Forever and a Day (1943)

Absolutely brilliant

Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

This was one unusual project especially for a relatively minor major studio like RKO. In Forever And A Day they assembled a whole bunch of players from the Hollywood British colony, imported a couple like Anna Neagle and Jessie Matthews who did their work across the pond and put them all in one film that was directed by a half dozen directors or so. That many hands in the creation usually is a recipe for disaster. Usually that spells incoherent, but in the case of Forever And A Day it's just ponderous.Kent Smith and Ruth Warrick meet during the blitz, she owns a house he'd like to buy. It turns out he's distantly related to Warrick. The house was built by their common ancestor C. Aubrey Smith who was a retired admiral during the Napoleonic Wars. He built the place in an area that was rural then, London hadn't spread out that far. Warrick then starts telling the story, warts and all, of the house and the generations who lived there.I'm amazed the film was as good as it was. Still the story is slow moving and definitely parts are better than the whole. The only villain in the piece is really Claude Rains who was an ancestor, but a conniving schemer who had his ward stolen from him by Ray Milland as he was about to make a profitable match for her. A lot of women really were chattel in 1804. Rains is never bad in anything.Charles Laughton had a small role as a butler to one of the generations that lived in the house. Watch Laughton in this tiny role, it's one of the best examples of a consummate actor making something out of a nothing role.Forever And A Day is interesting, but that's the best I can say for it. It was good wartime propaganda, it's not the kind of film to ever be remade. If it is, hopefully with one good director and one creative vision.

This is the saga of a house handed down from generation to generation and the stories of each of the owners. The episodes range from good to better-than-good, but the value here is in the all-star cast; virtually any famous or near-famous British star from the 30's and 40's is in this picture, and even a few 'Yanks'. The nominal stars are Kent Smith and Ruth Warrick, she the present (1942) tenant. He stops in to sell it, and they swap stories about the different owners throughout the 19th and 20th centuries.In all, seven directors and 21 writers are given credit for working on the film, as well as 79 actors and actresses. It is a "sentimental story with some amusing and affecting passages, but as the story is somewhat hackneyed it is well-served by some superb performances" (Bosley Crowther, NY Times, 3/43). But I think to arrive at the most satisfactory effect one should necessarily be from the Sceptered Isle. I am a 'Yank' and didn't get that effect, but it was still good entertainment. It was shown at the Columbus,O. Cinevent, 5/12.

This grand 1943 film once again proved that the British were at their best when they kept that stiff upper lip.This magnificent piece tells the story of a house from its inception in England in 1804 until the German blitzkrieg circa 1940.Nothing was spared in this provocative film regarding the cast. Practically everyone known in British films is in it and they all shine.As two people are dickering in selling the house, its rich history is brought back in a series of flashbacks. We go back to the Napoleonic Era and trace the house to Queen Victoria's era, World War 1 and eventually the second world war.The film provides plenty of heartbreak and sadness but is a definite testament of faith to the British people in the tradition of Mrs. Miniver.

Most of the "British Colony" of Hollywood, and many American and Canadian born actors (Buster Keaton and Gene Lockwood, for instance) appeared in this 1943 gem which manages to transcend it's original purpose. Like most of Hollywood's wartime product, FOREVER AND A DAY was supposed to cement allied friendship and emotional bonding between the U.S. and the British. But the design of the story actually told of two families who intermingled and grew in the period from 1804 to 1943: from the battle of Trafalgar to the London Blitz. The concentration of the story was around an old house built by Admiral Trimble (Sir C. Aubrey Smith, in a superb characterization) when the area was countryside at the time of Napoleon and Nelson. Trimble and his son (Ray Milland) rescue a young woman from her sinister guardian, Mr. Pomfret (Claude Rains, of course), but make him a personal enemy. The young woman marries Milland, but he is killed at Trafalgar. After the death of Aubrey Smith, Rains manages to get possession of the house due to Smith's debts. He kicks out the young widow and her son, and moves in...only to find himself never at ease in the house. Eventually he is found to have fallen and hit his head on a marble decoration after attacking a portrait of the old admiral (the scene is handled brilliantly in the movie).I won't go into the full film - it takes in 140 years of English (and by extension, world history) to tell how the Trimbles and Pomfrets keep confronting each other over the years. There are many wonderful performances, such as Charles Laughton as a tipsy butler, Cedric Hardwicke and Buster Keaton as plumbers installing a new invention - an indoor shower, and best Roland Young and Dame Gladys Cooper as wartime parents confronting heartbreak (made all the more unbearable by their understated approach). In the end you feel you have seen the story of a nation's spirit, invincible and principled like Admiral Trimble was at the start. This was one wartime propaganda film that turned out to be far beyond it's required propaganda values.