Guess Who's Coming to Dinner

Name: Guess Who's Coming to Dinner
Genre: Drama, Comedy
Released: December 12, 1967
Duration: 108 min
Rating: 63
Cast: Katharine Hepburn, Sidney Poitier, Spencer Tracy

1967

METASCORE

Generally favorable reviews based on 6 Critic Reviews

See All

USER SCORE

Generally favorable reviews based on 22 Ratings

See All

7.3

VOTE NOW

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

7.3	Your Score
7.3	User Score Generally favorable reviews based on 22 Ratings

Would you like to write a review?

There is a 75 character minimum for reviews. If your review contains spoilers, please check the Spoiler box. Please do not use ALL CAPS. There is no linking or other HTML allowed. Your review may be edited for content. 0/5000

Check box if your review contains spoilers

Play Sound

Please enter your birth date to watch this video:

You are not allowed to view this material at this time.

Guess Who's Coming To Dinner

Now Playing: Guess Who's Coming To Dinner

Movie Details & Credits

Columbia Pictures | Release Date: December 12, 1967 | TV-PG

Starring: Katharine Hepburn, Sidney Poitier, Spencer Tracy

Summary: A couple's attitudes are challenged when their daughter introduces them to her African American fiancé.

Director: Stanley Kramer

Genre(s): Drama, Comedy

Rating: TV-PG

Runtime: 108 min

See All Details and Credits

Watch Now

Stream On

Buy on

Stream On

Expand

Metascore

Positive:

Mixed:

Negative:

Critic Reviews

100

A.D. Murphy

Jun 29, 2017

Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner is an outstanding Stanley Kramer production, superior in almost every imaginable way, which examines its subject matter with perception, depth, insight, humor and feeling. Read full review

100

Roger Ebert

Jun 29, 2017

It would be easy to tear the plot to shreds and catch Kramer in the act of copping out. But why? On its own terms, this film is a joy to see, an evening of superb entertainment. Read full review

Bosley Crowther

Jun 29, 2017

A most delightfully acted and gracefully entertaining film, fashioned much in the manner of a stage drawing-room comedy, that seems to be about something much more serious and challenging than it actually is. Read full review

TV Guide Magazine Staff (Not Credited)

Jun 29, 2017

William Rose, with a stilted screenplay, and Stanley Kramer, make this dinner hour stand still--a really safe, lame melodrama. Read full review

Time Out London Geoff Andrew

Jun 29, 2017

A wishy-washy, sanctimonious plea for tolerance, directed with Kramer's customary verbosity and stodginess. Read full review

Dave Kehr

Jun 29, 2017

Dismal Stanley Kramer morality play about a middle-class couple facing the prospect of their daughter's marriage to a black man (Sidney Poitier). A disaster on all counts. Read full review

SEE ALL 6 REVIEWS

Write a Review

User Reviews

alejandro970

Feb 22, 2021

A love story, in the turbulent 60s, that tests how tolerant we are. The film, with everything and its more than 50 years does not seem to get old, especially for its excellent performances. To see without exception and above all, avoid imitations.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

ahmedaiman1999

Feb 28, 2019

It would be completely understandable if anyone criticized this movie for playing it very safe after taking some severe risks at the beginning, and that in doing so the story not only became progressively formulaic; but the characters appeared to be stereotyped and, worst of all,It would be completely understandable if anyone criticized this movie for playing it very safe after taking some severe risks at the beginning, and that in doing so the story not only became progressively formulaic; but the characters appeared to be stereotyped and, worst of all, self-contradictory and inconsistent.

That said, the acting here is undoubtedly more than enough to overcome these issues and redeem them, nay, to totally justify these seemingly nonsensical changes and alterations that happened to some of the characters, most noticeably Matt and Christina Drayton. I have seen a lot of great performances that are able to elevate the characters and even the entire movie in general. But, frankly, I have never seen any performance, no matter how superb it may be, that can convince me of what I considered an unmistakably major flaw. What makes me appreciate the acting, in particular, in this movie is that it opened my eyes to some hidden underlying themes of the movie's story, which are more than fundamental to understand the movie properly. If the fabulously realistic and sincere performances, somehow, didn't do the same for you, I suggest you try you figure out some key themes to consider them as you're watching the movie. Two of the most important themes are; the late resurgence of the inherited awful traditions and beliefs, and the undiscovered hypocrisy. Yes, that's how profound this apparently simple film actually is! Of course, the shift in Matt Drayton's attitude could have been executed way more smoothly and maturely; but the abrupt nature of the changes could be fairly, if not quite easily, taken as a reflection of the character's disorder.

