cure the evil. It, in truth, hardly acknowledges the evil of racism (perhaps the most valid criticism that can be made) but it did, in it's time, a miraculous thing: it answered the question "Is it wrong for men and women of different races to marry?" -
the answer, simply,: "No."
10 Still relevant today
Great movie, great acting, great script. Still as relevant today as it was back when.
11 Landmark film about racial prejudice
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 fiancˇ 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 fiancˇ 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".
12 Perfect
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.
13 I'm coming to dinner
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.
14 Finally Guess Who's Coming To Dinner is on DVD
I bought this DVD 5 months ago and I really like it. I had watched this movie a lot as a child and was so excied when I saw it available on DVD. The DVD has a lot of cool specail features.
Here Is A brief Review:
Katharine HepBurn, and Spencer Tracys daughter. Kathryn Houghton comes home froma holiday to Hawaii with her Fiancee (of only 2 weeks ago of knowing each other) Sidney Potier. Well You can guess who katharine hepBurn and Spencer Tracy feel when their daughter comes home and says that she is engaged to someone of a different race. Well his parents fell the same way. This movie ends well.
Great Movie. 5 Star Rating.
15 Great actors, great concept, not so great script.
Guess Who's Coming To Dinner is a very good movie featuring some of the best actors of all time: Spencer Tracy, Katharine Hepburn, and Sidney Poitier (and then-newcomer Katherine Houghton, who's acting is a bit cheesy). The concept of interracial marriage bringing two seemingly different families together is great, but the movie seems to go a little slow, things being repeated constantly. But overall, it's a movie well worth seeing.
And, "The Cranky Reviewer" really made me mad! Saying that black people don't talk like Sidney Poitier's character is completely ignorant! I guess the "Reviewer" thinks there are no intelligent black people?! Ick. It's people like "The Cranky Reviewer" that keep a lot of people in the mindset of the year this movie was made!
16 A dinner I don't mind missing...
Maybe it's a case of needing to be there but I hated this movie! Yes...HATED! What a waste of my time.
The token Hollywood Negro of the time chides his father with his -blah! blah! "I am a black man speech". Whatever. Does being a doctor give him a free pass against the reality of race? This movie assumes so.
Maybe it's the time period but this movie tried too hard.
I guess it was supposed to be an enlightening and daring look at inter-racial mating with the "correct" type of Negroe male hooking up with a white girl. Oh My!
It was nauseating. It is celebration of false social pretense and bogus racial harmony.
I realize Mr. Poiter is the sacred cow of "black" acting. I have never enjoyed any of his work. He always comes across as a long suffering yet strangely noble Negroe in every role. It's an Uncle Tom has gone to Hollywood type of display.
17 A Bold Hollywood Movie
Despite a few negative words on the film from others, I believe it was bold in its day and a should be commended on that alone. The acting was also effective for its time. Like so many of Sidney Poitier's movies, he provides lively character roles that have convinced me he is the best male actor of all time (in my opinion). Although this wasn't his best movie it deserves recognition.
18 Hit me powerfully...years later...
I saw this when it first came out. I was 18. It was so corny and unbelievable; a terrific Black man with the daughter of an affluent couple...reality check! Then I was appalled when Hepburn won over Dunaway, Bancroft, etc. Then Rose's screenplay won over "Bonnie & Clyde". That idiot Academy!! Well, things have changed, and this film has definitely survived the test of time. There's really no question that Hepburn won because of her devotion to Tracy (in his last role). She certainly didn't reach the depth of Dunaway or Bancroft, or the Great Dame Edith Evans (who should've won for "The Whisperers"). I thought the screenplay of William Rose was a bit gratuitous, but, as I said, that was then. Inter-racial marriage is prevalent in all levels of society today. I've always admired Stanley Kramer, and "It's a Mad (4) World" was his only discernable light-hearted film. He missed on a few marks here, though; he allowed some unforgiveable mugging from Tracy, as well as some banal banter between Tracy & Cecil Kellaway. Isabel Sanford stole the show with over-the-top wisecracks, but it was Beah Richards who was nominated as Poitier's mother. That year, she also played the disreputable Mama Kaleba in "In the Heat of the Night, and the opposing characters that she delivered were both impressive. Poitier was confident and sure, typically fine; Katharine Houghton (Hepburn's niece) was overly affected to the point of distraction. I think Rose's screenplay isn't the problem, but Kramer's direction, to allow the editing of Robert C. Jones to include cuteness between the baffled leads. (Jones was nominated, so was Kramer: whose fault?) After a few years I'm looking at this film again; there are three GREAT scenes...First, when Hepburn tells her store manager (Virginia Christine) to get lost; next when Beah Richards talks to Hepburn and then to Tracy, telling him he's a dried up shell of a man, like her husband; then Tracy's final, wonderful speech before they have dinner. These moments are worth your time and effort, especially Richards' two scenes. The bottom line is that it's a beautifully constructed film, with a somewhat unbelievable premise. All together it's enjoyable, and knowing the elements behind this production make it better. There's no question that Hepburn is great, but this is an Oscar that was given for reasons other than greatness of acting. Bancroft should've won this year; Hepburn should've won in 1962 when Bancroft won (for "Long Day's Journey Into Night". Hepburn as a drug-addict? Wow!) I still watch this film and watch it repeatedly; it's hard to describe this film because it's so admittedly corny, but the GREAT moments really slap you in the face. Judge for yourself, and don't hold my opinions against me.
