Evengyny Thanks for the memories!

BootDigest Such a frustrating disappointment

CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

InformationRap This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

Alana Fu There are two story lines in this film: A, the birth of a play; B, the love story between an actress(Bea) and a playwright(Stanley). I suppose B is the main line since the film is called Forever Female. But then Stanley struggle so much with the play, and Sally took up so many scenes(while the love line between Philip and Bea was relatively neglected), it seems A would be the main line? But then the story ended with Philip and Bea getting married again, so that means B is the main line?But it's not really important as which story to follow as how well the characters are developed thru the story. All the characters in this film are wonderfully colorful:Sally, a young actress with a lot of drive and passion, is one of the most annoying characters I've seen in movies. She has all the confidence/arrogance in the world god knows where she gets it. Then she changed to a complete different person in the course of 2 months? Less than that? And Stanley, a refreshing farmer turned playwright, a very strong character in the beginning of the film, fell in love with Sally for whatever reason, and didn't realized it until he saw her transformation, lost his character towards the end of the film. Both of the characters and their relationship seem impractical and irrational to me. (William Holden does fall for strange women doesn't he? Network 1976?)On the other hand, Bea the amazing actress with a heart of gold and her ever so supportive husband Philip, are very likable people. Bea literally made Sally a star, even tho nobody mentioned it or thank her for it. She's sensual, understanding, a character made of blood and flesh(like the scene at the airport). Philip is always her guardian angel. It's corny that they got back together in the end, nevertheless their relationship is admirable.In all, the film is packed with interesting refreshing details(strawberries, celery..) and some wonderful lines, the story is a bit disappointing, and definitely not enough Ginger Rogers (way too much Pat Crowley, whose acting could be improved largely too).

mannin11 With a trio of hugely talented actors (Rogers, Holden and Douglas) and a script written by the Epstein Brothers (who wrote Casablanca) this viewer was expecting a delightful comedy. Alas, alas, alas, this is a clunker of monumental proportions with an AWFUL script (adapted from a play by J.M. Barrie -- who wrote Peter Pan) and painfully sluggish direction by Irving Rapper (who directed four of Better Davis' better movies). The script has the appearance of being thrown together beside a Hollywood swimming pool over a weekend with the minimum of thought or imagination. The characters' actions and motives are horribly unconvincing and do such a huge disservice to the three actors in the main roles. The ingenue role, played by Pat Crowley, who at the end of the movie is proudly proclaimed as a future Paramount star (ever heard of her, outside of television?) is endlessly irritating. Watching her act, this viewer couldn't help but think how much better the young Debbie Reynolds would have been in the role. Luckily for her, she was an MGM star and missed being saddled with this awful dreck. With undertones of All About Eve, a younger actress coveting a role played by an older actress, the story is leaden and dull in the extreme. Aside from consigning this one to the vaults and slamming the door shut FOREVER, one is left with such a feeling of sadness for so much dazzling talent so badly wasted.

jjnxn-1 Charming, slight piece of entertainment sold by it top lined stars and almost scuttled by its featured player.Ginger Rogers and Paul Douglas are most happily matched as the formerly married couple who are still best friends, a great Broadway star and her producer. Their interchanges are expertly played by two pros who are easy in each others company and really seem like they would have been together for years. Her gentle ribbing of him over back alimony is sweet and believable and actually provides a bit of insight into her character. She doesn't really expect to ever get it but neither does she ever plan to write it off either nor does she let get in the way of their relationship.William Holden's part is secondary to the story although he is prominently featured due to his star status. He is his usual charismatic self making the minor part much better than it is. One ironic note is that in a story about Ginger Roger's character realizing she's too old for the ingénue role in Holden's play they cast an actor who is too old for his part. The playwright the way he is referenced should be in his early twenties, Holden extremely handsome and youthful though he may be is 35 if he's a day. He can't be held responsible for that since contract actors were routinely assigned parts at the studios whim.Where the picture runs into trouble is the performance of Pat Crowley in what clearly was planned as a star making part. That didn't happen most probably due to the fact that as directed a more annoying, grating, jejune enactment of a character couldn't be possible. As she constantly proclaims that she is a great talent and better than anyone could imagine you want to push her out of the frame. The actress who did go on to some degree of fame, most notably as the star of TV's Please Don't Eat the Daisies, has proved to be an enjoyable presence elsewhere so the direction must be at fault but she really is hammy and unpleasant here.Many fine character actors, James Gleason, Jesse White, George Reeves, Maidie Norman etc., add nice little touches throughout and hey look in one short scene its the future Mrs. C herself: Marion Ross just starting out.A good comedy played by experts just ignore the ham-bone on the side of the action.

lora64 This is reminiscent of the theatrics in "All About Eve" but with a sympathetic, light comedic twist to it. There is Ginger Rogers as Beatrice the mature, aging actress who is intent on impressing everyone with the idea that she is 29, no more, no less, and capable of taking on the new female role that's in the works. It doesn't go over too well with a young actress named Sally, played by Pat Crowley, who is willing to charge into every obstacle on her way to 'reaching the top' as an actress. She is very adept at changing her stage name to suit the occasion and meet the needs of the day.It is great seeing Paul Douglas in top form, here as Beatrice's "ex" yet still devoted to her and her career, but sometimes he does reach the limit of his patience with her. One wonders what other fine, maturer roles he may have had in his career but unfortunately his life was cut short through illness.William Holden as Stanley the playwright is, as ever, one handsome leading man. He gets entangled emotionally with the two actresses, not sure what to think or which way to turn.This is an age-old comment of the times that's still prevalent in society, of women's role in life being most appealing when young but having no place when they reach "a certain age." I think these days society is more accepting of the mature, older woman, thanks to woman's lib activity of past decades as well as some outstanding actresses who have influenced opinions and flourished in their senior years, such as Angela Lansbury, Maureen O'Hara, Lauren Bacall, Joan Collins and Kate Hepburn.