Watch Tomorrow Is Forever For Free

How sad is this?

Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

This film features Claudette Colbert, Orson Welles, and an 8-year-old Natalie Wood in her first credited role, as well as a script written just after WWII ended which addresses the question of going off to war. It's worth watching, but a bit melodramatic.The premise: Welles and Colbert are newly married, Welles surprises Colbert by deciding to go off to WWI, but then gets his face blown off. He's unknown and heavily bandaged in the hospital, and in his depression, doesn't want to correct the report back to his wife, which was that he was killed in action. Fast forward 21 years. Welles has been living in Vienna, but flees to America with a small child (Natalie Wood) after the Nazis have killed her parents. Meanwhile, Colbert has had the child he didn't know she was carrying when he left, and re-married (to George Brent). Naturally, Welles then inadvertently meets her and her new family. What first seems to be a story focusing on the pathos of seeing the love of one's life now living with someone else, quickly gives way to the stronger moments of the film, which center around their son (Richard Long) wanting to go off to war himself. Despite America not being involved yet, he reasons (with the benefit of a post-WWII script) that Hitler will not stop at Poland or even Europe, and that evil must be confronted. It's a compelling argument, and my favorite interchanges was this one, which are words to ponder even today, particularly that last line:Long: "I'm not sure what's it's all about, except that when I mentioned it a few minutes ago, about aggression and conquest..." Welles: "The Nazis call it a new order. Supermen and slave people. Actually just trying to bring back the Middle Ages. Trying to bring back the past." Long: "But why should anyone want to hold back the future?" Welles: "Because the whole idea of the future is a fuller, richer life for more people. These fellows are afraid that more for the many means less for the few."On the other hand, his mother is well aware of what war can do, having lost her first husband, and we really see the crux of the problem - when is war worth fighting? WWI had little meaning, but on the other hand, WWII threatens humanity. It's very difficult in the moment to understand which of these cases it may be.Sacrifice and honor are themes which pervade the film. This must have played well to audiences of the time, and the tragedies which result may tug on heartstrings today. Welles sacrifices his life to fight for his country, and then sacrifices his happiness so that his wife won't be burdened by his injuries. His son wishes to follow in his footsteps, and is so eloquent and rational. There is naturally a tragedy to this, heightened as Welles speaks to both, without them knowing who he is. Thomas Paine is quoted in the best of their conversations: "A man who kept a tavern was standing in his door, with as pretty a child in his hand, about eight or nine years old, as I ever saw. And after speaking his mind as freely as he thought was prudent, he finished with this unfatherly statement: give me peace in my day. Remember that's what Chamberlain said when he came back from Munich: 'peace in our time'. A more generous parent would have said, if there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace." Unfortunately there are several moments that strain credibility. Out of all the employers in Baltimore, Welles happens to get a job with the man who has married his wife. Ok, we'll give the film that one, as it sets up everything else. But how about Colbert not recognizing him at all, via his voice or his eyes? Ok, he was supposed to be tragically disfigured and needed plastic surgery, so let's give the film that one too. But then her reactions when she begins to suspect that he's indeed her first husband? The line "you're John MacDonald" is so false, as it seems to refer to a stranger - not "you're John!", "John, I know it's you!", etc. In a film that is so full of emotion, this moment and those that follow between the two of them don't feel authentic. In general, the acting in the film is rather staid, which in part reflects the stoicism of the time, but also just average performances, much as I like the actors. The film also lays it on rather thick as the story plays out, and it gets a little heavy-handed in the direction it takes. A mixed-bag, worth seeing, but falls a bit short.

This movie in not just another sentimental movie.It's a movie about heroism at a personal level. It's about great motives like the defense of freedom and the importance of personal choice in times where values have to be defended, even with your life. It's about personal decisions and living after with the consequences.Great acting by that giant actor/director, Mr. Orson Wells and a very moving performance by Claudette Colbert, in a very difficult role.This film has all the elements of a good psychological thriller: someone coming back from the dead, a past that comes to haunt you after 20 years, exile in your own land, fighting the Nazis, and finally, leaving the past behind to join the living in the present.A great 1946 movie by Irving Pichel. Don't miss it if you see it late at night in the TV. You will be surprised by it's quality.As a bonus, the third performance in film, by the then 8 year old Natalie Wood, as an adorable little blond Austrian exile girl.

This movie is sad beyond words, beyond tears. Of course,the unstated truth is that Elizabeth is right, by joining the RAF, Drew is probably sealing his fate. A different but equally sad truth is stated when Elizabeth accuses Erik of being, perhaps, the one who killed John and he concurs because he did kill John rather than returning a lesser, perhaps unmanned, husband. The horror of war and the fact that it is sometimes necessary for us to go on. Sad beyond words, beyond tears and beyond bearing. Some historians believe that war is man's natural state of being and that would give this old movie currency beyond the coincidence of whether a big war is happening when the movie is viewed. It is always true and always sad, sad beyond words.

I am stunned to see the vast majority of commentators describe this great film as "typical," "sentimental," and "melodramatic." That is to completely overlook the various philosophical and psychological aspects of the movie. Isolationism. Pacifism. Opposition to global hegemony and tyranny. All of these are at the essence of the dialog and the story. The need for humans to deny the temptation to live in the past and to embrace the future is the core of the movie - in addition to its TITLE. Reason must overcome emotionalism.That is made especially apparent in the scene where Kessler (Orson Welles) implicitly compares Mrs. Hamilton (Claudette Colbert) to his young charge, Margaret (Natalie Wood). While Mrs. Hamilton lost her husband on another continent, the Nazis murdered Margaret's parents right before her eyes. She is terrified by a "popper" because it causes her to "relive" the sound of bullets, the smell of gunpowder and the sight of blood - her parents' blood. Kessler gently coaxes Margaret into pulling the string on a second "popper" to prove that she doesn't need to be a victim of her fears. She can learn that it is not dangerous, but a mere "toy." She can overcome.The climactic scene between Kessler and Mrs. Hamilton is equally fabulous. The tension steadily mounts as Mrs. Hamilton presses Kessler to admit that he is her husband. Until his direct denial, the dialog is so sublime that it makes sense whether delivered by the woman's lost husband or by "Mr. Kessler." But it is not sentimental. To the contrary, Kessler's powerful philosophical arguments and psychological insights compel Mrs. Hamilton to reassess her life and come to the realization that it has been, is, and promises to be good. To throw that away for a memory would be sheer sentimental folly. "Embrace the good life you have" is the very clear message.Generally the acting is superb, however, in particular this is possibly Orson Welles' finest performance. There are no obvious double-takes or overly-long stares that are dead give-aways in most films that deal with a character with a hidden identity. This is a fabulously subtle performance. Welles' makeup is a little obvious and theatrical, but is not a distraction.In an incredible - and incredibly overlooked - performance, Natalie Wood convincingly portrays a young Austrian girl who speaks German as her native tongue, has lost both parents to Nazi violence and is suddenly thrust into a strange new country. Her performance is one of the best juvenile performances in all American cinema. The Max Steiner score is also very good, although I wish it had been a little more sub rosa. Just turning down the volume of the score to make it a little more subtle would have improved the film a little. However, it beautifully captures the mood of each scene.This movie has layers upon layers. It contains paradoxes and ironies that are profound enough for real reflection. The characters provide profound contrasts in philosophy and psychology. The device of having a husband apparently die (but in actuality refuse to return home because of his "broken" condition) provides ample opportunity for sentimentality. But that device is merely the springboard for a much richer exploration of the meaning of life and our place in the world. To fail to recognize this is to minimize this fabulous film and miss its point.