19 5 Stars Plus!
This has always been my favorite Kate Hepburn film. I thought she was at her very best with every kind of emotion that a movie can hold. I hadn't seen this film in about a year and decided to watch it when i heard of her death. The scene where Kate is standing outside, during the sunset and the theme song playing in the background as her facial expression goes from deep thought to a total breakdown of tears,,,,,,,I cried also. Thank God for motion pictures where we can watch great talent like Kate and hold on to those moments forever and ever.I'm from Connecticut and spent a good part of my life in Old Saybrook where she lived. She was a wonderful wonderful loving and giving women and you can tell that when you watch her films. A gem of a really early film of hers is "Spitfire",,,,,very early 30's. I hope that film is revived because it really is a classic. Thanks Kate for all you have done for live theatre and movies. You will be missed.
20 An Unusual Experience at the Time...
I have heard and read many arguments for and against this film's inclusion in the AFI list. I can only add that when I first viewed this film, in 1967, in Hastings, Nebraska (no hotbed of liberalism, by anyone's definition) I witnessed something I had never experienced before. The movie played to a full house that Saturday evening and, at it's close, the entire audience applauded loudly and long.
21 Great Actors, Mediocre Script
Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn star as the liberal parents of Katherine Houghton who find their liberal point of view challenged when she brings home her fiance, Sidney Poitier. Although he's a doctor with impeccable credentials, her parents (and later his parents) worry whether the couple understands the adversity they will face if they go ahead with their interracial marriage. When watching this film, it is important to remember it was made at a different time in the world and would have been more controversial in the Sixties than today. The actors are all strong, with particular praise going to Tracy, Poitier, Cecil Kellaway as a family friend, Beah Richards as Poitier's mother, and Isabel Sanford as Hepburn and Tracy's maid. Although it's great to watch such pros in action, the script isn't always up to their level. Some of the conflict is simplisticly presented, with a final speech by Tracy that he pulls off like only he could, but which is too theatrical. There isn't much tension either, since it seems obvious how the film will end. But no doubt director Stanley Kramer and the screenwriter had to be careful how the material was presented, and in the capable hands of all those involved, it runs smoothly and probably appears better than it really is.
22 AFI Top 100? Lets take a closer look:
Guess Who's Coming to Dinner is the 1967 Sidney Poitier film about interracial marriage that made the AFI Top 100 list. So why the mediocre rating by this reviewer and many others? I mean we have the great Sidney Poitier, as well as Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn. We have the decent director Stanley Kramer (who did On the Beach), we have the great era of the 1960s and we have a controversial theme. Well the key to the mediocrity lies in a very weak script by William Rose that doesn't ring true in many ways.
John Prentice (Poitier) wants to marry Joey Drayton (Katharine Houghton) and all hell breaks loose between the parents (Tracy, Hepburn, Beah Richards, and Roy Glenn). Problem is the script tries to be politically correct while ignoring any semblance of reality or non-nerdness (to coin a word).
For example: a 2-faced employee wishes the couple well with whispering asides to Hepburn (in a WAY over the top cartoonish manner for both the well wishes and the asides). Joey says "Mom, she was well, RUDE!" actually she wasn't rude at all, she was 2-faced...big difference lost on the writer. And to get the lady out of their collective hair Hepburn gives her $5000.00. Not much of a punishment for being 2-faced.
Then we get this wacky priest who drinks, sings "We can Work it Out" in the most pretentiously hip unhip touch of the film, and thinks its funny that Mr. Liberal (Tracy) has such a problem with the marriage. As far as Poitier's speech to his father, "You think of yourself as a black man, I think of myself as a man", I have this to say: I'm sure men have thought that, but I doubt they ever said it, i.e. it came out of the writer, not out of reality. And I have no idea why they left that scene in where Tracy rams a black guy's car and the guy yells "There oughta be a law!" It didn't make sense, it didn't fit into the film, and I suppose it was just an ill-concieved joke by the writer.
