Karry Best movie of this year hands down!

Claysaba Excellent, Without a doubt!!

Donald Seymour This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

Kaydan Christian A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

JohnHowardReid Copyright 31 December 1945 by International Pictures, Inc. Released through RKO Radio Pictures, Inc. New York opening at the Winter Garden: 21 February 1946. U.S. release: January 1946. U.K. release: 18 February 1946. Australian release: 1 August 1946. 9,501 feet. 105 minutes.SYNOPSIS: Working wife thinks her husband has been killed in WW1. In reality, he has been crippled and disfigured.NOTES: Although this film is often cited as the debut of Natalie Wood, in point of fact she had appeared three years earlier under her real name, Natasha Gurdin in 20th Century-Fox's Happy Land.One of the domestic market's top 36 boxoffice movies for 1945-46.COMMENT: An unrelievedly gloomy soaper, this movie has a major saving grace in the charismatic performance of Orson Welles who invests his role with such authority and conviction he has us almost believing in the familiarly melodramatic story. The other players are also competent enough, though none can stand anywhere near Welles. In fact it could be claimed that they tend to rely too much on their customary mannerisms, whereas Welles subjects his to the demands of his role. Pichel's direction is more fluid than usual, taking advantage of the film's unexpectedly large budget with its massive sets and heaps of extras. Valentine's photography as usual is a major asset. Even at its most hackneyed or depressing, the picture is always most attractive to look at. Other technical credits are likewise "A"-grade through and through. It's a pity all this money and expertise has been thrown into such a well-worn and unintentionally ridiculous old gaslight plot. No matter the realistic cleverness of Lenore Coffee's up-dated dialogue, you simply can't disguise a basically unbelievable story-line. Though Welles gives it a great try - and almost succeeds! OTHER VIEWS: A sudsy melodrama of disappearing husbands and unrequited love, made watchable by Orson Welles' powerful presence and Joseph Valentine's atmospheric photography. Pichel's direction is occasionally stylish, but often plodding and pedestrian. Even Steiner's score seems second-rate, despite the movie's lavish production values. - John Howard Reid writing as George Addison.

oldcorpsed I LOVE this movie! I first saw it on TV in the early 50's when I was about 10 and bawled at the end, but with the kind of tears that make you feel good to have a human heart. I'm now 72 and its effect and my opinion have not changed. The plot's has been covered many times in these reviews, so I'll not go there, but the scene (knowing what we know) between Colbert and Welles when he tells her that what she has is the reality, is a heart-breaker with its loving generosity and sacrifice. Finally, when Welles comes in from the storm and is at the fireplace, full tears flow. And I'm not ashamed to admit it.Years later I actually did fall in love with Natalie Wood.

jarrodmcdonald-1 TOMORROW IS FOREVER is a film I first watched about ten years ago when I was living in Southern California. I found it on VHS one day at the West Hollywood library. At the time I was on an Orson Welles kick and was interested in looking at films where he played lead roles but did not direct. However, in retrospect, I'd say it has many Wellesian touches, meaning he probably provided director Irving Pichel with suggestions, as was his custom on sets where he was not technically in charge. But even with Welles at the center of what can be termed a bittersweet wartime melodrama, this picture is a team effort, and it boasts a remarkable cast. It was made shortly after Claudette Colbert had left her home studio Paramount to freelance. At this point, she was not afraid to take on more maternal roles, and in this production she plays teenager Richard Long's mother. Meanwhile, George Brent was at a phase in his career where he had left his home studio, Warner Brothers, and was eager to stretch himself in more substantive dramatic parts. This is one of the rare times when he played a father on screen, and added to that is the fact he is playing a middle-aged character, with slightly graying hair. And we mustn't overlook the contributions of veteran character actress Lucile Watson as well as child star Natalie Wood, who appears in one of her very first movies as a war orphan.The story, which seems to mirror war-time anxieties, plays out like a version of Enoch Arden. For those not familiar with the Enoch Arden theme, it's a contemporary reworking of Homer's Ullyses, where a man comes home from the war to learn his wife has believed him to be dead. In this case, Colbert is the spouse who has moved on with a new husband (Brent). Of course, Welles' character did not really die, and he returns to town in disguise. And while it seems gimmicky in spots, the dramatic intensity and heartbreak with which Welles and Colbert infuse their scenes makes this picture riveting and must-see. In particular, there is a point in the narrative where Colbert is beginning to put the pieces together that Welles might be her long-dead husband, and they share a very intriguing and poignant exchange at the old house they lived in as a newlywed couple. These emotions are revisited again when their son (Long) is going off to war, and Welles all but confirms his true identity to her.Of course, because this is a story about sacrifice and moving forward (directly relating to what moviegoers were dealing with at the close of the Second World War), we do not get the requisite happy ending. Instead, we get an ending filled with hope and new possibilities. We are able to realize these people have changed because of the war, and in so many ways now the home front is not what it once was. And as the picture comes to its mostly satisfying conclusion, we walk away from it wiser and a bit more in touch with our own strengths as human beings.

Jorge Curioso This is an astoundingly good movie.I'm neither a big Claudette Colbert fan nor one of Orson Welles -- I find her usually too cloying and chick-flickish and him too morose and self-important -- but they are fabulous together in this wonderful film. The characters treat each other with great respect and dignity, the dialog is marvelous, sensitive subject matter like war is dealt with honestly and non-ideologically.The "triangle" of Welles, Colbert and Brent is very good. Added bonus: Jarrod Barkley from Big Valley in his first role (he looks exactly the same 20 years earlier).I don't know why TCM gave this only two stars. Perhaps it's not trashy enough for their devolving ethos...Ten Stars!