bombersflyup Woman of the Year is a reasonably good film, that engages but doesn't connect the whole way through.There is definitely a more serious romantic tone in this film, than the pairings other films. Spencer Tracy has significantly more screen time and I don't find him to ever be more than average, so that is a negative because it means less Katharine. Then for a fair portion of the film, Hepburn's character isn't very nice, so you have no choice but to side with Spencer's character. Most of the time spent before they get married is terrific and the ending also, but it drops off a bit for me in the middle.Some of the reviews here are quite funny claiming misogyny. The kitchen scene is simply Tess apologizing for her cold, heartless behavior. Showing that she wants to change and become a loving woman. It doesn't mean is she completely giving up her career and becoming a housewife, stop taking things things so literal. Like you would have Katharine Hepburn in the role if that was the case and what reason has Sam given you to think he would want her to do such a thing. His line about her not being a woman has nothing to do with work at all, it's about her actions and consideration towards him.

dkam136 With the help of the New York Public Library and the DVD wing of Netflix, I have set out to try and watch every movie on the top 100 list of the American Film Institute. As with any venture, however, there are some side roads one takes on the road to the final destination. I was looking through the AFI top ten romantic comedies a few years ago and realized I have never seen Adam's Rib. My wife and I loved the pairing of Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn so much that this summer I decided we ought to try out every move with the famous duo.Tonight we watched Woman of the Year (1942) directed by George Stevens and starring Hepburn and Tracy. Having recently also finished Five Came Back on Netflix about the lives of five major directors who put their careers on hold to make propaganda films during World War II, I was eager to view this film as a lens into Stevens pre-war movie career.The movie, the first to star Tracy and Hepburn together, starts the two off as rivals, but they quickly fall for each other in spite of their competitiveness. They fall quite quickly for one another for reasons not immediately clear to the audience. My wife and I were both confused at first as to why they were falling for one another. I suspended my disbelief for the sake of the story and their on- screen chemistry almost forced the romance with their long glances and intimate moments. Still yet, I had trouble following the motivations of the characters.The writing itself was probably revolutionary for the time, but the story feels too much like an indictment of Hepburn's character who wins "Woman of the Year" despite the fact that she does very little that would be stereotypically "female" for the time period. Without giving away too much of the plot in the review, Hepburn's lack of "womanness" causes many problems in their marriage and her pursuit of what might later be called feminism often leaves Spencer in the dust. She looks down on Spencer's sports column as small potatoes as compared to her important work (including humanitarian aid during World War II). She speaks multiple languages and is constantly being pulled away from Spencer in a kind of role reversal where the woman is a workaholic.In a series of events, Hepburn finally "realizes" what she has with Spencer and there is a kind of rapprochement that feels dated when watched by a modern audience and a bit out of touch. By the end, I almost don't want the two of them together and the story does not necessarily lead to a happily ever after (much is left up to the audience to decide for themselves).Overall, the movie is a bit long and it drags in places. Some of the scenes feel cobbled together and the Spencer and Tracy really save the script with their good acting rather than the other way around. I was really rooting for the two characters, but almost in an abstract way because I love the idea of Hepburn and Tracy together. If I had to choose to watch any Spencer/Hepburn duo movie, I would still choose Adam's Rib or State of the Union over this one. Still, I did enjoy some of the understated acting especially on the part of Spencer Tracy and I loved the idea behind Katherine Hepburn's character. The role reversal was a clever idea, but perhaps needed a better writer or a cutting of some of the fat to make a truly great movie. This movie, in light of modern sexism and woman's right movements, ought to be remade for a modern audience.

gavin6942 Rival reporters Sam (Spencer Tracy) and Tess (Katharine Hepburn) fall in love and get married, only to find their relationship strained when Sam comes to resent Tess' hectic lifestyle."Woman of the Year" was the first of nine films Hepburn and Tracy made together. They met for the first time on the shoot. In the 1993 documentary Katharine Hepburn: All About Me, Hepburn herself says she was wearing high heels at the first meeting with Tracy and producer Joseph L. Mankiewicz, and said "I'm afraid I'm a bit tall for you, Mr. Tracy". Mankiewicz then responded, "Don't worry, Kate, he'll cut you down to size." It was during the filming of Woman of the Year that Hepburn and Tracy became romantically involved – a relationship that lasted until Tracy's death in 1967.Exactly what Tracy saw in Hepburn is beyond me. I have always found her acting ability overrated ,and her unusual voice and accent is quite obnoxious at times. I suspect she was right in her day and just kept on going fueled by past success. Much as the "husky voices" of Howard Hawks' women would not be popular today, but allowed some women -- notably Lauren Bacall -- to gain stardom.

vincentlynch-moonoi I know this film generally gets good reviews and was quite popular, but I don't agree, and I say that as a tremendous fan of Tracy's. I believe this film suffers from a number of maladies. First, it can't quite decide if it's a comedy or a dram. The first half of the film has quite a bit of comedy in it, but then devolves in a melodrama as the marriage between two newspaper people falls apart. Second,the film wastes two marvelous actors who deserved far more screen time -- the venerable Fay Bainter and Minor Watson (not to be confused with Bobs Watson). Third, the revised ending of the film just doesn't work that well; had Katherine Hepburn's part been played by Red Skelton, it would have done very nicely.It's not that the acting is bad here. It isn't. Quite good, in fact. But the plot...well, starts off nicely highlight how two very different people can fall in love...but then devolves into a slow-placed second act as the marriage begins to fall apart...and never quite recovers as Tess (Hepburn) realizes she desperately wants the marriage to work...but Tracy is already gone. And can we quite forgive a couple who dumps and orphan? Tracy and Hepburn could be great together (just take a look at "Adams Rib" or "The Sea Of Grass" or "Guess Who's Coming To Dinner"), but this first pairing of the two...well, in my view, just doesn't quite come off. Oh, it's worth watching, but primarily because it's the beginning of a beautiful movie pairing and real love affair.