And Tracy's speech at the end is supposed to be so touching, and it reduces Hepburn to tears...but really it's big on schmaltz and low on substance. This film is TV movie quality and made it into the AFI Top 100; hey AFI, ever hear of this other Poitier film from 1967...a little film called In the Heat of the Night? Such is my BIG GRIPE. How could this film make it while one of the best films of the decade doesn't? Answer: Politics. This one was about subtle middle class racism, that one was about blatant Southern racism. Well all I can say is see both films and YOU decide.
23 An All-time Classic
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.
24 Powerful Drama
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 fiancˇ 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.
25 Timeless, Hilarious, Truthful.
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.
26 Yes, Dated and Strained...
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.
27 Yes, Dated and Strained...
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.
28 Vivid Social commentary!
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.
29 Cupid versus the Bigots
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 Ē given away Č 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.
30 4.5 Stars; Needs Historical/Cultural Context Remembered
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.
31 Themes beyond race and love
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...
32 Don't miss this one
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.
33 Poitier, a milkman? I think not.
To those viewers/reviewers who comment that the message of "Guess Who Is Coming to Dinner" would have been more effective had the Poitier character been a working class guy because that would have shaken up the Hepburn&Tracy middle-class sensibilities, I have this to say: this movie was about racism, and specifically about racism where it's least expected - in the hearts of those who espouse anti-racist philosophies and teach their kids to be open-minded and tolerant. If Poitier had been a working class character, the test situtation that this comedy/drama creates would have been diluted, because then we'd be examining the family's class prejudices and not their racism. A movie can't do everything. What this movie does so brilliantly is remove all the objections a family like the one in the movie could have to a potential son-in-law and those have to do primarily with social class, intellectual sophistication and profession. The Poitier character is an ideal son-in-law, except... And it's that EXCEPT that the movie looks at.
34 Excellent
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.
35 A true Classic
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.
36 GUESS WHO'S COMING TO DINNER...OSCAR, THAT'S WHO!
Words can't even describe how good this movie is, but I'll try. This film was made in 1967 (can you believe that). It's the story of an interracial couple (Katherine Houghton and Sidney Poitier), who travel to San Francisco to tell Houghton's parents (Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn) of their engagement.
You can imagine the controversy this movie must have made back in the '60s, but the film makers handeled it very well and very resposibily. I love this movie so much, because it takes a very obvious problem in society (both then and now) and brings it out in the open for all to see. I APPLAUD everyone who was involved with the film. It was a stroke of genius. "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" shows just how ridiculous people's prejudices can be. This film proves that "All in the Family" wasn't the first Hollywood project to make light of these issues.
And so I ask the kids, instead of renting your usual "Freddy Got Fingered" or "Dude, where's My Car" movies, rent "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner." You'll see, after you watch it, what a real movie is like.
37 enjoyable and memorable
hi - i love this movie and i really don't know why.. basically it is a bunch of liberal hogwash but likeable..we can easily see why katherine hepburn's niece who played joey (ms houghton) did not have a very long career.. her acting is painful to watch but all the other characters are quite enjoyable. especially, cecil kellaway who played their friend the priest..spencer tracey was an exceptional actor and one of the true greats in movie history and i can even stomach katherine hepburn in this (but not much else...her voice always grated on me and i think she is overated) ... i think the big speech at the end was obviously aimed at hepburn. i never review movies on amazon but i must admit i was struck by the reviews and the romanticizing of the legendary tracey-hepburn affair.. you know he had a wife... and they should have been ashamed of their behavior all those years.. i think his loving glances and his tribute to her at the end is a bit much..what speech did he make to his poor wife who stood by him all through the years?? oh well, thats hollywood.......
38 Watch it for Spence.
"Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" is a ham-handed propaganda piece salvaged only by the presence of Kate Hepburn and Spencer Tracy. The plot (and I'm going to give it all away, so don't read if you don't want to know) centers around a young girl, Joey, and her fiance, played by Sidney Poitier. After a courtship of only ten days, they are engaged and will shortly marry. Joey takes her intended to meet her parents (Hepburn and Tracy), and the film centers about their reaction, over the course of an afternoon, to their daughter's engagment to a black man.
