It's a really sweet story, but the execution of it to bring it to our screens is disappointing.

The A to B of 'Never Say Goodbye' is rather endearing, with people reconnecting. However, how the film fills in the blanks is kinda shoddy. I found a lot of the dialogue to be cringeworthy and the way characters act came across as irritating. I will say most of that stems from the final 30 or so minutes, it's a tad more solid up until that point.

The cast members themselves are good, it's all well acted. Rock Hudson, Cornell Borchers and George Sanders are all decent value. The look of the film is also pleasant enough. I just wish the production itself, namely on the writing side, was more well made.

Clint Eastwood has a blink-and-you'll-miss-it uncredited role, though is named - as 'Will'. Still a fair few films until his career really got going.

While melodrama has been very variable in film and television history, with a mix of very moving and sometimes tense and also too soapy and over-heated in the case of others. Rock Hudson was always a likeable actor, especially in romantic comedies, and George Sanders has always been a favourite of mine since his voice work in 'The Jungle Book'. Being one of the best at that time at being cads and villains and possessors of one of the most distinctive and beautiful speaking voices in film.

'Never Say Goodbye' was something of an uneven film to me. There are a fair share of good things, including one particularly great performance, but also an equal fair share of shortcomings, including most of the traps melodramas have fallen in a number of times. 'Never Say Goodbye' is a long way from a bad film, there are far worse films out there including this type of film. It is also a long way from great and too much of a mixed bag for me to consider it particularly good.

The best aspects are the production values and the acting. The film still looks very handsome and ravishingly shot in Technicolor, while uncredited Douglas Sirk's contribution is skillful enough. The music is haunting and not too overwrought. Some of the film is poignant, especially the more tragic elements of the story.

Of the performances, Sanders comes off best, have always found it interesting when actors that specialises in a certain type of role go against type and pull it off equally as well as their usual roles. Sanders' character is a far cry from his caddish and villainous roles that he was known for, he has seldom been more sympathetic (even in 'Call Me Madam', another atypical role that he did beautifully) and noble and it comes off beautifully. Cornell Borchers (an unfamiliar name) also comes off beautifully and is very touching. Shelley Fabares is affecting as the daughter. Hudson's performance is uneven, much of it being down to how his character is written, but when his character isn't a jerk he is charming and dashing.

However, there are things that don't come off particularly well. When made to behave like a jerk, Hudson didn't seem comfortable with it and was out of his depth and the character's jealousy doesn't seethe. At times it seemed too melodramatic, at other points it was too reserved. The chemistry between him and Borchers varied as well, it was charming to begin with but loses its sparkle and becomes bland later on (was also rooting for her character to leave him). The direction fares similarly, Sirk's contribution shows how he was one of the few directors to play to Hudson's strengths and understand them whereas Jerry Hopper's direction was undistinguished with little of the hold no barrels approach that the film would have benefitted from.

Furthermore, the script manages to be both over-heated and under-nourished, lots of soap and syrup overdose but no substance underneath. The story becomes too excessively melodramatic and over-heated, as well as lacking in passion and rather dully paced. The characters became a lot less easy to care for and why Borchers' character would find any appeal in him later didn't come over as realistic.

Summarising, very mixed feelings here. 5/10.

I recognized this movie about ten minutes in, but if you want to save yourself the guesswork, it's a remake of 1945's This Love of Ours, starring Merle Oberon. Both films start off showing a dedicated father raising his young daughter alone. Her mother is dead, and she's built a little shrine in the gazebo outside that makes her feel safe and loved. Then, the father is having drinks at a restaurant and he sees a woman that looks familiar. Cue the flashback of how he met his wife and started a family.

The major difference in this version from the original is George Sanders's character (Claude Rains in the original). Back in 1945, he was a foppish cartoon artist bordering on flamboyance. In the remake, George is still an artist who draws caricatures, but he's not silly. He's clearly in love with his friend (Miss Cornell Borchers) but can't speak up because he knows she's in love with Rock Hudson. Rock is such a jerk in this movie and makes so many mistakes, it's a wonder the movie wasn't entitled "How Many Times Can Dr. Parker Foul Things Up?" He's so incredibly unlikable I have no idea why Cornell wouldn't transfer her affections to her devoted pal, George. If you're a fan of his, you're going to want to sit through this lousy movie to see his range. I've never seen him in a role like this, and I've never seen such sensitive, loving expressions on his face. I didn't know he had it in him! The rest of the movie (the mystery and the love story, and the reasons behind everything) is very disappointing, but George Sanders is great.