sbasu-47-608737 I got the DVD going by the review here and the three names, Hepburn, Grant and Cukor, all of which I had high regards. But after watching this, I completely agree with the first two, who desperately tried to stop the release and even offered to do a movie free instead. After that I looked at Cukor, surprised at the way the movie is messed up. The story isn't that weak, but the characterization and visualization had been horrible. While looking at it, I found that my confidence in Cukor was highly misplaced. When did he make his first good movie, I have started wondering. When I looked at the notable films, quite a few was with Garbo, and probably that was the difference, which I have given misplaced credit to the director. Probably the real great one was Camille (there I come across the precocious Thalberg's interference). Holiday was good, but again I can't give him credit, it was a polished version of the 1930, which wasn't bad, considering it was infancy of talkies. Phil story, I don't know, whether was independently done, if so, may be that and My fair Lady are the only ones, may be just a handful more. Well it gives me a lesson, not to have too much faith on reviews or scores (surprisingly another supposed to be even better scorer rotten tomato gives it very high score). Anyway, looking at the movie, unless the DVD has chopped off very significant portions, it is an uniformly bad movie, starting from the very start.The character of the father, played by Gwenn, was a miserably, and to unbelievable manner, created, and that wasn't necessary. Nor was the impersonation of Sylvia, into Sylvester. It had been done earlier, but with plausible, and irrefutable reasons (e.g. Marian Davies in Little Old New York, where inheritance of millions was at stake, which was in her, recently demised, brother's name and so she had to impersonate the brother). Here it is as weak as homeopathic medicine. The swindler, even before it is exposed, is skipping the country, and doesn't want to be a man & girl company ! By the time they wake up and find he has skipped, it would be already over. Then his flirting with the maid, or any of such things. I couldn't get why Grant was so chummy with the maid, and if they were old acquaintances, she ought to know something about him. Well, the list like this goes on and on. Not worth even the time spent on watching, Grant/Hep or no Grant/Hep. Probably this movie should have been allowed to disappear, to protect their reputation, leave alone releasing it on DVD.

bkoganbing Sylvia Scarlett marks the first time that Katherine Hepburn and Cary Grant worked together and it's amazing that the three succeeding films they did all became classics. This one just became a curiosity.Edmund Gwenn is her father and he's been doing a little embezzling on the side in France. Before the law catches up with him the thing to do is flee across the English Channel. So to disguise themselves, Kate cuts off her long tresses and puts on men's clothes. No need to go into the rest of the story, but it was daring enough in 1935 just as The Code was taking affect in Hollywood. The situations Hepburn gets herself involved in are just like those that you've seen in Tootsie, Victor/Victoria, and any number of other films. But the censors clamped heavily down in those days.She's got two men interested in him/her, Cary Grant and Brian Aherne. Grant is a cockney con artist and his role is actually closer to the real Archie Leach that became Cary Grant. Just being Cary Grant was probably the biggest stretch of his talent. Brian Aherne is debonair and charming as Brian Aherne always is.Sylvia Scarlett, when viewed with Bringing Up Baby, Holiday, and The Philadelphia Story just doesn't measure up to those three. Still it's interesting to watch.

whpratt1 George Cukor must have had lots of fun directing Katherine Hepburn,(Sylvia Scarlett) and Cary Grant, (Jimmy Monkley) in this comedy about Sylvia Scarlett making believe she was a boy with her hair cut very short and her father, Edmund Gwenn, (Henry Scarlett). Henry and Sylvia were forced to leave London, England because Henry had stolen a large sum of money from a firm he had worked at and so father and daughter decided to become con-artists and steal and rob people. However, every time Sylvia tried to pull off a heist, she would goof up and ruin the entire plan. Jimmy Monkley joins the team and does not realize that Sylvia is not a boy and this group of crooks get themselves into all kinds of problems with plenty of laughter. Great Classic 1936 film.

Neil Doyle What a waste of talent due to a muddled script and some limp direction from George Cukor. Here we have KATHARINE HEPBURN (playing a boy, Sylvester, long before Streisand played Yentl!), CARY GRANT as a strolling player with a Cockney accent and BRIAN AHERNE as an unbelievably gullible artist bewitched by Hepburn.None of the stars are at their peak here, perhaps unable to rise above a mediocre and baffling script. Hepburn, even with her slim frame and narrow face, never is believable as a young man and the masquerade is something we're forced to believe could have happened.EDMUND GWENN is her n'er-do-well father who has to take to the road after he's accused of a crime, and Hepburn assumes a disguise as a boy so as to avoid capture. They join a traveling road show with CARY GRANT in charge, and from then on the plot takes a series of twists and turns involving BRIAN AHERNE and his eventual interest in Sylvia when she assumes her female counterpart. It's a cross-dressing tale best forgotten if you want to keep remembering Hepburn as a legendary star.CARY GRANT is the only one who comes off at least believable in his Cockney role, but no one is really given material worthy of their talent and George Cukor has been unable to make anything out of the awkward script. Hepburn is simply embarrassing to watch.Summing up: This offbeat comedy was obviously intended to be a charming romp for its three stars rather than the box-office flop that it was, to the extent that Hepburn was labeled "box-office poison" on the strength of this particular film.A look at this film must have convinced David O. Selznick why Hepburn was never seriously considered for Scarlett O'Hara.