Spencer Tracy, in his final role, gave, for lack of a better word, a mature performance that made his character surprisingly believable despite its outwardly incompatible attitudes that made the character of Matt Drayton seem to be immensely problematic. Sidney Poitier's performance, as the handsome African-American Dr. John Prentice, is solid, steady, committed, engaging and relatable at the same time. Katharine Houghton captured the rebelliousness, impetuousness, and also the innocence of her character, Joey, so perfectly. She reminded me quite a bit of another Katharine; Katharine Ross as Elaine Robinson in The Graduate, which was, also coincidentally, released at the same year, 1967. But it's Katharine Hepburn who stole the show here with her Oscar-winning performance that I personally consider as one of the best low-key performances in a leading female role I've ever seen in film!

I would be lying if I said that I found the second half of the movie half as entertaining and riveting. Nevertheless, the dialogue was much better at the second half (the final monologue is simply remarkable!) as it was at the first, which is noticeably elevated by, once again, the incredible acting.

The movie is decidedly filled with stereotypical characters, but the only one that bothered me is the maid, Tillie, whom I didn't find to be funny at all; actually she is quite annoying. Her character's motivations and attitudes are justified, though.

Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner is an essential classic 1960s film, and one of the best films that examine prejudice and racism; it tackles its weighty themes with surprising depth, humor and breeziness. It's also very relevant nowadays. And there is no doubt that it has major influences on hundreds of movies that came after it, especially today's.

(8.5/10)… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

Flipje

May 25, 2021

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This is one of those conflicted classics that has aged both well and poorly at the same time. On the one hand, you have a screenplay that feels like a play and moves with the same vivid and rhythmic pace. Today, in an age of massive and explosive flicks with superheroes and super cars and/or quiet, indie movies that are big on all things subtle and glacially silent, it is refreshing to return to an era where dialogue emerged from actor's mouths at a tidy tempo. There's no waiting around and here, in late 60s San Fran, things start off fast, less furious with interracial couple Dr. John Prentice (Poitier) and his young, idealistic fiancee, Joey Drayton (Houghton) landing in the bay city and dropping the big news on liberal power couple Matt and Christina Drayton (Tracy and Hepburn). Yes, they have taught their daughter to fight against oppressive norms and to be all things open-minded but, in a time when the Civil Rights movement is fresh and a good portion of the country had banned interracial marriages, the good California couple are unsure of what their doe-eyed daughter expects from life. This is the part where the film gets wobbly and the main trouble with it is two-pronged. First the daughter. As a viewer, aware of the times, you cannot help but feel this girl is idiotically ideal. A moron of her own joy who throws herself into her relationship with the good doctor with a devil-may-care attitude. Honestly, half the film I wanted someone to at least turn to her and stuff a much-needed sock into her cutesy, yippee, I-don't-pay-attention-to-what-others-think-of-my-one-note-nauseating-happiness. She is less a character and more a dippy impediment for others to tolerate. It is hard to believe this is the actual daughter the articulate, sensible and upper middle class couple have raised. The second is Poitier's character for both falling for such a merry and oblivious nitwit fourteen years his junior and then giving her already stressed-out parents an ultimatum which is "you don't approve of this, I will break your daughter's heart by not marrying her." While the dialogue is swift, this approach by the man we as the audience are supposed to root for can feel both daunting and cruel. He is basically backing both mother and father into a tight corner and wherever they step that is not in favour of the marriage, boom, it's all emotional shrapnel and loaded guilt. In a sense, he is the film's hero AND villain and, it's a race against the clock for Mr. Drayton to get on board in such a way that he won't be conflicted with himself. Wet-eyed Mrs. Drayton is wonderful about it all and when Dr. John's parents fly in, more hurdles are thrown down. It is a satisfying film, that is, until you realize that a father must essentially learn to accept the blackmail of his future son-in-law by quickly finding the silver lining in it all. If it weren't for Poitier, Tracy and Hepburn making good on a contrived premise, I'd say pass. A worthwhile watching and great fodder for post-film discussion.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

joelgreenberg

Jun 24, 2021

Guess Who's Coming to Dinner - well, when I first saw it in its initial release, I remember being confused by its purpose. What on paper was worthy and timely, I suppose it was, played as pathetic pandering - poor Mr. Poitier, underplaying with his usual skill, finesse and emotionalGuess Who's Coming to Dinner - well, when I first saw it in its initial release, I remember being confused by its purpose. What on paper was worthy and timely, I suppose it was, played as pathetic pandering - poor Mr. Poitier, underplaying with his usual skill, finesse and emotional rootedness, against several other 2-dimensional characters. And the constant confusion was where did the young couple meet and what on earth did He see in Her? I also remember being restless as the film insisted on making us feel as though there was a conflict to be resolved - the older women wept through their scenes - Beah Richards' award-demanding monologue -- not her fault but the writers were too damn insistent -- in sum, a movie that was solidly out of date on its first release.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

SEE ALL 4 REVIEWS