The Philadelphia Story (1940)

Lack of good storyline.

n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.

It isn't all that great, actually. Really cheesy and very predicable of how certain scenes are gonna turn play out. However, I guess that's the charm of it all, because I would consider this one of my guilty pleasures.

The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

Prior to the release of The Philadelphia Story, Katherine Hepburn had a string of failures (including the classic 1938 screwball comedy Bringing Up Baby) that labeled Hepburn as box office poison. In order to get rid of the career-ruining label, she decided to get to work on her own film. In 1939, she was starring in a very popular Broadway show from Philip Barry. She convinced MGM to buy the rights with her having control on everyone who was brought into the cast and crew. She chose George Cukor to direct this film whom she worked with before and David Odgen Stewart who was a friend of Barry's and had experience turning plays into movies. For the cast, she chose Cary Grant and James Stewart as her main co-stars. She worked with Grant previously three times (including the aforementioned Bringing Up Baby). Taking control of the production was a very smart business move for Hepburn. In addition to this romantic farce being the fifth highest box office hit of 1941, the quality of the film is very good. George Cukor directed the heck out of the film by getting top-notch performances from his entire cast, had perfectly-timed scenes with perfectly-timed jokes, and so on. Stewart's screenplay is a masterpiece (for its time) thanks to the sharp, witty dialogue. The fantastic acting is also on display. I complained about Hepburn's performance in her 1938 film, Bringing Up Baby. It was clear that she was new to comedy and she wasn't really that funny. Boy, do several years make a difference! She was fantastic here as she delivered her witty dialogue with ease and she made me chortle many times. Cary Grant does Cary Grant things here so it is no surprise he turns out another fantastic performance. James Stewart reportedly was hesitant during filming about doing several scenes, but he really comes up big here. He received his only Academy Award with his portrayal in this movie. Two Philadelphia socialites, Dexter (Cary Grant) and Tracy (Katherine Hepburn) were lifelong acquaintances who ended up marrying each other. But that marriage did not last long due to Tracy's icy cold mannerisms towards Dexter which may have turned him into an alcoholic. Two years after the stormy end to the marriage, Tracy is getting married to a politician, George Kittredge (John Howard) who seemingly has an ordinary and rather boring personality. Meanwhile, Dexter was living in South America working for a tabloid named Spy. On the day of the wedding, Dexter shows up unexpected with two reporters from the magazine, Mike Connor (James Stewart) and his girlfriend, Elizabeth Imbrie (Ruth Hassey). Tracy quickly sees the ruse and Dexter tries to convince her that it is best for the family if this happens as their publisher is planning on running a damaging story about Tracy's father. From there, a bunch of well-timed comedy happens!As much as I enjoyed and I laughed while watching The Philadelphia Story, I could not help thinking about how much times changed. The film came out in December 1940, and obviously morals were different back then. Way different. One of the messages I have noticed is that despite the shortcomings of men and the trouble they put people through, it is up to the women to delicately handle the events. I got the sense that the film believes that it is okay for women to be pushovers. It easily stood out considering in today's world, women are very strong and equal to men in every single way as it should be. I know times were different, but I was rubbed the wrong way just a little bit. On that note, I really enjoyed The Philadelphia Story. The movie is very funny and wacky, the performances are top-notch especially those from Katherine Hepburn and James Stewart. This is the movie that threw Hepburn's label as box office poison in the trash. I definitely give this film a recommendation, especially if you are in the mood for some wacky hijinks. My Grade: B+