It's a typical setup for a "message" film: you know that at the end, everyone will embrace racial tolerance, and all will be well. It's a fine premise, and the pity is that the writer and director managed to pull it off so poorly even with such a superb ensemble of actors. The film is populated with stereotypes. Hepburn is the patrician but understanding mother. Tracy is the FDR liberal (we know this because he keeps a huge portrait of FDR on his desk) who must now take the final step and face his prejudices -- a 1967 metaphor for LBJ's self-assumed "completion" of the New Deal, perhaps? Tilly, the black maid, is ornery and suspicious (reminiscent of Scarlett O'Hara's Mammy, she yells at Poitier for being an "nigger" who "doesn't know his place"). All the young people (including the vapid Joey) are portrayed as dancing, progressive, free-lovin' free spirits, talking breezily about their cohabitations and sleepovers. I know it's set in San Francisco, but the hipster hipness makes one ache. Poitier's mother is a longsuffering, saintly woman; his father is a ridiculous foil who exists mostly so Poitier can make a tedious speech about how the "young generation" needs the "old generation" to "get off our backs!" (Given that Poitier is playing a 37-year old man, this speech serves mostly to make one laugh.) Most egregiously of all (and most damaging to the film's premise), Poitier plays anything but an average Joe: instead, he's a world-famous physician who cured thousands in the Third World and regularly jets between Geneva and New York. This conceit alone would have fatally undercut the dramatic tension in the parents' reactions (how much better would it have been had Poitier been a construction worker, or a typist); paired with the predictable and two-dimensional characters, it annihilates it.
In the end, then, the film's premise is swamped with its static characters and preachy dialogue. Then there's the question of plot plausibility. As my fiancee pointed out, "They're all focusing on her marrying a black man. Why doesn't anyone care about the real problem? She got engaged in ten days!" Exactly.
Now, there are some reasons to watch this movie. Those reasons are Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn. Despite being saddled with bad writing and little to do, Tracy in particular manages to shine forth in his last film. The expressions on this old man's face are priceless, and he evokes what little emotional reaction can be drawn from this movie in his evident love for his wife and daughter. Even his tedious speech at the end (in which he declares that "what we feel" is more important than "what we think") there is a gem wherein he reminisces about how his wife made him feel when he was young. The viewer knows that he is speaking directly to Hepburn as Hepburn: priceless and moving. Hepburn herself has considerably less to do, but she is allowed a delicious scene of calculated (if just) brutality early in the film. The scene wherein they go to get ice cream, and Tracy is forced to interact with young people who are alternately condescending, apathetic, or hostile, is a moving cameo of an America that was not changing for the better. It is also an perhaps-unintentional farewell to a particular type of film star, and a particular type of film.
In short, watch this because you want to see Spencer Tracy's last movie. Otherwise, I hope you enjoy predictable preaching.
39 Dated, 60's Period Piece
I checked this out thinking it would be quite interesting, and it was at least ok. The female lead, though, came across as more of a 12 year old brat than an adult, and the Poitier character wasn't quite the mature individual his character makes him out to be.
The movie came down to Spencer Tracy saying it doesn't matter what anyone thinks, but what you feel. Poitier yells at his dad that his dad's whole ... generation has to get off their backs and that he doesn't owe his father anything. If memory serves he even says it would be good for his dad's generation to die off. The female lead's friends are living together and think it odd that two people "in love" shouldn't be together.
Poitier's mother in this movie seems to think that the fathers are against the marriage simply because they've forgotten what it means to love a woman.
In short the acting is good but the story is really really weak in my opinion. I think there's a lot more they could have done with it.
40 An interesting look back
1967 doesn't seem that long ago until you see this movie. An interracial couple (gasp!).
Anyway, Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn can't make a bad movie, so even if this film drops into cliches every once in a while, it's still wonderful.
But one question: Why is Poitier's character so much more educated, introspective and deep than his boring financee? I'd be telling Poitier, look, honey, you can do a lot better. You don't need to settle for this uninteresting waif.
41 Great Acting (mostly) But Dated
To see Hepburn and Tracy acting together almost makes this film worth the ride! The film is obviously a soapbox for "can't we just all get along?" but it fails on a couple of points. Firstly, any 23 year old woman who is intent on marrying a 36 year old doctor after knowing him for ten days is clearly a cause for parental worry! For the mother to throw up her hands and say: "Joey (the daughter) knows best!" is lousy parenting at best. Secondly, while I can appreciate the fact that the daughter was raised without prejudice, the fact that she seems rather oblivious to the fact that prejudice exists makes her out to be an incredible moron! Also, the fact that the character of the daughter is played by a complete bubblehead who is completely devoid of talent does not help this film! Poitier is fine, as always, but that daughter's amateur babbling of her ridiculous lines almost ruins it for this viewer!
42 A good message movie because it still has some relevance.
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...
43 A Classic
I love old films, and this one is a classic and a keeper!
