Hellen I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

Cathardincu Surprisingly incoherent and boring

Sharkflei Your blood may run cold, but you now find yourself pinioned to the story.

Jenni Devyn Worth seeing just to witness how winsome it is.

jjnxn-1 In a part that was tailor made for Rosalind Russell but that she had to pull out of at the last minute Joan Crawford gets a chance to shade her diamond hard persona somewhat in this tale of remembered love. It's really a story of how we remember people and how time changes them. The part and Joan aren't a perfect fit but she does try and does a decent job of it. As in Mildred Pierce she and Eve Arden interact wonderfully and their few scenes have a nice snap. Actually Joan's casting isn't the only one that seems off. While Robert Young is fine as the conflicted college president Frank Lovejoy is wrong as the inquisitive reporter. He was a good tough guy actor but Robert Montgomery or Clark Gable would have been more suitable, the part is the second lead so neither would have considered it. Someone who is perfectly cast however is the wonderful Lurene Tuttle, as the seemingly simpleminded college chum of Joan. She is funny and touching and steals any scene she's in with ease. The film does have a message about being true to your ideals but is mostly a bittersweet romance and an enjoyable one at that.

olarko While this picture ranks as a pretty heady Joan Crawford fantasy, this picture is NOT Joan! It is, however, Joan as she wanted to be seen -- younger than her peer Clara Bow, glamorous, caring about mothers and constituents and others, and hopelessly romantic. Truth be known, her only care for others was for her fans -- that they continued to write her, to adore her, to idolize what they believed to be her! Only one other reviewer tells the truth about the tawdry life of Joan before she was 18; none tells of the continuance of that life when she embarked on Hollywood and had her three or four careers there. That same reviewer, incidentally, is the only one who mentions that "Goodbye, My Fancy" was a hit play before it fell into the clutches of La Crawford, so while its premise and material might be heady for behind-the-times Hollywood, Broadway and the "road" had seen and enjoyed the play for a while before Hollywood tackled it! The 6-star rating is for the fact that this Crawford epic is meatier than the films-about-nothing that she usually made!While Robert Young played the usual stalwart, faceless, and characterless version of Robert Young that he usually played, and while Eve Arden managed to steal every scene in which she appeared -- even if only in the background -- no one mentions the name of the real man in the film, the really masculine character and actor who could more than handle La Crawford: Frank Lovejoy! He waited in the background, as he says, until she stops playing Little Nell from the Country and comes back to Earth! He and Arden are easily the best actors -- and give the best performances -- in the film."Goodbye, My Fancy" is better for these two actors, for the rest of the supporting cast, and for the production values than its two stars -- Crawford and Young, in case you forgot -- deserved!

jlbertron I like this movie. A romantic film, but with a clear message against McCarthy era. Eve Arden gave a splendid performance, like she use. Is one of my favourite actresses. She play ,often, independent and resolute women, with a suitable reply at the right moment. I recommend to see another Eve Arden's films like "Stage door", "Mildred Pierce" or "Grease".

SHAWFAN As a devoted fan of old movies which were released when I was a little boy and in those days already an ardent film fan and moviegoer, I was highly surprised to see this film on TCM today because I had never heard of it. But I was certainly glad to have finally caught up with it. As the plot unfolded it became obvious that this must have been originally a finely crafted stage play from the way it led you sympathetically from one character to another and kept you in complete suspense as to different possible denouements for the action. In fact it reminded me of some of Terrence Rattigan's finer plays. But now I see that the play was written by the wife(?) of Garson Kanin. I thoroughly agree with the first review that the romantic side of the plot, though very touching, was by no means all there was to it. Strong statements on wider issues such as academic freedom, ability of big money to call the educational tune, the growing up out of illusions which must be discarded (very Ibsen or George Bernard Shaw) all were pithily and dramatically dealt with and skillfully presented to the audience. The side roles (especially Eve Arden) were all brilliantly executed in that wise-cracking, zany style that made the plays of the 1920s and 30s such favorites. And the main leads (Crawford, Young, etc) were equally outstanding in their emotional portrayals. This film was at least 10-15 years ahead of its time. When the 1960s finally rolled around American youth finally took the blinders off just the way Kanin and the makers of this film advocated. A brilliant and enthralling accomplishment. I wish we could all personally congratulate all the makers of this film of 50 years ago.