gavin6942 A director (William Holden) hires an alcoholic has-been (Bing Crosby) and strikes up a stormy relationship with the actor's wife (Grace Kelly), whom he believes is the cause of all the man's problems.For me, this movie can be seen in three different ways, both of which are valid. Either William Holden was the rail that held this roller coaster on the track, or it was a crescendo of acting chops that pulls all the punches. Or both. Whereas Crosby and Kelly seem to be offering bland performances, their characters get better as the film progresses, with at least one plot twist.It would be interesting to view this film fro ma feminist perspective. The way that the film (and Holden's character) approaches women is startling in its condescension, and perhaps it is even more amazing how much Kelly's character finds it acceptable.

treeline1 Years ago, Frank Elgin (Bing Crosby) was a successful singer and actor, but a tragedy turned him in to an alcoholic loser and his wife, Georgie (Grace Kelly), into a bitter shrew. A young Broadway director (William Holden) wants Frank to star in his new show, but Frank's drinking and his uncooperative wife may spell disaster. This stark and touching drama has both Bing and Grace playing against type and they're both wonderful. Bing plays the weak has-been with utter sincerity and Grace drabs it up to play the nagging wife. She won Best Actress and he was nominated for Best Actor. The two reunited two years later in "High Society," playing carefree socialites, showing their versatility. William Holden is excellent as the demanding director who pulls a good performance out of Frank and shakes up the angry Georgie. The script draws on the themes of guilt, alcoholism, and redemption and the black and white photography emphasizes Frank and Georgie's misery. It's a very good and thought-provoking film.

MartinHafer This film is about a down-and-out performer (Bing Crosby) who has sunk into alcoholism and self-pity. However, out of the blue, he's received a huge break--to star in a Broadway show! Can the guy hold it together and rise to the occasion or will be return to the bottle and despair?! Although this idea is interesting, what is truly original is what happens with Crosby--how he copes with all this responsibility. Again and again, he manages to make it appear as if his wife (Grace Kelly) is a domineering woman who is trying to push him to fall on his face--when actually she is doing the opposite. She tries to help him from falling and, behind her back, he manipulates things so that the producer (William Holden) thinks SHE is the problem. Like many alcoholics, he has a great need to appear confident and capable AND to make excuses for when he does hit the bottle once again--'it's all her fault' is his excuse waiting to happen! Eventually, Crosby's manipulations result in Holden confronting Kelly for her supposedly undermining Crosby! He wants her to leave and return home so that Crosby will supposedly be free from distractions and her wicked clutches! Simply put, he's an alcoholic--a manipulative and insincere drunk. Now when I saw the film as a kid, I thought Kelly was a nice and innocent woman who meant well. Now, however, I see that by sticking with him, Kelly plays an enabler--a well-intentioned one but an enabler nevertheless. This, too, is interesting--creating a nice portrait of a drunk AND his partner.The film is original and cleverly written--plus it's one of the better films about addiction from this era. Grace Kelly received the Oscar for Best Actress for this performance. I used to think this was unmerited, though in seeing the film again I see what an exceptional job she did. Plus 1955 was a particularly weak year and she was better than the competition. Crosby was also nominated for an Oscar but considering Brando's performance in "On the Waterfront", it's not surprising he lost--though this is perhaps Crosby's greatest acting of his long career. Now this does not mean the film was perfect or problem-free. I cannot understand the casting as Kelly just seemed too young and glamorous (even when they gave her a very subdued makeup job)--I would have picked someone older considering Kelly was 51 and Kelly was 25! Although the part was to have been played by someone younger--perhaps in her mid-30s or older would have worked better. Otherwise, though, it's a very good film nevertheless. The other problem was the inexplicable relationship that sprang up between Holden and Kelly near the end....where the heck did THAT come from?!?! (yes, I know I ended this sentence with a preposition...deal with it. After 9600+ reviews I think I am entitled to one dangling preposition.)

bobkurtz-1 I didn't like this movie when my mother drug me too it in 1954, but thought as an adult it might have some reason to watch it. Wrong, my feelings as a 14 year old were correct. If they made a list of the top ten most over rated, over praised films, this would make the list.The subject of co-dependency may have been break thru in 1954, but no longer has much appeal, in fact is ho-hum today.A cliché story line, is burdened with a forlorn Bing, an amateurish Grace Kelly and William Holden, who stoically endures it all. Bing can't act his way out of a paper bag, much less a bottle. At best type casting, and sadly no notable songs for one of the best crooners of the day to showcase his real talents. I hate lip syncing, and can not understand why someone with as much experience singing live as Bing had, must be reduced to this format.To give Grace Kelly an Oscar, instead of Judy Garland, was my first realization that talent and a fine performance sometimes do not determine who wins. The pace of the film is fine. I don't like cut to black editing, but otherwise the film is technically sound.Stage plays, other than musicals, don't often transfer to the screen well, and this is no exception. Someone describe 'Country Girl' as a forgotten classic. There's a reason for this. At least no one has remade this one.Unless you are a fan of the 3 stars, skip this one