44 Inter-racial couple deals with society's obstacles
Katherine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy are terrific as the wealthy parents of a young woman who returns from a trip abroad with the announcement that she is engaged to be married to a young doctor. Oh, and the young doctor is a negro. As if that wasn't enough to "chew on for a while", the young couple will leave that same evening, to be married as soon as it can be arranged. Adding another twist, the young doctor's parents are arriving to meet their son's fiancee (unaware of her "pigmentation problem"), all in good time to have pleasant conversation with the assembled family over dinner. -- This film is a masterpiece and quite daring for 1967 standards. Seeing the reactions of the parents, especially the fathers, is a powerful statement about our society. The mothers are the ones who think of their children's happiness, and realize how deeply in love they are with each other. A series of "private conversations" culminates in one last speech by Spencer Tracy that makes everyone hearing it reach for a kleenex. Dinner is served! -- Since we will have copies of "Guess Who's Coming To Dinner" for generations to come, I wonder if one day a viewer will say "Was this really ever an issue?" It may not be in our lifetimes, but maybe one day someone will actually ask that question.
45 a beautiful film
THE ONLY WAY I CAN REVIEW THIS FILM IS TO ASK ONE SIMPLE QUESTION? IF YOU PUT SPENCER TRACY, KATE HEPBURN, SIDNEY POITIER AND THE SPLENDID BEAH RICHARDS ON THE SCREEN TOGETHER HOW CAN A MOVIE BE ANYTHING BUT GREAT?
46 Important
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, passionate, 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!
47 Important
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!
48 One of the ten best movies of all time.
One of the all time classics, but not merely for it's courageous social stand but just as much for it's uncompromisingly high quality of product. No movie before or since has had the emotional or cerebral impact of "Look Who's Coming To Dinner" in dealing with interracial marraige. From Stanley Kramer, who directs and produces it, to the major and minor actors who act in it, this movie is as tight as any movie you'll ever see. No wasted moments, scenes or dialogue. Every word, movement and expression has it's place and they all fit together like a beautiful puzzle. Even the one scene extras, (the delivery boy and Hepburn's co-worker) are important to it's plot development. You can't take one word away without some how diminishing the power of the whole and of the message. If you've never seen this movie, and I'm sure a generation of young movie goers hasn't, you owe it yourself to buy it. It's as vital, fresh and important today as it was in 1967, maybe more.
49 One of the ten best movies of all time.
One of the all time classics, but not merely for it's courageous social stand but just as much for it's uncompromisingly high quality of product. No movie before or since has had the emotional or cerebral impact of "Look Who's Coming To Dinner" in dealing with interracial marraige. From Stanley Kramer, who directs and produces it, to the major and minor actors who act in it, this movie is as tight as any movie you'll ever see. No wasted moments, scenes or dialogue. Every word, movement and expression has it's place and they all fit together like a beautiful puzzle. Even the one scene extras, (the delivery boy and Hepburn's co-worker) are important to the plot development. You can't take one word away without some how deminishing the power of the message. If you've never seen this movie, and I'm sure a generation of young movie goers haven't, you owe it yourself to buy it. It's as vital and fresh and important today as it was in 1967.
50 1967: The Year Of Sidney Poitier!
The year 1967 was one where three subjects were on the minds of many Americans: the hippie revolution, war and predjudicism/racism. The latter is very well documented in the Stanley Kramer directorial epic "Guess Who's Coming To Dinner", in that its subject, interracial relationships, somewhat examines the various types of prejudices people were casting out during that era. The movie begins with an elitist couple, Dr. John Prentice and Joey Drayton (both craftfully played by Oscar nominee Sidney Poitier and Katharine Houghton), who are experiencing a romantic high after meeting on vacation in Hawaii. Tired from the trip, Dr. Prentice wants a little r & r at a hotel, but Joey insists that The Good Doctor meet her upper class parents, so they imediately go to Joey's mother's place of employment, only to find her mother isn't there, then it's on to Joey's parents' home. Upon Mrs. Drayton's (played brilliantly to an Academy award nominated performance by Katharine Hepburn) first glance of Dr. Prentice, she is both shocked and amazed of the prospect that the doctor is black. Much the same is true about Mr. Drayton's postion on the situation (also played to an award-winning performance by Spencer Tracy), who's even more shocked and appalled over his daughter's relationship with Dr. Prentice than his wife is. The Drayton's maid Tillie (played wonderfully by Isabel Sanford [of "The Jeffersons"]) isn't all that crazy about Dr. Prentice, either, and sees him as nothing more than an arrogant, uppity man who enjoys getting what he wants, but that's further from the truth, as Joey sees Dr. Prentice as a kind, wonderful human being whom she wants to marry. As time progresses forward, Mrs. Drayton softens up in her stance concerning the relationship, while Mr. Drayton's stance gets even more firm with each passing moment. Note