Nice effects though.

Clever, believable, and super fun to watch. It totally has replay value.

It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

Like his contemporary James Mason who came up roughly the same time as he did, Stewart Granger seemed to be born to play in these romance novel roles. In Blanche Fury he's got a nasty grudge against the Fury family who have kept him working as a groom on their estate. He's one of them, but born on the wrong side of the blanket as they said in those days. There's a dual focus in this film and it's on Valerie Hobson playing the title role as well. She's also knocked about a bit kind of like George Eastman in An American Tragedy, she's one of them, but only distantly. Still she's on the right side of the blanket and she determines to marry Michael Gough the heir to the estate for a life of ease and comfort.Granger like the real life James Scott the Duke of Monmouth searched for a connection to his father King Charles II to prove he was heir to the throne. Didn't happen for him and didn't happen for Granger But what does happen is that he gets Hobson's mojo going far more than the insipid and privileged Gough does.These are the ingredients of Blanche Fury and if you like these movies and read these novels you can pretty much guess what happens. Hobson and Granger are a stirring romantic pair, but Granger in his desire to improve his station goes quite a bit off kilter. Hobson has a choice to make and she makes it.As for who gets the Fury estate. For that you have to see Blanche Fury.

This is a hidden gem. It resembled Gone with the Wind, in its production values, with Valerie Hobsons performance a stand out revelation. She was a beautiful and superbly talented actress and I am ashamed to say that I had never seen any of her other performances. She was top notch. Granger was at the top of his delivery too, always putting his best foot forward to inspire the female fans. This is an example of an intelligently made film with charm, wonderful colour and production values and a good strong story line. It satisfies but does not stupefy. The acting is perfect in this melodrama genre piece. Great work and a great watch. Enjoy !

Blanche (Valerie Hobson) gets invited to Clare mansion by her uncle Simon (Walter Fitzgerald) to be governess to his grand-daughter Lavinia (Suzanne Gibbs). His son, Laurence (Michael Gough), stands to inherit the estate and sees Blanche as his future wife. The surname that they take is "Fury", after generations of descendants with that name, and Blanche is told to adopt the new surname. However, Simon is not a true "Fury". The only person with a claim to being a true "Fury" is Philip Thorn (Stewart Granger) who is the illegitimate son of Adam Fury. Simon keeps Philip employed as a servant and both he and Blanche are warned not to socialize by Simon. The story sees Philip trying to prove his rightful inheritance while Blanche is pushed into a marriage with Laurence.....however, destiny intervenes for Philip and Blanche....Its a good story thats well-acted by all. The version that I watched was slightly too dark in that I couldn't really make out what was happening in the night scenes. However, the colour, costume and settings add to the atmosphere - you may guess the ending but it doesn't take any of the enjoyment away from the story.It was a better film than I thought it would be.

The film is one I only saw partially once, two or three years ago. I wish it was on Video or DVD. Other early Stewart Granger historic films are out - SARABAND FOR DEAD LOVERS and CAPTAIN BOYCOTT. This one was based on a novel by Joseph Shearing, the female novelist who used a male pseudonym. All her books were based on actual crimes - see my comments on the contermporary film SO EVIL MY LOVE, with Ray Milland and Ann Todd. Here, Shearing turns to the murder, at Stanfield Hall, near Norwich, England of Isaac Jermy and his son (incredibly named Isaac Jermy Jermy)in November 1848. The perpetrator was a farmer, James Blomfield Rush, who was a tenant of the Jermys but was on bad terms with them for a series of debts he owed them, and attempts to claim title to the farm and other properties. Complicating the matter was that the Jermys title to their estate was subject to a law suit. Rush dressed in a disguise, and walked over two miles in the dark to the estate, where he shot the Jermys down in their home, and then shot the wife of the son and their maid. Apparently he wanted no witnesses. Unfortunately there were too many. Also, his alibi was supposed to be his children's governess, Emily Sandford, and she turned out to be more truthful at his trial than he hoped. The trial was notable because Rush insisted in defending himself. It turned out that he had a fool for a client. Rush was found guilty and hanged. The full story is not quite used in the movie, but bits and parts of it certainly are.