UnowPriceless hyped garbage

Stoutor It's not great by any means, but it's a pretty good movie that didn't leave me filled with regret for investing time in it.

Borserie it is finally so absorbing because it plays like a lyrical road odyssey that’s also a detective story.

Deanna 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.

preppy-3 Story takes place in 1660 England. Strong willed 16 year old Amber St. Clair (Linda Darnell) falls in love with bland Bruce Carlton (Cornel Wilde). She follows him to England but he doesn't love her. So Amber decides to become rich and powerful no matter what.The book this was based on was a HUGE bestseller in the 1940s. It was (for its time) a racy book that makes it clear that Amber sleeps her way to the top. Also the book was historically accurate and (even at 800+ pages) a fascinating read. 20th Century Fox took the book, jettisoned all the racy stuff (more or less) and spent great care and no expense in bringing this to the screen. It's in beautiful color with gorgeous costumes and sets. Sure, there are plot holes and bad acting but this is never dull and speeds along. Even at 140 minutes it didn't seem too long.Darnell is beautiful and pretty good in the lead. George Sanders matches her playing Charles II. He's clearly enjoying himself. Richard Greene is good also popping up as a friend of Ambers. However Wilde is pretty bad as Carlton--you keep wondering what Amber sees in him. The silly wig he wears doesn't do him any favors. It's kind of funny to realize this was considered pretty dirty back in 1947. It wouldn't raise an eyebrow today and, as it is, the movie never makes it clear that Amber is sleeping around.So it's colorful, elaborate and well worth catching. The book was better but this is easier than reading it! An 8.

L. Denis Brown This is a period epic, which is comparable in many ways to "Gone With the Wind", and might even, in other circumstances, have been the greater film. Unfortunately a number of factors contributed to the final film showing too many minor flaws for this, and the principal reason for re-watching it today is probably the magnificent performance by George Sanders who perfectly depicts the amoral cynicism and jaded sensuality that is correctly or incorrectly always associated with the seventeenth century British monarch King Charles the Second. Although not nominated, this was certainly an Oscar worthy role.The film-script is based on the lengthy, florid, and sometimes almost turgid, 1,000 page novel by Kathleen Windsor - a book that had been roundly condemned by the Catholic Church. Twentieth Century Fox's decision to film it was highly controversial. This led to a long running battle with zealots from the Catholic League of Decency which ultimately emasculated the film to the point where it became no more than marginally commercially viable and where the final product was unable to stand the test of time in the way that many other great films from this era have done. Nevertheless, it would be interesting to have the chance of seeing how a re-mastered DVD version would fare if released today, and overall I am firmly of the opinion that this film would warrant such treatment. Unfortunately it appears that the first ending which was more in keeping with the original book, but was changed under pressure from the Church, may now be lost. (Twentieth Century Fox accepted pressure to create the revised ending, and to introduce a number of other changes designed to stress the immorality inherent in the story, just two weeks after the film was first released). -SPOILER AHEAD - This new ending shows Amber's out of wedlock son being surrendered to his father who is about to sail back to America to resume running the Plantation he owns there, whilst a heartbroken Amber looks on. However Fox seem to have deliberately tweaked the tail of the Church even when making the change. The dialogue now ambiguously refers to how much better it will be for this young boy to be brought up in America learning to operate a slave plantation, rather than to stay in England as part of the "immoral" seventeenth century London Society! The acting was very good but (apart from George Sanders) not superb. Maureen O'Hara, who was considered for the part of Amber, might have been more successful in adding some of the fire which was so badly needed in Amber's passionate but unrequited love affair, as well perhaps as in her other more career orientated liaisons.The original lighting and cinematography are not easily assessed by watching surviving home video recordings of this film, but those who saw it in the cinema largely agree that long sequences (particularly in the early part) were under-lit. Presumably a re-mastered DVD release could correct this problem. The three strip Technicolor used to create this film was fully satisfactory The costumes have been criticised as being not totally authentic, but except for those viewers who are students of costume, they were probably perfectly adequate. And if you believe that period costumes should always be accurate, remember the really authentic costumes used in the film "The Wicked Lady" (1945) were rejected by U.S. censors as showing excessive décolletage so that many scenes had to be re-filmed for the American release.The presentation of this story is hard to fault. The London scenario and the sequences involving both the Plague and the Great Fire of London were created excellently. The film also featured a great score which was nominated for an Oscar.Conclusion.For me the film rather dragged, it was slow and a little ponderous. Originally this would have best been corrected by shortening a number of overlong scenes, so enabling some of the many others from the book which were not filmed to have been incorporated; but today a few judicious cuts to shorten the running time a little would serve much the same purpose. Unfortunately (and less easily corrected) watching this film today gives the impression that its Director, Otto Preminger, was continuously and nervously looking over his shoulder to assess what openings every sequence he filmed would provide for the Church to attack. Had he been able to concentrate more completely on how these scenes would be received by a modern audience unfamiliar with the atmosphere of the seventeenth century Royal Court he was depicting, he might have been able to create a memorable and great film despite the fact that the original book could never have been described in these terms