the painstakingly intense expression on Spencer Tracy's face during the many scenes of this picture. You can understand why he's been nominated for various awards throughout various points of his career. When Dr. Prentice's parents are invited to dinner, it seems that all hell will break loose, as both families continue to analyze the situation further. Even with some trite coddling and persuasion from Mrs. Drayton, she still is not able to sell the mixed marriage idea to her husband. At the same time, Dr. Prentice is having just as much difficulty in getting his father, and in certain instances his mother, to see the benefits of this relatinship. Notice the scene where Dr. Prentice stands up to his father. Sidney Poitier's remarkably intense, emotional acting style is unmistakable here, as he lets loose a temper with such fire and gusto. 1967 was perhaps Sidney Poitier's finest moment in theater, as he starred in three of the hottest movies that year: as the soft and stern scholteacher in "To Sir, With Love", as the convincing Virgil Tibbs in "In The Heat Of The Night" and in "Guess Who's Coming To Dinner", all fine performances, indeed.As tensions continue to surface between both John and Joey's paternal parents, it is up to the Drayton's pastoral advisor, Monsignor Ryan, to talk some sense into the disrupted parties. He finally succeeds in the end, as one of the most emotional scenes in the movie occurs, courtesy of Katharine Hepburn. While on the road to Mr. Drayton's changing his mind about the marriage proceedings, which he comes to accept, Mrs. Drayton lets out a tear filled display of emotion that only Ms. Hepburn can create, which explains her wealth of fandom, not to mention several Oscar and Academy awards on her mantle throughout her glorious career. As is expected, all's well that ends well, as John and Joey are off to Switzerland for their wedding, which tearfully, we never get to witness. It is because of this fine film's theme, including its stunning cast, that makes "Guess Who's Coming To Dinner" worthy of being in any motion picture connoisseur's video library. A must not miss!
51 It's amazing how some things don't change
While this movie was made some 10 years before I was born, It really connected with me on a level that not many other movies have. Even though it is clearly a vehicle for the filmmakers' political views, this movie stands on its own on the merit of the performances by all. As many others have said, Spencer Tracy gives an awesome performance as a man who has stood behind a printed page his whole life and must come to terms with what he has been saying. Being a SF Bay Area native, this movie was highly entertaining simply because of the fact that the movie was shot in SF and contains scenes at some great local spots, such as a much shorter skyline view from 101N and the Mel's on Lombard. Yet more striking for me was their portrayal of a mixed race couple, and the fact that I am a product of a mixed race marriage. This movie allowed me to gain a little bit of insight into what my parents must have gone through. And even though the movie ends fairly soon in their relationship, I can create my own conclusion to this story. In my version it's a very happy ending, a real life fulfillment Tracy's final speech. I wish more movies were made like this. Bringing current social issues to the forefront and dealing with them head on. Although the severity of the mayhem this happy couple caused may be slightly outdated, all the themes presented in this movie are very much alive, 34 years later. I see it around me every day.
52 Stunning Perfomances
The movie is about how the parents of a young couple (a white girl, and african american guy) have to struggle with themselves to decide what's best for their children. Superb acting from Hepburn, Poitier, & especially Tracy, who makes an unforgettable speech, his last, at the end of the movie. That speech alone makes the movie a treasured classic. I liked the way the movie handled the sensitive topic of racism. It blended unconditional love with hate in a way that had never before been seen on screen. If you are looking for a heartwrenching, heartwarming movie to see, this is the one for you.
53 Worth a watch
While this movie seems to drag a bit in the middle section, I still reccommend it. Why? I'll tell you.
This movie above all else, means well. The filmmakers are simply trying to say what they believe. This film is plain and simple, a soapbox. Nothing wrong with that.
The performances are another reason to watch this movie. Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn are worth watching in anything. Poiter doesn't give a performance quite up to par for him, but it is satisfactory. Poiter's parents are also great.
There are some spectacular moments here. Great monologue by Tracy at the end makes the entire film worth watching. I don't cry about a film or book or tv show. I can count on one hand the number of times I have actually cried over a piece of mass media. Tears came to my eyes during this wonderful speech. They didn't break and run, but they were there.
The film is sightly weighted down by a plodding midsection, but on retrospect I think it might have been made that way on purpose. Will there ever come a time when people of different color can live together in harmony? I think so. To get to that place, however, we will have to go through a process that parallels this film: long, arduous and drawn out periods, punctuated by moments of sheer genius and if we are lucky, at the end light will dawn.
54 Even with its faults, it's still a good watch
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?
