Karry Best movie of this year hands down!

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

ChanFamous I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

Ogosmith Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

vert001 The topic of aging actresses seemed to be in the Hollywood air of the early fifties, perhaps because the great generation of thirties' actresses had reached middle-age by then, an age poisonous to their career arcs whether justifiably so or not. There are many parallels between the real life of Ginger Rogers and the character that she plays (Beatrice Page) in FOREVER FEMALE, a real Hollywood rather than a fictional Broadway female. Ginger was then in her early forties, had often played younger than she was but was at the point where that wasn't plausible anymore, had just married a considerably younger man (Jacques Bergerac), would retreat to her ranch in Oregon to rest and recuperate from the pressures of stardom, and had no intention of retiring from the acting profession even if she realized that things would be different for her in the future. The similarities could hardly have escaped her attention when she studied the script.However, on a deeper emotional level she probably wasn't playing herself. As I recall it, Ginger played divas at least three times, in WEEKEND AT THE WALDORF, FOREVER FEMALE and BLACK WIDOW. They are variations based on a similar template, and she seems to have approached these characters from the outside, as if they were the products of her observations and mimicry abilities, which were considerable. The chorus girls and radio singers and shop girls of her earlier career she seemed to grasp from within; in any event, she seemed more suited to such roles. But like for Beatrice Page, those days were over for Ginger whether she wanted them to be or not. There's a sense of vague desperation to her performance here, and genuine emotional depth is only reached towards the end, a rather greater depth than the Epsteins provided in their writing, I think. The script and the production of the film are marred by a lot of odd contradictions. Rogers intentionally plays Beatrice somewhat over- the-top, as is mandatory for any proper diva, but the hammiest performance by far comes from Patricia Crowley, who practically shouts her way through every line. Between her idiotic 'Siamese' this and 'Siamese' that, and her repeated silly name changes, she is, indeed, about as irritating a character as I have ever come across. Trying to sell that character as a great young actress was as impossible as trying to sell Patricia Crowley as Paramount's hottest new star. FOREVER FEMALE probably never had the 'oomph' to be a major success, but the publicity campaign that it received concentrating on Crowley's prowess surely served as a final nail in its coffin.William Holden played the kind of naive doofus that he'd been saddled with for most of the 1940s, but after SUNSET BOULEVARD such roles seemed terribly inappropriate for him and I believe that he's miscast here. In fact, Holden was much closer in age to Ginger Rogers than he was to the much younger Patricia Crowley, so how is Ginger making a fool of herself in going after him while he winds up naturally paired to Pat? The casting works against the themes of the film. Paul Douglas, however, is rock solid as always.I'm really being too hard on FOREVER FEMALE, wishing for what it might have been rather than appreciating it for what it is. The writers of CASABLANCA, a trio of leads with enormous accomplishments, an interesting subject which is handled with some wit, FOREVER FEMALE is a decent movie. It's just that it should have been a whole lot more than decent.

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.

mark.waltz Playwright William Holden finds he can't handle leading lady Ginger Rogers, whom he miscasts in his play, presenting her as a 29 year old when she should play the character's mother instead. Rogers is an aging actress who won't face the music about the age while promising actress Patricia Crowley is anxious to play the role Holden had originally conceived to be 19. Crowley, who sounds amazingly like Ginger, tries to win Ginger's love (and the part) while Rogers' producer ex-husband Paul Douglas fights his undying feelings for her (admitting that their marriage was horrid) while keeping her career going.The obvious comparisons to "All About Eve" (complete with Broadway archetypes such as press agent Jesse White) can't be avoided (much of the story is set in Sardi's), but this is more of a spoof of that great drama with obvious camp moments. Hollywood doesn't always do justice to its presentations of what life in the theatre is like, but this one manages to be acceptable. Like he did in 1950's "Sunset Boulevard", Holden plays a writer, but this character is as far from the role of Joe as you can get; In fact, his character works part-time in a grocery store! Rogers, still beautiful and charming (as her actress on screen is constantly referred to as), seems to enjoy spoofing her image, but is much less caustic than Bette Davis's Margo Channing in "All About Eve", and Crowley's starlet (who does refrigerator commercials) is no Eve Harrington. Crowley, later a star of sitcoms ("Please Don't Eat the Daisies") and soaps ("Generations", "Port Charles") is a promising ingénue (getting special billing as the film ends), but is far too young for Holden.Overall, the film is interesting, basically a well-written sitcom with some nice character performances by veteran James Gleason as Holden's Broadway pal and Maidie Norman ("Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?") as Rogers' maid.

kenjha An aging stage star tries to hold on to ingénue roles. The screenplay is by the Epstein twins (Casablanca) based on a play by Barrie (Peter Pan). Given such pedigree, this comedy falls short of expectations but it is fairly enjoyable and has witty dialog. It's helped by good acting from Rogers as the actress in denial about her advancing years, Douglas as her supportive ex-husband, and Holden (on the verge of super-stardom) as a writer. A screen shot at the end of the film touts Crowley as a future star at Paramount. She never became a star, but she went on to have a long TV career, and she is winning here as a perky young actress.