High Society (1956)

Terrible acting, screenplay and direction.

The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

The movie runs out of plot and jokes well before the end of a two-hour running time, long for a light comedy.

Great story, amazing characters, superb action, enthralling cinematography. Yes, this is something I am glad I spent money on.

The songs are memorable, and if you listen to the singing you don't need to see the people --- any of them. By which I mean that I've enjoyed listening to the music on a record, but that visually and socially this film is dated, and the cast is ill-adjusted. The plot is also over- extended and silly. In fact, the whole set-up seemed utterly nonsensical and ridiculous. I don't mind looking at Grace Kelly, but I'd seen her act better elsewhere, and she seemed to have something else on her mind. Sinatra can act, but wasn't asked to here. Crosby doesn't really act, he just behaves. Louis Calhern was better here than in Julius Caesar, which isn't saying a lot. John Lund had about the most thankless role imaginable. Whatever the society, Satchelmouth appeared to be highly high. Had he just been touring Europe and Scandinavia ?Cole Porter, however, was an exceptional song-writer. I'd forgotten almost everything about this story, not having seen it for some years. The songs, and the lyrics, although I doubt that rock and roll was exactly jazz, nevertheless kept echoing in my mind. But it was a mistake to re-watch whatever action there was.

I was somewhat disappointed with the original version, The Philadelphia Story, when I watched it. Though James Stewart's acting was great, for some reason the movie just wasn't too enjoyable for me.When I found this movie, until I read the synopsis I had no clue it was a remake. That being said, I think that High Society made some improvements over its predecessor. The casting in both movies is no doubt great. Many people enjoy Katharine Hepburn in TPS, but I found her annoying.I am a little biased towards Grace Kelly in general but I enjoyed her performance much better than Hepburn's. Making this story a musical helps liven up the whole thing and makes it more enjoyable to see. My favorite was the jazz song by Louis Armstrong and his band with Bing Crosby. Plus, three great musicians are in the cast. What more could you ask for? The ending in both flicks is the same. I'm not giving too much away but I think it comes out of left field (less so in this one). I guess this divorcée romance type of story isn't my cup of tea. Another pet peeve: this movie loves wide shots. Perhaps there are too many.Overall, the performances here are very enjoyable, both acting and musically, and you will be charmed to no end by Grace Kelly and entertained by the music. If you didn't care for The Philadelphia Story, you'll find that High Society improves a story a bit and is overall more fun.7/10 stars.

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.