Siempre te amaré

Grace Allingham (Deborah Kerr) is an English woman struggling on the home front during WWII. French officer Charles Edouard de Valhubert (Rossano Brazzi) has a message for her from her boyfriend Hugh Palgrave. The message is nothing much and the French man is terribly rude and aggressive. It's a short romance and a quickie marriage after only 3 days.

Negging is a way of enticing gorgeous females by praising them with little put-downs. Apparently, it works on some women. It definitely does not work for romantic movies especially rom-coms. I simply don't understand the theory of it as movie writing. It's a horrible meet-cute. There is nothing funny about it although again, it may work on some people. The female in question should be uppity and bringing her down could be funny. That's not the case for Deborah Kerr. None of this is funny. Nor is it romantic. I don't get them as a movie pairing.

Rossano Brazzi plays the most arrogant man in the world in Count Your Blessings. He meets Deborah Kerr, and even though she's engaged to a fellow soldier, he actively tries to wear her down and seduce her even when she repeatedly refuses his advances. His excuse? It's wartime, and the other man "left his side unguarded." Removing the ridiculous casting decision to pick an Italian actor as a Frenchman, assuming that American audiences couldn't tell the difference between Rossano's accent and Maurice Chevalier's-who plays his father-accent, the movie is still ridiculous.

It's made extremely obvious from the get-go that the only connection Rossano and Deborah have is in the bedroom, but they get married anyway. They bicker constantly, disagree on major life issues, and suffer from culture shock at each other's attitudes. And to top it all off, before they have the chance to enjoy a honeymoon, Rossano is captured and Deborah is left pregnant and alone. She waits for years-yes, that's right, years-for him to return, and raises a son alone. She's wasted her youth and pines away for a man she only knew for a few days, and when he finally returns, they're faced with the same old problems. He's an unfaithful jerk, there's a culture clash, they don't really like each other, he's not sympathetic towards his son-but the moment they're left alone in the bedroom, all is right with the world. How are we supposed to root for this romance?

Even the title sends the wrong message to the audience! When absolutely everything is wrong with in a relationship, you should "count your blessings" and only focus on the one physical aspect that keeps you together? Well, if you subscribe to that theory, you might actually like this movie. As it is, I'm past my teens, so I have the life experience to know that the main message of the movie is wrong. I hated this movie. If there was even one more connection between the two leads, I'd have given it more leniency, but they were so incredibly ill-suited for one another! I'll leave you with one of Rossano's lines, so you can fully understand his awful character: "You must always smile at women. If they're pretty, it gives you pleasure. If they're not pretty, it gives them pleasure, and you have the satisfaction of having done a good deed."

There are two things that were really good about this movie: Deborah Kerr was in it and her wardrobe was absolutely stunning. I wasn't all that impressed with Rossano Brazzi. In the first scene, he came across as pompous and arrogant, but I did warm up a tad by the end of the film. Maurice Chavalier always seems to be playing himself in films which is okay because I really enjoy just listening to him talk. Martin Stephens was adorable, but I couldn't shake the image of him saying "Miss Giddons dear" as Myles in "The Innocents". I'll bet that he nor Deborah Kerr could have imagined that they would engage in one of the most inappropriate and creepy kisses in movie history just a few years later.

The plot was one that was hard to believe, but, look, movies are supposed to entertain. If they were true to life, we probably wouldn't watch them because there would be no escaping real life. This movie had some fun elements that made me laugh out loud a couple of times. Grace's reaction the morning after meeting Charles' "friend", Albertine, had me howling as well as Charles' reaction the Grace's handmade rug.

Someone wrote about the lack of chemistry between the two leads and I would have to agree with that to a certain degree. Both were very attractive, but together, their chemistry seemed forced. But you could attribute it to the fact that the characters really didn't know each other at all and the awkwardness comes from that.

I really watched this movie for Deborah Kerr and, in that regard, it was worth the effort. She was luminous in everything she did--just so beautiful and graceful. What this film didn't give her in content, the wardrobe department certainly made up for it. The evening gowns were absolutely spectacular and she wore them beautifully. I'm a die hard fan and would watch her read the newspaper if that's all that was available.

All in all, this movie was an okay way to kill 90 minutes.

This one is a really bad movie. The only positive remark that I can make about it is: I like Deborah Kerr, and she is acting in it.

The script is a pure disaster: The story does not work because of the many inconsequential, unbelievable, and spiritless emotional reactions, even in potentially dramatic situations. There is absolutely no chemistry between the leads. Instead we are bored by much talking in stupid, meaningless dialogs throughout the plot.

I think it would be unjust to say anything about the actor's performances here. The defect that is caused by such a bad script cannot be neutralized or even compensated by the best actors in the world. Nor is this possible for the director or the cinematographer, who appear to have done a solid job.

I give this a 6/10 because it is not boring and because I am an easy grader. I was so confounded by the script I could not be bored.

First off, why is Rossano Brazzi playing a Frenchman? But that is the least of this film's problems. At first I thought I was watching a movie about a war ravaged romance (Kerr as an English woman and Brazzi as a French officer during WWII). Then I thought I was watching a movie about a British woman forced to deal with the stresses of surviving a war alone while raising her young fatherless son. After that I thought I was watching a movie about a reunited culturally blended family attempting to make a go of it after nine years of estrangement. I couldn't be more wrong.

This turned out to be a movie about hypocritical counseling from one French philanderer about another. As the "wise" uncle-counselor, Maurice Chevalier rationalizes to the despondent and confused Miss Kerr about her husband, his nephew; "you married a Frenchman. You cannot make him into an Englishman or an American . . . If you want to be happy you have to think like a Frenchwoman". With that Deborah Kerr responds with the only logical response in the movie; "we'll it seems as if I'm expected to do all the changing. It's a bit one sided don't you think? And why can't marriage change both husband and wife? . . ." And the scene that sums it all up; as his son watches on, Rossano Brazzi unapologetically ogles Parisian beauties for his offspring to observe.

What is Brazzi doing? At first it seems like he may be maintaining multiple households with multiple wives. But then in one scene with one of them he is just having them take dictation. Is he a bigamist? Is he part of some secret business deal he cannot let his wife in on? Nope, he is just a philanderer on a grand scale. Also it seems like Brazzi and Kerr's characters only have anything in common in the bedroom. They bicker the rest of the time. And the son? Is Kerr sure the dad is not an American? Because the son turns out to be a capitalist extraordinaire. He tries to keep them apart when they separate so that they do not reconcile since he can get much more stuff when they are in a bidding war for his affections.

Recommended for the weirdness of it all. I blame "Around the World in 80 Days". After that film won the Best Picture Oscar in 1956 in spite of just being one long travelogue, lots of films emerged whose producers and directors seemed to think that they could just shoot on location in Europe and put up any kind of drivel as a plot and succeed. This seems to be one of those films.