Claysaba Excellent, Without a doubt!!

Glucedee It's hard to see any effort in the film. There's no comedy to speak of, no real drama and, worst of all.

PiraBit if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

Loui Blair It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

weezeralfalfa A lengthy(138 min.) costume drama, based upon the popular very lengthy novel of the same name. Most of the story is set during the early reign of Charles II of England. However, the very brief beginning is set in 1644, during the English Civil War between the Royalists and Parliamentarians. During this earlier time, a coach containing Loyalists is being chased by Parliamentarians. The coach stops long enough to deposit an infant girl on a cottage step. A little later, the horsemen catch the coach and kill all those inside.Abruptly, the screenplay moves forward to when this girl is 16 years old, and itching to escape the confines of her life as a farmer's daughter. Perhaps it's that royal blood that she presumably was born with. In any case, she thinks she's pretty enough to turn the heads of many a young, as well as old, gentleman. Against everyone's advice, she sets off by herself for London, where she meets two gentlemen she got acquainted with in the village tavern. She decides she very much likes one of them: Bruce Carlton. The two are home from a voyage, looking for a charter to serve as privateers. Clearly, Bruce is not yet ready to tie himself down with a wife and children. He prefers an adventurous life to that of court intrigue. Nonetheless, Amber persists at trying to throw herself at him. Bruce gets his permission from the King and goes off on another voyage, leaving Amber with some money for living expenses. But she loses most of it from a pair of swindlers. She's thrown into prison as a debtor , and escapes, thanks to the influence of a highwayman: Black Jack, who uses her to lure fops into an alley, where they are robbed. Eventually, Black Jack is killed in one of these heists. Amber has a child fathered by Bruce, and then proceeds to form romantic relationships with several men. She nurses Bruce back to health when he comes down with plague and defends him against a thieving woman, while sick. He then has to fight a rapier duel over her. Given Bruce's indifference, she marries an elderly earl, as a kept woman, becoming a countess. He dies by fowl play in the great London fire, which consumes his mansion. Amber next attracts the attention of King Charles, becoming his mistress. Unfortunately, Bruce again arrives, this time from a plantation in Virginia. He has a wife this time, and Amber tries to tarnish her reputation. But it backfires, and the King dismisses her as his mistress, concluding that she cared more for Bruce than for him. She is opposed to Bruce's pleading that he take Bruce Jr. back with him to Virginia. However, Bruce Jr. says he wants to experience the adventure of the New World, so she gives him up. She has lost those she loves most, as well as her position with Charles. She's still a countess, but has no clue what to do with the rest of her life.Linda Darnell is OK in the title role. The various featured men are good in their roles, except that Cornel Wilde, as Bruce, should have been more animated and likable. Too bad Errol Flynn couldn't have his part. Vincent Price had played Charles II in "Hudson's Bay", and was the original choice for this role here. But, George Sanders did a good job.Although Amber was infatuated with Bruce, the opposite didn't seem to be true. Unfortunately, their preferred lifestyles weren't very compatible. Bruce wanted an adventurous life, and Amber wanted a courtly life. In his new life as a Virginia planter, he definitely needed a wife, and preferably, a growing boy such as Bruce Jr, Amber had already shown she wasn't interested in a rural life, especially in farming. Much of the film appears to have been shot in semi-darkness, or occasionally, fog. At this time, shooting in color required strong lights for indoor shots. Or, perhaps they wanted a more realistic lighting. Also, the copy I saw wasn't a vibrant Technicolor.

dunsuls-1 While watching "Home Sweet Homicide"there was a reference to the novel this movie is based on,and,oh well I had seen it as a youth and hardly remembered other than I liked it.Time to revisit.What a idea for a novel over 70 years old,set in a period over 350 years old,England under King Charles 11.The story may seem like a pot boiler in todays terms,but for its day it had to be something as I'm sure this movie was,and for me,still is.Forget that Linda Darnell, Cornel Wilde, Richard Greene,George Sanders and a host of other great actors of that day made this fine film,or that Otto Preminger directed.Whats important is the story.Based on a novel by Kathleen Winsor we have a epic story of a love consummated but never achieved.By that I mean even though the two principals conceive a child on a lonely rainy night the faiths intervene to prevent them from having a true relationship despite the far reaching unbelievable attempts of the woman and the seemingly indifference of the man at that moment.Although the faiths are not done with them until………….

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

jdavij2003 I just wanted to say that for an old movie, it was okay. I read the book before I saw the movie, and usually that is cause for nitpicking. I think that the main problems I had with the movie were that it seemed to jump around a lot and I don't think I would have known what was going on if I hadn't read the book. Also, one comment mentioned that the ending could have led to a sequel, which I guess is true. But, in the book, Amber lets Bruce and Corrine take little Bruce, and then Amber's enemies tell her that Corrine has died, so Amber takes off to America to be with him. The problem is, Corrine is alive, Amber's enemies simply wanted to be rid of her. I really think it would be great if the movie were remade today, with all the details. I would pay to see it!