MovieChat Forums > Sylvia Scarlett (1936) Discussion > what's wrong with this picture?

what's wrong with this picture?

posted 15 years ago by mrdonleone
12 replies | jump to latest

you read that right
I'm a great big superfan of Katherine Hepburn
she's one of the most beautiful actresses that ever lived
but what's wrong with this movie?

first how everyone speaks
it irritates me!
cary grant just fails to have a convincing accent
and katherine hepburn what was she thinking!

at first I was thinking she would change her voice to 'become a boy'
but she doesn't
instead she's talking very unnatural the whole picture
I mean really really unnatural
she's always so beautiful and she always speaks so nice
so why is she talking as if she was playing a chicken pretending to be a boy instead of a girl pretending to be a boy?

it's really complicated
the characters too
I liked nobody
and that made me very sad
because Grant and Hepburn makes a good mix
but not here

am I the only one who's thinking this way?

[–] backofthevan 15 years ago

I would think a "great big superfan" of someone would at least spell her name right: Katharine. I do think you're wrong about this film and maybe just didn't understand it like millions of others.

Of course you are completely welcome to your opinion. In mine, it's a beautiful film that deserves much more attention than it's ever received.

[–] mrdonleone 15 years ago

that's true
every picture is the best for some and the worst for others

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] netshopper-2 14 years ago

Have to agree with OP. While I did enjoy Edmund Gwenn in this, the acting was pretty poor all around and is she was supposedly disguised as a boy, not much of an attempt was made. Garbo in Queen Christina was a better example of doing this right.

[–] Earl-Janoth 13 years ago

The bad reputation of this film still surprises me. I think the minute there's a certain buzz about a film -- in this case, that it's a big flop -- people will watch it with the wrong viewpoint and look only for things wrong with it, instead of what's right with it.

I think this is a wonderful, unique film with real heart. Admittedly, the story doesn't have too cohesive a direction but there are some really interesting themes and ideas at play: expectations of society, general morality, infidelity, finding identity, authenticity of identity...

On top of that, it has a superb cast who are all in top form.

[–] parkyson 13 years ago

I caught a glimpse of this film on BBC 2 today and after listening to them speak in a few scenes and without looking at the information on the film, I had no idea that it was set anywhere within England, let alone London.

Although thinking about it, if it was going to be set anywhere in England, it would be London wouldn't it? I mean you dont want to confuse people with silly notions about there being more than one place in England, that would just be foolish.

On the other hand, this was released in 1935, so I think it can be excused this part.

[–] turkeycat 13 years ago

I watched this film last night for the first time having never heard anything about it and getting hold of a copy solely because Hepburn was in it.

I'm sorry to say that I was pretty disappointed. More than anything, it was just pretty irritating. The accents were intrusive and distracting. Hepburn as a boy was distracting. The plot took occasional lunges that I could not as an audience member account for (such as when the group decide upon a whim to become travelling mistrels). The whole thing felt rather insubstantial and too loose.

For me it's a historical curiosity of a movie, a film that is interesting in its own way, but not one that I will watch again.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ethereal_tb 13 years ago

It is a pretty awful movie. But interesting at the same time.

"The music is all that matters, nothing but the music!" The Red Shoes

[–] pacificboy 11 years ago

I'm a huge fan of both Hepburn and Grant, but this just grated on me. It seemed that every other line out of Hepburn was a shriek and every third from Grant was a shrill laugh. The direction was too frantic for the subject matter; Cukor (who's usually a sure hand) seems to believe that having everyone run around talking fast and loud automatically equals funny. Throw in the suicide attempt and you've got the perfect recipe for comedy, right? What a mess.

"You liked Rashomon."
"That's not how I remember it."

[–] geoffzman04 10 years ago

Surprising with all the talent; director/actor/actresses...indeed, nothing matters if you don't have a good story and characters the audience can identify with!

Starting with a ridiculous script that bounds around looking substance, the actors are lost in trying to pull a rabbit out of the hat when there's no rabbit to begin with. Performances played in an hysterical manner, way over the top, I can really understand why this picture was a flop at the box office. In fact, it's rather embarrassing to watch.

None of the characters were sympathetic. The mother was even cold in her grave when the father takes the daughters inheritance and skips town, hooks up with a english shyster and the plot continues to meander about on down the looking for purpose.

[–] AMovieADayKeeps (19) 7 years ago

It's a pretty bad movie all around. She's the best part of it, but as a character she makes terrible choices. I came to this not really knowing anything about it, and hoped it would be good. Was surprised at what a mess it was.