MISSMARCH "You've done very well for yourself, Amber."With this line, Cornell Wilde's character shows himself a master of understatement. It is delivered coldly, with neither criticism nor respect.FOREVER AMBER is the portrait of a peasant girl who refused to be destroyed by her poverty and the hopeless prospects awaiting her. She used her sexuality and her brains to become the King's consort.This film presents a vivid portrait of life in England before the Cromwellian revolution. It was an amoral, extremely cynical, heartlessly cruel society.Linda Darnell's performance is a tour de force. She manages to play the strumpet, while letting the audience see her strength of character shining through all the while. Her love for the fickle Bruce Carlton/Cornell Wilde is too deep for him to ever understand.One of the most haunting episodes in classic films is the depiction of London in the grip of the Black Plague. Amber risks her life by staying at Bruce's side through his delirium and personally performing the surgery that saves him.Amber's tragedy is one that every woman who has ever had to fight for herself in this world can recognize. The movie is far more than a period soap opera. In fact, with David Raksin's incredible orchestral score, the production could have provided the framework for the composition of a real opera.... La Boheme, move over!

countryway_48864 I had not seen Forever Amber since I saw it in a theater as a young girl and was completely captivated by the intrigue and the flash and dash of it all.Seeing it now as a MUCH older woman, I see the holes, mostly in the lighting which is quite dim even when it should be bright. Perhaps the set designer was trying to give the effect of period lighting.I was struck by how much the story follows the bare-bones of Gone With The Wind, in particular the way it ends and the glamorous and enigmatic Baron Carlton- Cornell Wilde, walk away with the child while Amber watches from the window. A perfect opening for the sequel that never came.Forever Amber doesn't even pretend to be a GREAT film, but it is a good one with good acting and some wonderful touches, especially George Sanders' terrific "Snidley Whiplash" aka James II. as he calls his brace of King Charles spaniels "children".Linda Darnell is lovely but not as accomplished an actress as Vivian Leigh (or as beautiful). Cornell Wilde is NOT Clark Gable-but who was? Still, both manager to give satisfactory performances.Wilde's best scenes are with the child who looks very much like him. There is a warmth and humor about Wilde when he is interacting with the child that is charming. His Baron Carlton is aloof and something of a snob with everyone else. He is aware of his station in life and unable to break his code of behavior even for Amber. I have no doubt he likes her, but I don't think he ever loved her in the same way she loved him. He never really seems to empathize with her struggles, but is genuinely grateful to her for saving his life and delighted with his young son. He is an puzzle wrapped in a conundrum.Amber is all surface. She has the depth of a parking-lot puddle and I find myself wishing Maureen O'Hara had been cast. Then REAL sparks would fly. In Darnell's Amber we get a smudge-pot. Oh well.The glimpses of the court and old London, the plague and the fire are interesting and, in general the film is FUN.My one REAL regret is that we never see enough of Wilde fencing. He was a National fencing champion and on the 1936 Olympic Fencing team, but his fencing scene in Amber is shot through fog so dense you can hardly see him. That's a shame!!Enjoy that barn-burner for what it is, not what it could have been!