55 A movie with two personalities
This was Tracy and Hepburn's last film together. He died shortly after completing it. The chemistry between the two of them was never more powerful or moving than in this film. They both knew this was his farewell performance, and it's hard to watch it without tears. And the love story, if you put your brain in neutral, is charming. Poitier gives a fine performance (has any actor, ever, given three more memorable performances in one calendar year than "In the Heat of the Night", "To Sir With Love", and "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner"?).
So what's wrong with this film? Well, if you think about the issues realistically, this film is VERY dated. The airheaded daughter of a wealthy white couple comes home to introduce her fiance. He is the kind of prospective son-in-law whom any sane parents would go delirious over: a world-renowned doctor, a big wheel in the World Health Organization, dignified, educated, presumably financially comfortable. So why would anyone object?
Because he's Black.
The rest of the film is devoted to the debates between and within the two sets of parents about whether the marriage should take place. Generally the two mothers approve and the two fathers disapprove. Guess who wins?
The idea that the filmmakers had to make the fiance so preposterously wonderful in order to make him seem even an acceptable match for this sawdust-brained rich girl seems completely laughable in the year 2000. Furthermore, why so much fuss over getting the parents to approve? Nowadays if the two of them wanted to get married, they would GET married - and the hell with their parents! For these reasons, the film has not aged well.
If you can suspend your 21st-century attitudes toward love, race and marriage, then this film is charming. But suspending those attitudes isn't easy, even for a 53-year-old geezer like me.
56 OK For Its Time
I guess this was an importabt movie when it came out, but when I saw it, it seemed a bit dated. Your daughter want so marry Mr. Perfect, so what's the problem. This wouldn't be an issue to me or to many other people nowadays, but it was apparently more loaded in the 20th century when race tensions were not quite as relaxed as they are now. Tracey and hepburn do a great job of portraying a very liberal minded couple whos convictions are finally put to the test, and Poitier does an excellent job of being every woman's dream fiance, but I still thought it was fairly dull. A sign of progress, maybe?
57 Will keep you smiling
I really enjoyed this movie! I had a smile on my face the entire time. Watched it again and again!
58 It's not TOO bad - for 1967
I personally find this film engaging simply because it almost seems to satirize the liberals of the 60's - the black and white issue in the film should really be secondary, yet Tracy and Hepburn are so wrapped up in the race jargon, they don't even seem to care that their (rather dimwitted) daughter is marrying a man quite a bit older than she (and what exactly does Poitier's character see in her, anyway?). In 1967, granted, I'm sure this film went over better with critics, but today its message is quite tepid, simply because the relationship between Poitier and Houghton's characters is so weak and because there are so many "poignant" scenes (between Hepburn and Richards, between Tracy and Poitier, between Poitier and Glenn) that seem to exist merely to wring the sympathy out of the audience. On the plus side - it's enjoyable to see Hepburn and Tracy in literally ANYTHING - and knowing how they actually felt about one another in real life, the speech Tracy makes at the end of the film takes on an added irony (no WONDER Hepburn can never bring herself to watch this film). I recommend it to be viewed as a time capsule of sorts showing how far we've come in only 35 years (you might find yourself chuckling a bit as the "liberal" parents talk about their daughter wanting to marry a "negro"). And as a grammarian of sorts, I have to ask . . why is there a question mark at the end of the title?
59 Excellent Vintage Hollywood
Excellent film. One of best and last of hollywood legends. Outstanding appeal of 60's values. You can't help but like this movie!
60 You Can't Help But Like This Movie
A wonderful film about a subject that is still all too controversial today. Some of the earnest upper middle class white liberal talk sounds sort of silly now, but the sentiment is right on and the acting (at least Hepburn and Tracy) is superb. Sidney Poitier grimaces and emotes a bit too much and luckily Katharine Houghton never really went on to anything else, but other than that, a good supporting cast. Little bits of silly '60's camp (the go-go dancing delivery boy) make for unexpected fun.
61 Classic Colour blind love story
Forget the obvious. This story is from the mid 60s and the world was a different place then from today. This movie is strong and moving because of the flawless performances of Hepburn and Tracy, slowly realizing that their morality which they have taught their daughter from the beginning was making a mockery of them. The realization of their shallow lip-service to civil rights only comes through hard confrontation with the reality that they have nothing to do. Poitier's speach to his father "I don't owe you" adeptly sets the stage for Tracy's brilliant monolog. A must have classic.
62 Please keep perspective!
Let us not forget that this film was exceptionally daring for the times. Anyone who knocks this film because the Pointier's character was wealthy and educated needs to keep in mind that in the 1960's, mixed marriages as a rule were not accepted regardless of the socioeconomic status of the man or woman. Besides, if Tracy's character had a "good reason", beyond race, to reject his daughter's choice in beaus, the impact would not have been so great. People could have rationalized the conflict as being something other than race.
