Watch High Society For Free

It's no definitive masterpiece but it's damn close.

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

High Society is the musical version of 1940's The Philadelphia Story, originally starring Katharine Hepburn, Cary Grant, and James Stewart. The problem? The original story isn't any good to begin with! Unfortunately, keeping the plot and adding songs doesn't help it turn into a good movie.In this version, Grace Kelly plays the woman every man falls in love with. She's engaged to John Lund, but her ex-husband Bing Crosby tries to win her back—and to top it all off, reporter Frank Sinatra falls in love with her while writing about her upcoming wedding! The only reason to watch this movie—unless you actually liked the original—is to watch Bing and Frankie sing and act together. In their famous number "Well Did You Evah?", they playfully make fun of each other's singing styles.If you absolutely love Cole Porter, or Grace Kelly or Frankie, I guess you can watch this one. I didn't like it. I didn't like the original. I won't spoil anything, but in both versions, I was rooting for someone who didn't end up with the girl. And when you hate an ending that much—even as famous an ending as this story's—it's hard to like the rest of the movie.

It is painfully obvious that this musical was only created to somehow get four giants of the era: Bing Crosby, Frank Sinatra, Grace Kelly and Louis Armstrong, together in a palace-like mansion. The story is very thin, the jokes are silly, the ending is altogether predictable, and even the music is mediocre (in relation to the talent we have here, I mean - it is not BAD music).Grace Kelly is over-acting as so often. I have never understood her fame and success, because she was not that very beautiful either - more wholesome (in her image - her reality was another thing) and pretty than gorgeous. Frank Sinatra is wooden as so often - his talent was singing really, not acting, and he did not have the looks of a leading man either. It is difficult for me to have an opinion of Louis Armstrong in this movie, as I simply do not like his sort of music at the best of times.Bing Crosby carries it all, really, as with so many movies and shows that he is in. He has a healthy distance to all the silly things he has to say and do, and the insipid songs he has to sing. He makes his own joke on them, and he is always his easygoing and likable self!

Watching this piece of dreck right now on Turner Classic Movies. Although I always felt this was a fairly lame film, this viewing is driving home how second-rate this offering is.Bland, limp Grace Kelly goes through her typical, wan motions as mere insipid Eye Candy. She can't sing a note, so, what's she doing in this project? Oh, I guess because she appealed to the clueless Mom and Pop audiences of the mid-1950s, her inclusion was to increase marquee (i.e., $$$-generating) value to the production.Bung Crosby, who appears to be about 70 years old in this flick, does his usually weightless routine and sings in a style that's about 20 years out of date.Frank Sinatra, who is sometimes a fairly good actor, is miscast, and hence, totally unconvincing in his role.It's pretty absurd that the point of the film is to play up the love triangle between the three, seeing that der Bungle is old enough to be Kelly's father, and, Ol' Blue Eyes is aging already, 17 years her senior. Not much sexual chemistry is going on in this picture, folks...So much is made of the fact the score is by Cole Porter, but, it's a pretty average collection of songs. Also outdated...Louis Armstrong is given an extended cameo role, mostly wasted, but even Satchmo, great as he was in his prime, is showing signs of wear and tear here.Celeste Holm should have been given more opportunity here, because she's the only bona-fide song and dance performer in the cast.The script is a lightweight rehash of a much edgier and interesting film made about 15 years before. John Patrick, who wrote a good deal of crap in his career, is responsible for this.Production values are pretty plastic and cheezy, too. The exterior and interior shots are so ill-matched in tone and design that they appear to be from two different motion pictures.This film cost $2.7 million to make, which was a pretty high budget back then (perhaps 2x what a musical feature cost at that time), and, it returned about $5 million at the box office. Total profit was a little over $1 million, which made it only somewhat successful at the time. No wonder. Crosby was totally over the hill at that point, Sinatra was in the auto-pilot stage of his career, and Kelly's allure to moviegoers was fading. The Rock and Roll Era was beginning to ascend in 1956, which made this offering look instantly antique.There's nothing particularly entertaining about this entry. If anything, it's a pretty shallow and annoying vehicle for three "stars" who were already past it.

OK. It's boxing day, and for some obscure reason Channel 5 (HD) is on. After sitting through a terrible Big Brother commercial and preparing to quickly change the channel, the old time MGM logo appears. "Ok, this could go somewhere". I've gotta say, this was a fun movie. I'm not usually one for musicals, but boy this had a lot going for it. I mean, it's fun in the sense that it doesn't take itself too seriously. Everything is shown in such vibrancy and enjoyment that its hard not to keep watching. I don't know if this happened a lot in mid-50's movies, but seeing an Armstrong/Crosby/Sinatra combo in one movie was cool. Grace Kelly and all those guys in moustaches were really good too. Their performances were great comedically and portrayed the narrative very well. I'd say they were good emotionally, but this movie is so light-hearted it would suffer from being emotionally deep in any way. The introduction of Sinatra and Holm's characters was a standout point for me, because it just lifted happiness levels even more. They're addition to the mix of music and laughs (and husbands) was brilliant, because they were all involved in a charming way. They're musical number was a treat, one that I would usually be disinterested in. It's not amazing, but it's good for what it is. There were a lot of things that could have been done better, like mild continuity and plot issues, but it wouldn't have been made that much better. There are a number of pretty funny moments, too, especially from Louis Calhern's character. They're not like 'Spit out your milk' funny, but 'chucklable'. A classic and fun 50's romp, that's fit for family viewing and extended air travel. It's made me want to watch 'Oklahoma!' all over again.