Morning Glory (1933)
5/10
RandomThoughts About 'Morning Glory'
25 February 2008
How Katharine Hepburn won an Oscar for Best Actress of this film is a bit mystery. I mean, she's okay, but nothing special. This was only her third film. Many think it would have been more appropriate had she won for "Little Women," her second film, also done in 1933. Frankly, I liked her better in "Alice Adams," her one of three movies she did in 1935.

Whatever. Her character in the movie is better than the story, which totally runs out of steam in the second half, so much so that I, frankly, didn't care at that point what happened to country girl "Eva Lovelace" in her quest to be a big actress in New York City.

Those who like stage plays will like this movie, because that is what it is, based on Zoe Atkins play. Some may find it dated, but that's not unusual considering the date. I find many early 1930s films very dated, but still a lot of fun.

Hepburn plays a charming girl in this, and had a beautiful face when she was young, so I can tolerate her snobby accent. In this story, she was a delight compared to Mary Duncan's role as the spoiled actress, coddled by Adolph Menjou. And speaking of actors, Hepburn may get all the attention but Douglas Fairbanks Jr., is every bit as good as her, if not better, in this film. Why didn't he win an Oscar?

One complaint: it's hard to understand a sizable amount of dialog in here. Words are slurred or breathlessly delivered (I really hate that) and you find yourself saying, "what did she say?" It's ridiculous. I saw this on VHS. However, the good news is that it is now available on disc, as part of the "Katharine Hepburn Collection" and has the subtitle option, if one is interesting in seeing it. There is a catch: you have to pay $50 since it is part of a set.
19 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed