The Gay Sisters (1942) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
22 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
8/10
Now we know where Gig Young got his name
blanche-231 July 2005
It's a little disconcerting to have a character named Gig Young in a movie...played by Gig Young. But this film is where Gig got his name and also a nice career boost after playing small parts under another name.

I'm going to go against the majority of the other comments and state that I really enjoyed this film, mainly because of the vibrant performance of Barbara Stanwyck as Fiona. She was funny, angry, vulnerable, caring, and feisty as the oldest of three daughters whose mother died on the Lusitania, and whose father was later killed during Woar War I.

As the "man" of the house, Fiona has stood steadfast for years against settling her father's will which would therefore allow a Donald Trump type named Charles Barclay to get the family home. But Fiona's keeping a secret as to why she hates Barclay so much. Geraldine Fitzgerald is the middle, flirty sister, who is married to an Englishman but craves her youngest sister's boyfriend (Gig Young).

If you're a Stanwyck fan, this is a no miss.
37 out of 42 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
I love Barbara Stanwyck, BUT...
AlsExGal1 October 2020
... are you offended by marital rape being played as romantic comedy?? Me too!

The three Gaylord sisters, , Fiona (Barbara Stanwyck), Evelyn (Geraldine Fitzgerald), and Susie (Nancy Coleman), are left orphaned after mom goes down on the Lusitania and dad is killed in WWI. They have a Jeff Bezos sized inheritance coming to them, but the years drag on and everybody is suing claiming a piece of the estate. They grow up in court says one, leaving them cash poor and land rich.

Then a turn of luck. A relative dies and leaves 100K to Fiona as long as she is married. So Fiona tricks a lovestruck (more like lust struck) construction worker Charles Barclay (George Brent) into marrying her. She fakes a fainting spell right after the ceremony, and while her new husband is off getting her an aspirin, Fiona is making her escape and leaves behind a letter and 25K. But Barclay comes back sooner than expected, reads the letter, realizes he's been had, and the presumption is that he forces her. To the tune of comedic Warner Brothers score music???? This is not a Bugs Bunny cartoon folks.

So six years pass and Barclay is now a real estate developer financing the people who have the best claim to the still embattled Gaylord estate because??? Even if the charity he is financially backing got the 10% of the estate they claim is theirs, his cut would not be the Gaylord mansion, which is what he says he wants. Is Barclay 50 years ahead of his time in using the legal strategy of losing until the other side surrenders? Why is Gig Young playing Gig Young? Does George Brent enjoy playing all of these Warner Brothers characters whose motives don't make lots of sense? Why is Geraldine Fitzgerald being passed off as "the pretty sister" with Barbara Stanwyck on stage? Beats me and I watched it twice.

I'd recommend it because of Barbara Stanwyck, but you will have to leave your modern sensibilities at the door, and even then, this is somewhat cringey.
8 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
2/3 of a great film
zetes19 April 2002
Three girls, the youngest descendents of the Gaylord family, one of America's most royal families, are orphaned at a young age. Right before he goes off to France to fight in WWI, their father tells the oldest, Fiona, never to sell the land. By the time the sisters have become adults, they have had to squander most of their money to pay for lawyers to defend their property. Through certain loopholes in the father's will, a man named Charles Barclay stands to gain possession of the Gaylord land, on which he wants to build a complex called Barclay Circle. Barclay is actually based on John D. Rockefeller, who was buying up land and buildings from affluent families in New York so he could build Rockefeller Center.

This film deals mostly with the melodramatic concerns of the three sisters. Fiona, well played by Barbara Stanwyck, although it's certainly not to be counted as one of her best roles, seems like a cold, domineering woman, and it becomes clear that she has some skeletons in her closet. Susanna, played by Nancy Coleman, is a little ditsy and completely in love with a young modern artist named Gig Young. Coleman's was my favorite performance in the film. Evelyn, played by Geraldine Fitzgerald, is a rather pretentious seductress with a monocle who married into noble blood in England, but that doesn't stop her from trying to steal Gig from her sister. The three sisters are developed quite well but, as is the major trend in The Gay Sisters, never well enough. Charles Barclay is played by George Brent. He isn't very good. Well, he would be satisfactory if the story had played out the way it should have, but he always seems like a scumbag in the film. When we're asked to sympathize with him late in the film, it's impossible. Gig Young is played by, huh?, Gig Young. No, he's not playing himself. What happened is that the actor, who had acted in several movies previously under his real name, Byron Barr, was pressured by Warner Brothers to change his name to something more catchy. I'm not sure who made the final choice, but he eventually changed his screen name to Gig Young, after the character whom he plays in The Gay Sisters. Weird, eh? Young is quite good through most of the film, but the script does some unfortunate things with his character late in the film which ultimately harm the audience's sympathy for him. In two other supporting roles, Helen Thimig and Gene Lockhart are quite good.

The Gay Sisters had great potential to turn out to be one of the great cinematic family sagas. The characters are all interesting, as are their situations. Unfortunately, the script never strives for anything more than the simplest melodrama. If it had made the interrelationships of all the major characters more complex, fleshed out, for example, the rivalry between Evelyn and Susanna or made the flashback more intricate, the film could have been fantastic. It also could have fleshed out the prologue more, let us know more about the Gaylord family. We need to care more about the characters and we need to sympathize with them more. And the ending needed some major fixing. It basically just gives up at the end. Fiona's problems are solved so poorly that it hurts. Whatever sympathy her character had gained as the film progressed falls apart. It's also far too happy. This story seems moving towards tragedy, or maybe just a sense of historical significance or loss. And we still hate Barclay. And the conflict between the two sisters and Gig is never solved. As bad as Fiona's story ends, Susanna's, Gig's, and Evelyn's is even worse.