Recently, when my mother was having a tough time, she creaked open her cupboard, and pulled out a well-loved DVD. "Let's watch The Philadelphia Story. It'll be nice to disappear into the delightful struggles of the rich and beautiful for a while." And, though it's an indisputably lovely watch for audiences old and new alike, whether watching for the first or thirty-first time, it's more than rote comforting, Classical Hollywood escapism that makes The Philadelphia Story truly special. It's seldom that we find a film with such modestly entertaining aspirations assembled with such consummate care, as director George Cukor's feather-light direction and perfect pacing allow the film to bubble like champagne, but sink in like a sumptuous feast - indisputably one of the most impeccably loveable and utterly unmissable films of its era. Naturally, it helps to boast one of the most airtight, razor-sharp romantic comedy scripts of all time. Writer Philip Barry (adapting Donald Ogden Stewart's stage show) has as much fun peppering the film with the deliciously salty repartee as he does having his characters playfully massage every syllable out of the most riotously intricate names - from the mouth of Jimmy Stewart, the seven syllables of 'C.K. Dexter Haven' somehow emerge as a contemptuous political haiku. Cukor and his players have a ball poking fun at the ludicrous posturing of old money snobs, but the film's class divide is treated far more tongue-in-cheek and with tender sympathy than the savage, cartoonish satire of the average circa 1940 screwball. The film's plot might suggest the gossamer silliness of a Society Magazine take on Much Ado About Nothing, but underneath the Russian Doll subplots of mischievous double-bluffs of masquerade and library and poolside meet-cutes (all delectably zany in their own right) lies a surprisingly rich, compelling, and fundamentally human story, bursting with emotion and heart. Underneath the marquee of comedy of manners zingers lurks an underbelly of genuine family drama, as affecting as it is entertaining, postulating that a yearning for genuine connection - to be really known, beyond social status, trappings, presumptions, projections, and posturing - is, perhaps, the most universal of desires, and the message hits home with the effervescent pop of a bottle of champagne downed a little too fast. But, let's be honest: we're here for the legendary triple-act of Classical Hollywood heavyweights Hepburn, Stewart, and Grant. They do not disappoint, playing off each other with dazzling ease, and showcasing some of the most effortless banter and deep-set chemistry in cinema history. Hepburn has never been better than she is here - she imperiously commands the screen with a hailstorm of scathing punchlines, before embodying the self-esteem imbalance of a woman inundated with superficial praise, but seldom genuinely appreciated, to an unnervingly human degree. She's funny, sad, and almost unspeakably loveable, in an astoundingly heartfelt rollercoaster of a performance. Still, this is unquestionably the Jimmy Stewart show, as his sour, curmudgeonly indictments of the superfluity of wealth are as utterly hysterical, even moreso when giving way for a softer, poetic, recitations betray an aspiring artist beaten down by self-doubt and the financial impediments to wholeheartedly pursue his dream. A decidedly unconventionally subdued Grant rounds up the trio with the least showy performance, but his performance betrays staggering subtleties of inner emotion and past demons. Sneakily puppeteering his peers while firing off innocently acrid witticisms with his never-drier deadpan makes him an exquisitely sarcastic Greek chorus of sorts, and the mischievous twinkle in his eye is as entertaining as all the banter in the world. The rest of the ensemble are all magnificent in their own right, particularly Ruth Hussey as Stewart's perennially spurned, icily deadpan photographer companion, and twelve-year old Virginia Weidler, uproariously funny as the Lord family's gutsy daughter, belligerently unwilling to accept the stubbornness of her older family members causing mishap after mishap. There's the occasional bump in the road where the film shows its age - the calamitous, climactic partner-swapping follies flirt with being too silly to sit comfortably, and it's nicer to just pretend the eyebrow-raising prologue, which treats spousal abuse as a rollicking punchline, just never happens (thank goodness for DVD track-skipping). But, on the whole, this is the highest, most delightful caliber of movie magic imaginable. Whether you need to laugh or cry (usually both), find an airy diversion from life's tribulations, or discover genuine insight in the interplay of immaculately constructed characters, you'd be hard pressed to find a more deeply satisfying watch than The Philadelphia Story. To quote our dear C.K. Dexter Haven: "My, she was yar." -10/10

You really cant beat the classics. Its lines such as these and the manner of delivery that crack me up.This is comedy at its finest. James Stewart's delivery and expressions are laugh out loud. Katherine Hepburn is a beauty and the only thing that outshines her is her acting. The is a well made movie and great fun to watch. And most surprisingly, its not dated at all.

Released in 1940, "The Philadelphia Story" is about a Main Line Philadelphia woman, Tracy Lord (Katharine Hepburn), whose marriage is imminent. At the last moment, there are certain unexpected attendees who challenge her view of life. Listed as a comedy and a romance by IMDb, it certainly is that, but the film does contain dialogue that is biting, somber and outright mean.The cast is stellar and it is difficult to imagine how any film starring Hepburn, Jimmy Stewart, and Cary Grant could not be worth watching. This film certainly is worth watching, but I disagree with those who assert that all three actors turn in their best work here. Hepburn's performances in many other films surpasses her portrayal of Tracy, e.g. "On Golden Pond" or "Stage Door." The same can be said of Jimmy Stewart in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington", "Rear Window" or "It's a Wonderful Life." For Cary Grant, see "North by Northwest", "Notorious", or "His Girl Friday" which was also released in 1940.As a love story, it has a rather complex plot--not just the usual triangle. Tracy's fiancé, George Kittredge (John Howard), is excited to wed the desirable Miss Lord, but he might be somewhat out of the loop as he keeps his distance from the bride-to-be on the last day before the nuptials. Her ex-husband, C. K. Dexter Haven (Cary Grant), is about as welcome as an unreachable itch, irritating Tracy at every turn and constantly inserting his verbal barbs. Another complication is the writer/reporter Macauley Connor (Jimmy Stewart), who arrives to do an inside story on the ceremonies for a tabloid.A broader view of the film reveals that its subject is Tracy's relationships with five men--the three just mentioned and her father and her Uncle Willie, who are personae non gratae due to their vices. Tracy discovers through these five that she has much to learn, despite her cool, confident countenance.Hepburn starred in the Broadway play not long after leaving Hollywood in response to the theater owners placing her on a "Box Office Poison" list. She purchased the film rights to the play, then sold them to MGM with the stipulation she could choose the producer, director and the starring actors. The success of the film must have been sweet revenge.The film has many admirers, including me. Stepping slightly off track, I will disagree with many of those admirers who assert that the musical remake named "High Society" is not in the same league. I do not think a remake should be judged solely in relation to the original, especially when genre lines are crossed. I find the musical to be equally engaging, but for different reasons (the music, the different stars, etc.). Both should be appreciated for their particular, fine attributes.