abcj-2 FOREVER AMBER (1947) - This is a film that just misses the mark. Cornel Wilde is very one dimensional and uninteresting as Bruce. Linda Darnell, while quite beautiful, is a bit too melodramatic and unnatural in her acting. Their romance seems forced and lacks chemistry. Since the main plot relies on this romance, it weakens the entire film. If it was awful, then I would have turned it off. However, it isn't something that lingers in the mind that I can't wait to see again. This story of a social-climbing, loose woman who claims to love Bruce with all her heart while doing everything to advance herself and showing no restraint or patience for him seems like it would have been very unappealing for its era. I kept hoping there would be something redeeming about it. Therefore, I kept watching.Historically, it is very interesting and that is a good reason to watch. There were also some fine performances particularly from the precious little Bruce and the King (played by the always spot on George Sanders). It is a film, though, that tries too hard, and it came off as a weak, marginal epic.

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

lilipie I have seen this movie twice and I confess to loving every detail about it. It is truly a guilty pleasure and anyone who says that it isn't is NOT telling the truth. It's a true "bodice ripping" soap opera with a great cast. Amber is a fantastic tragic heroine, who's blind obsession is a rather simpering Bruce. Other males characters are far more interesting, never mind that fact that some are darn right sexy. I don't exactly get it about Amber's Bruce-obsession, but I do admire the way she calmly steps over the warm bodies to get what she wants. The only flaw that I see in this character is her inability to be a mother. But in the end, it looks like all is saved when the boy heads off the the New World with his father and stepmother. Poor, Amber....Ha!

stills-6 Overlong, overwrought romantic epic that lacks chemistry between the leads. Linda Darnell is passable as Amber -- if not stunningly talented, then at least gifted with screen presence. But Cornell Wilde is as flat as a wet blanket, dousing the fire out of every scene where it might possibly have ignited. Most errors in movies of this type can be overlooked if the attraction between the two lovers is palpable. Sadly, there is no indication that Wilde's Carlton even likes Amber, let alone finds her alluring. Production code aside, there were plenty of movies of this period that portrayed believable epic love, and this isn't one of them.The real highlight here is George Sanders as the licentious Charles II, a part he was born to play. I have no doubt that Vincent Price, considered for the role, could have done well (he gave the best performance of his career in another Preminger movie, "Laura"), but Sanders brings so much dripping wit and irony to everything he does that he makes every scene he's in come alive. He's not in it much, however.The production itself is pretty good, some great costumes and sets. The swordfighting scene (with thankfully little dialogue) was excellent and far too short. The story itself is a little choppy. The first scene was a non-sequitur, promising a potentially interesting plot device that never came. And the ending was a complete disaster - abrupt, unresolved, unbalanced, and worst of all, unsatisfying. Overall, the movie leaves a sour taste in the mouth, as if the decadence that was portrayed somehow got hold of the people making it and caused them to focus more on the image than on the story.