Fluentiama Perfect cast and a good story

ScoobyWell Great visuals, story delivers no surprises

Kaelan Mccaffrey Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

Maleeha Vincent It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

pninson I originally saw this in the early 70s, after having seen THE FORSYTE SAGA on TV, and reading the first three books. Shoehorning two books' worth of story into a two-hour movie makes mincemeat out of the plot, but the essential details are preserved.It was a crackup for me to see Robert Young, then widely known as Marcus Welby M.D. I was used to seeing him as an old man; but then he looks old for the part anyway, and overacts to compensate for it.However, Errol Flynn is excellent as Soames, and Walter Pidgeon brings the necessary gravitas to the role of Jolyon. Harry Davenport is fine as Old Jolyon, although I can't quite erase the image of Dr. Meade from Gone With the Wind.It's not a very good adaptation of Galsworthy's story, but on its own merits, it's well acted and edited, with handsome production design and nice pacing. It's fun to watch just to compare it with the more successful TV version.

MartinHafer First I need to point out that I have NEVER seen the British Forsyte series, so I cannot possibly compare this movie to it. I have heard that the British series is better and fuller, but I just have no idea if this is true.Second, this movie has among the strangest casting I have seen in some time! Errol Flynn, well-known as a party-animal and womanizer, is cast as the incredibly dull and loveless Soames Forsyte! And, oddly, Walter Pidgeon plays the nice Jolyon Forsyte. Logically, Flynn SHOULD have played the other role and vice-versa, but perhaps the powers that be at MGM couldn't allow "Mr. Miniver" and "Mrs. Miniver" to have a loveless marriage (roles that Pidgeon and Garson were very famous for). Regardless of the reasoning, it actually worked pretty well.As far as Flynn goes, this casting was probably a good decision, as his role was by far the most interesting and enigmatic in the film. While Garson and Pidgeon play likable people and Robert Young plays an ardent suitor, Flynn must play a very cold and cynical man. The expression "he knows the price of everything and the value of nothing" is a great description of him--a fool who might be rich but can't appreciate love or things cash can't buy him. It must have been tough for the dashing Flynn to play such an overly restrained type of character and it was one of the best roles of the later half of his career.Greer Garson essentially plays the stereotypical "Greer Garson" role--you know, the nice and sweet lady you naturally love. And Pidgeon plays essentially the same nice guy role he usually played in the 1940s as well. As far as Robert Young and Janet Leigh, they were important to the plot, but their characters weren't really all that important to the plot--they just helped the story along.Essentially, the story is about very rich and boring old Soames Forsyte (Flynn) pursuing Irene (Garson) very, very ardently. However, his passion and love seems to completely vanish once he marries her--almost like she's a financial acquisition, not a loving wife. Later, Irene meets her niece's boyfriend (Young) and they somehow fall in love. In some ways this is very, very unconvincing--after all, Irene is nice and the idea of her stealing her niece's beau is a bit hard to swallow. But, considering what a cold fish Soames is, I could certainly understand her jumping at the first chance for passion. I just would have liked the movie a little more if the object of her affection were better defined or if this infatuation seemed a bit more believable.Anyways, what exactly happens next, I'll not explore further, as I don't want to spoil the film. So how all this is resolved is just going to have to wait until you see the film. However, I will say that the very best line in the movie was the final one given by Irene. Speaking of now ex-husband Soames, she says "I feel sorry for him,...he's a very poor man". What a fantastic line--a marvelous way to wrap up this excellent film.PS--On a sad note, you might want to compare the Errol Flynn in this film to the same man in movies from just three or so years earlier. I saw this movie as well as OBJECTIVE, BURMA! (1945) and NEVER SAY GOODBYE (1946) all a day or so apart. Despite being made about the same time, Flynn was a lot fatter and puffier in THAT FORSYTE WOMAN due to the effects of alcoholism. Sure he was supposed to be older in this film, but the effects I am talking about were not created by the makeup department. His drinking had finally taken its toll and he looks at least 15 years older just in three years! It's very depressing, really, that he did this to himself--going from a very handsome leading man to a bloated soon-to-be has-been (his films of the 1950s were, for the most part, third-rate messes).

Lutzqueen This film was cited as one of the ones that Errol Flynn felt he gave a good performance in, and that assessment is certainly true. He completely played against type in this role as an emotionally restricted man of property and did a fine job. The problem is not in his playing but in the heavily edited screenplay and miscasting. Robert Young is laughable as the "young" architect and Greer Garson too genteel by half for the role of the scheming adulteress Irene who freezes Soames out-Eleanor Parker would have been ideal for this role,but one gets the feeling MGM couldn't allow Garson to be the adventuress the role demanded because of her image. Also,the film's lack of the pivotal rape scene that ends the marriage in the novel undermines the reason why Irene detests Soames so much. Flynn portrays Soames well enough that he could have followed through in such a scene in good form. He did a great job with this character's motivations and was still quite handsome. An underrated performance in a so-so adaptation of a classic novel.

Harold_Robbins I'm not surprised that many viewers find this film frustrating, particularly those unfamiliar with the novels or the later TV adaptations - coming to this film with such knowledge definitely helps one be more charitable towards it.THAT FORSYTE WOMAN is one of MGM's "prestige" literary productions, tackling the first novel of one of Britain's most beloved series of novels by one of its most beloved authors, John Galsworthy. It's another well-executed, professional MGM effort. Yet it's another strange choice for MGM (as was THE PICTURE OF DORIAN GRAY earlier in the decade), since in this case the story's main plot is an adulterous affair,casting its two leading players (Flynn and Garson) very much 'against type' - one can't blame Flynn for being willing, but I'd like to know just exactly which MGM executive thought to cast Greer Garson as the adulteress! The lady was simply too likable!These are complex characters, and it actually took Galsworthy 6 novels to reveal them fully to the reader. Neither Soames nor Irene (the Garson role) are particularly likable in the first novel - both seem selfish and willful, but the reader ultimately comes to understand both of them better (although Galsworthy never really does give a satisfactory reason for Irene's loathing of Soames).MGM originally produced the film under the title THE FORSYTE SAGA (I have a copy of the movie tie-in edition of the novel published by Scribners in 1949)) but, since the film was merely a slice of the Saga anyway, they changed the title to the more catchy THAT FORSYTE WOMAN emphasizing Irene's 'fast' nature. It remained THE FORSYTE SAGA in the UK.One has to admire MGM's ambitious attempt, but let's face it, they'd really bitten off more than they could chew: THE FORSYTE SAGA was too big, too rich, and too multi-layered for one film. Rather, it was a work destined for success in another medium which was still in its infancy - television, in a format to which its breadth, length and varied cast of characters would be perfectly suited - the "mini-series", for which it would provide the pioneer effort with spectacular success in the late 1960s.