63 Not as affectual as was in '67, yet interesting to an extent
A hush-hush idea among blacks and whites then isn't as strong now, yet provides an OK perception of strength over adversity with Poitier (although not in his best role) excelling as a pretty believable African American doctor. Yet that Katherine Houghton who plays Poitier's bride-to-be is so stale, one-sided and unconvincing that she nearly ruins the film. Mediocre, but worth seeing if your interests include films on color differences.
64 Shallow, foolish, contrived
Silly plot played out in cliches. Preachy and moralistic in a pre-cursor to 90's facile political correctness. A waste of Hepburn and Tracy. Right in line with Poitier's career.
65 time less and needed to be told
without this film there would be no jungle fever by spike lee.this film went into taboo land and came out with great results.sidney gives a great performance as do kathleen and spencer.it was ground breaking for it's time.there seems to be no more risky subject movies anymore to me.
66 Very Moving
This movie is very moving. Watching the speech Spencer Tracy gives at the end of the movie, you can see the love on Katherine Hepburn's face. iT made her cry and it will make you cry, too.
67 It Just Keeps Getting Better ...!
When I first saw this movie in 1967I was a 60's teenager at full throttle. I loved everything about it. I was especially impressed with Mr. Poitier's sterling and graceful portrayal of a man struggling between two worlds ... and I don't mean just black and white. His speech to his father, ("You see yourself as a colored man ... and I see myself as a man"), remains one of my favorite scenes in any movie of any genre. Thirty-plus years later this is still one of my favorite movies, although my understanding and appreciation of the pivotal relationships have matured. Each time I watch it I either see or hear something new, or gain new insight into its messages. The struggles and dilemmas are just as real and fresh today as they were in 1967 ... and just as important. The love in each relationship just as beautiful and touching.If you love Hepburn and Tracy at their best ... this one is for you. If you love Poitier's edge and grace ... this one is for you. If you love to see people of color portrayed as people of value and substance ... this one is for you. If you love intellectual romantic comedies ... this one is for you. If you love important movies with enduring social messages ... this one is for you. You must see this movie!
68 Classic Tracy-Hepburn magic!
For anybody who likes the legendary Tracy and Hepburn, either separately or as the made-for- each-other twosome, this movie definitely showcases the spark that kept their quarter of a century flame burning. While I have always admired their work as actors separately, I must admit that I enjoy them much more as a couple. Their on-screen chemistry, comparible only to John Wayne and Maureen O'Hara or Bogie and Baby, is undeniably one of the most delightful things ever captured on the big screen. The quality of Tracy's performance (which unfortunately turned out to be his last) is indeed a tribute to the enduring strength of their relationship and what they meant to each other, both as film stars and as lovers. Definitely a must for any serious collector's film library!
69 most dated movie ever made
The whole story of this film was good only for one year. I mean my child brought sp. back as her potental husband. I would proceed at all possible speed to lock him in a room and run not walk to the nearest judge and get the marige done on the spot
70 You don't own me, man!
While Poitier gave an exceptional performance, Spencer Tracy's end of the movie monolgue was one of the best 2 minute speeches in film history. Knowing his illness and probably, pending death, you can see Hepburn wobble in her real tears. While not a big Hepburn fan, that one moment is worth the entire picture.
71 One of my all time favorite movies!!
This movie is still wonderful. It makes you laugh and cry and THINK
72 A must-see for people about to get married
A touching film about the conflict between one's ideals (what one preaches) and one's encounters with the harsh truth when faced with it himself.
A spell-binding account of the interaction between the parents and the child when the child takes an important decision like inter-racial marriage.
73 Ahead of its time with insight, feelings and conflicts
Seeing this film for the first time, I appreciated the story from many viewpoints. Being part of an interracial relationship myself, I've struggled with the same "issues" with which these characters wrestle. It was interesting that over three decades ago these writers and actors were able to relay the feelings on both sides so straightforwardly.
Though mixed couples are more widely accepted and prevalent today than in '67, the underlying resentment on both sides of the race card is still very much there. This can be quite painful epecially when a couple is busy with the average growing pains of the relationship itself and isn't caught up in society's prejudices.
This movie helped bring all views to the table, exposing the internal conflicts that each side deals with and how they effectively resolve the issues.
For anyone in or considering an interracial relationship, Guess Who's Coming to Dinner is worth a watch.
74 Kate and Spence's last film together!
Wonderful performances by everyone! This really is great entertainment
