Watch The Grass Is Greener For Free

Good concept, poorly executed.

Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

. . . the stage play upon which it's based, but such apparently is not the case with THE GRASS IS GREENER. Except for a brief men-in-waders scene, this verbose exercise in talking sex to death might as well have been filmed on Broadway. Sure, there's a few touches of window dressing with have-and-have-not automobile comings and goings, as well as a walk-through of a couple high-ceilinged rooms. However, these scant minutes' worth of "real life" hardly provide an adequate antidote for what seems like hours of grueling repartee that may have sounded scintillating in a playwright's mind, but generally fall flat on stage, and pancake to paper thinness on a Big Screen. As a supposedly accommodating husband, Cary Grant looks particularly long-in-the-tooth, making his willingness to settle for his wife's sloppy seconds entirely reasonable (if not very convincing). However, Deborah Kerr's wayward wife "Hilary" character comes off as more gauche than a family's new mutt, who debuts by humping everyone's leg at an important dinner party. Any right-thinking household immediately would have such a nuisance pet "fixed," which is what most GRASS IS GREENER viewers will be hoping for Hilary.

I love this film and recently bought it on DVD. I had not watched it for many years, and it's wonderful to see it again. Since I last saw it I've visited Osterley Park in Middlesex - it's on the Piccadilly Line and easy to get to, and I was fascinated to see the changes that have taken place there since this film was made. Apart from the filming locations, which are excellent, the action is well worth seeing again. This is a comedy of manners, worthy of Noel Coward or similar authors, which challenges our assumptions about how people might behave. It's supposed to be the upper classes behaving in a civilised manner, but that is rather difficult to believe. You have to suspend disbelief and go along with the premise that people could behave like this. All the performances are excellent and it works, even in 2014. I wonder what people thought in 1960? My interpretation is that the Earl (Cary Grant) is hurt that his wife appears to have chosen to be unfaithful to him on a whim, and he has to decide what to do. He decides to be civilised, but he plays a very clever game to get her back and it works. Beneath all the civilised talk there is a very primal contest going on, and the emotional blackmail works. The bond is too strong to break, but he had to fight for her or face losing her. The desperation of his position is not obvious, but it is there nonetheless.I'm not sure that Robert Mitchum was right for this - he was the least convincing, but the other 4 main players were completely right. How anyone could consider leaving Cary Grant in the first place is beyond me.

Had I gone to see this film in 1960 (when I was 14), I would have felt cheated, it was so boring, wordy and lacking action that I could hardly wait for its end.All I saw was a bunch of actors - Grant, Kerr, Mitchum & Simmons (who were in the autumn of their screen careers), mainly sitting around doing nothing in particular, making small talk endlessly about marriage, fidelity and this and that.Even for 1960 the screenplay seemed very dated and contrived while the actors drank copious quantities of liquor and alcohol.None of the characters seemed to have a useful job or do some service to society so I suspected this was the influence of the idle rich from the 1930s, but since then there had been a world war, penal taxation to help repay Britain's war debt, the need for women to do a job of work and a social revolution in Britain with the new wave of films like "Look back in Anger"; this film seemed curiously dated even for 1960.What an advert for the perils of drink and dipsomania!I noticed that the majority of the USA based user comments seemed in favour of this film while European comments were more critical.I have seen many films when each of the above actors starred individually in more worthy films but I am afraid that here too many cooks spoilt the broth.I voted it 4/10.

With a cast boasting Cary Grant, Robert Mitchum, Deborah Kerr AND Jean Simmons, you would expect a real treat, right? Wrong. This one is a fizzer, and utterly boring. If it wasn't for the obvious chemistry of Mitchum and Kerr (why aren't these two more recognised as one of the greatest screen teams ever), even in roles where they flounder, and Jean Simmons saving the second half single-handedly from being even worse, I would have fallen asleep. It's very English, and perhaps as an Aussie I don't "get" the humour. It's meant to be a witty take on marriage and the upper classes. There were a few nice lines, mostly delivered by Simmons, but other than that it was just a pointless talk-fest. Grant is usually one of the most watchable of all screen stars, but here he's barely noticeable. Perhaps he is keeping in character, but he just exhibits no personality here. The opening titles are cute, but what relevance do they have to anything in the film? Yeah, I pretty much hated it.