Conta solo l'avvenire

Touching weeper about a man (Orson Welles) who goes off to fight in WWI, leaving his wife (Claudette Colbert) behind. Colbert is told he was killed in action but, in fact, he survived but was badly disfigured. He allows his wife to believe he is dead so that she can move on with her life. Decades later, Colbert is married to another man (George Brent). The son she was carrying when she believed Welles had died is now grown and believes Brent to be his natural father. Welles arrives in America to work with Brent, not knowing he is married to Colbert. Welles also brings along his adopted daughter (a very adorable Natalie Wood). It's a good movie of its kind with a trio of great leads and some impressive support from Wood in her first sizable role. It's also directed by Irving Pichel, an actor-turned-director who was quite underrated as both.

This excellent 1946 vehicle provides Orson Welles with a role that he is most sympathetic with. Married to Claudette Colbert in this film, he is soon declared missing and dead. Colbert quickly remarries a wealthy gentleman who is most sympathetic when this apparent tragedy strikes.

Fast forward 20 years. By chance, Colbert comes across Welles in a new disguise. This is all coming about as World War 11 will envelop Europe. It appears that Welles was not killed off during World War 1, but merely was missing and apparently suffering from amnesia.

The film becomes a heartbreak after this. Both Colbert and Welles really are conflicted here. She suspects that he realizes his true identity now and he realizes that the son she bore is his.

Both Colbert and Welles put on some very fine acting here in this film where you had better have plenty of handkerchiers available.

What a powerful story! So powerful to me, at least, that I have only watched it one other time and have little desire to see it again.....even though it's a fine movie. It's too frustrating a story for me, frankly. I could NOT have done what Orson Welles' character did in this film. Welles, by the way, is outstanding in here. He, Claudette Colbert, George Brent and Richard Long provide some wonderful acting.

Long, playing the elder son, presents a tremendous contrast of how a young man acted back in the 1940s compared to nowadays in terms of of respect and manners. The little girl in here is played by Natalie Wood. I wouldn't have known it was her had she not been mentioned on the back of the video box. She has blonde hair and is about five or six years old, and does an impressive job speaking German.

This is a real heart-rendering story. The only drawback is the credibility of Colbert's character, "Elizabeth Hamilton," the wife of Welles. A supposed war victim and gone for years after his marriage to her, Wells - despite now having a beard and aging a bit - would still be recognizable (at the least, audibly) to his former wife. It was asking a bit much to believe she wouldn't realize it was him, but it's still good storytelling and a film that hits you deeply. Speaking about the last point, if you liked 1942's "Random Harvest," you probably would like this, too.

My brother, Joe, joined the Marines right after Pearl Harbor, as an underage boy with false papers. So did his cousin. Now it's over seventy years later and for the first time I realize the anguish of my mother and all mothers when their sons went to war. Claudette Colbert stole my heart as she made me understand what my mother, and all mothers then and today, must have been going through when their sons (and now their daughters go to war).

I was 3 1/2 years old in 1942, and so during the war, while he was in the South Pacific, I heard my mother's stories about 'Brother Joe,' that she told so that I would understand that I had a brother and he would eventually come home and live with us.

Natalie Wood is a wonderful surprise as a tiny war orphan, perhaps eight years old; Orson Welles was at the top of his form, but Claudette Colbert was the brightest star of this film.

This is not an anti-war film, it's much more a 'why we must go to war film.' There's a lot of philosophy buried in the script, but it never slows the film.

Warning, bring at least two handkerchiefs to "Tomorrow is Forever".

I tried to see this film before because I remember the very beginning, but I guess I was interrupted. This time I saw it through and realized I was watching greatness. This film has outstanding dialog and a very nuanced script. Oh if people today could only write like that....it is no wonder I watch old movies. This film is a clinic on dialog.

The acting was great across the board but the direction, story, script and casting were especially good. It was a tightly woven story and an unusual one at that.

Wells put in his best performance. Could it have been better, maybe but the way he delivered those heart rending lines...........well maybe it couldn't have been much better. His deep rich voice together with the tenderness, wisdom, and compassion. Well it doesn't get much better. People who didn't appreciate that have not actually experienced life yet. Do not miss this when it comes around again, I know I won't.

How good was it? Well this is the first time I felt compelled to comment on any films here.