I still liked the film. It's thoroughly watchable, even if it doesn't involve us like other great films of the era. 7/10, mostly for its potential. It should have been remade, or the novel should have been re-adapted, at some point during the studio era. It is too dated to be remade now. The 1950s would have been the best time, during the time of films like Giant.
24 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Fascinating and dramatic--One of Stanwyck's best
SHAWFAN10 October 2011
Most of your reviewers certainly had an aversion to this film. One of them even asserted it had no music despite an excellent score by Max Steiner. I thought Barbara Stanwyck with all her emotional storms and plottings really sizzled. This must have been one of her best roles ever. I couldn't stop watching it though I came in somewhere in a courtroom scene after the beginning and missed all the prologues. I thought the emotional relationships of everybody involved were strong and fascinating. In contrast to most of your reviewers I thought the plot lines got wrapped up satisfactorily and clearly and I was quite happy with how everything finally turned out. Especially with Stanwyck and Brent trying finally to make a go of it basically because of their child. Call me soft hearted and sentimental but I felt for them and their final solution. Though this film rubbed most of your reviewers the wrong way I loved it and thought it was great.
24 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
A not-quite-right script
vincentlynch-moonoi3 December 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this film is that supporting actor Gig Young, became Gig Young after appearing as the character Gig Young in this film.

Aside from that, it's a very watchable film, although there's something that -- to me -- doesn't seem quite logical. It begins with three sisters whose mother is killed on the Lusitania. Then, in a sentimental scene, their army officer father goes off to World War I and is killed in action. The film then picks up with the adult sisters fighting in court for their inheritance against antagonist Charles Barclay (George Brent), who argues against the original will based on a later will. From there the story rambles from the love-hate relationship between Brent and Stanwyck and the romantic triangle between the other two sisters and Gig Young. What is this film? A farce, a comedy, a soapy drama? The director doesn't seem to be quite sure.

If there's any reason to watch this film, it's not the script...but perhaps it is the performances. Barbara Stanwyck is not a very likable character here, although given the script, she plays it well. For a great deal of the first half of the film, George Brent doesn't have a lot to do, even though his character is key to the plot. Geraldine Fitzgerald is fine as one of the sisters, as is Nancy Coleman. Donald Crisp has a rather nice supporting role as a lawyer, and I couldn't help but think what a versatile character actor he was. Gene Lockhart plays a kiss-ass lawyer.

Not a great film...a flawed script...but decent acting. Not one for the DVD shelf, but perhaps worth one watch when it's on TCM.
8 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Gaylord Family Values
bkoganbing25 July 2019
The longest running case In New York County's Surrogate Court is the one about recent tycoon George Brent has going against the Gaylord sisters who were all quite young when their mom was lost in the Titanic and their dad killed in World War I. Now another World War is happening and the grownup sisters Barbara Stanwyck, Geraldine Fitzgerald, and Nancy Coleman.

Stanwyck and Brent have some serious if secret history and a product of said history is young Larry Simms. The two can't stand each other though obviously at one time they could.

A subplot involves Nancy Coleman and Geraldine Fitzgerald fighting over Gig Young. He's a modern artist keeping company with Coleman. Fitzgerald went over to Great Britain and married a title. Her husband is MIA with the Royal Air Force and she's come back to America.

Gig Young who was born Byron Barr apparently liked the character name and took it for his own. He got his first real notice in The Gay Sisters. It certainly worked for him.

Originally this was assigned to Bette Davis, but she rejected it the brothers Warner went outside the studio for Barbara Stanwyck. It's a great part for Stanwyck as she shows a whole range of emotions here. Gene Lockhart has a great part as a weasel of an attorney ready to sell out the Gaylords. He was so good in those type parts.

The Gay Sisters is a fine bit of drama that holds up well after over 70 years.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Popular novel makes popular film!
JohnHowardReid2 November 2016
Warning: Spoilers
This one is a lavishly and glossily produced weepie melodrama, full of the usual tried and true plot devices. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the situations are even less convincing than the average. On the other hand, it does have a remarkable flashback sequence where the off-screen commentary (by Barbara Stanwyck) is impishly biting and satirical. Most of the players are also more convincing than we might expect. Barbara is delightfully cool and assured in a tailor-made role. She has the lion's share of the action as well as the most fetching costumes. George Brent, on the other hand, starts well but soon reverts to type. On the other hand, it's always a pleasure to watch players like Gene Lockhart and Donald Crisp go through their paces. Donald Woods has an impressive opening scene, but then unaccountably disappears from the action altogether. But most impressive of all is young Larry Simms, of all people ("Alexander" in the Blondie series), who gives a surprisingly skilled and realistic portrayal in a rare dramatic part. P.S. I would describe Erville Alderson's role as that of a witness rather than a farmer.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
pretty good Stanwyck. not so shocking now...
ksf-22 August 2019
Barbara Stanwyck, Geraldine Fitzgerald and Nancy Coleman are the Gaylord sisters. when the parental units croak, they must find a way to hang on to the family compound. Right at the beginning, we see that mom Gaylord has died on the Lusitania, and dad is going off to war, certainly an ominous start to the film. Then we're at the court house for some reason. The co-starring men are Gene Lockhart, George Brent, Gig Young, and Grant Mitchell. some pretty big hollywood names backing up this film. Grant Mitchell is the head of the group fighting to gain control of ten percent of the family fortune. Eighteen minutes in, we finally hear from Barbara Stanwyck, one of the heiress sisters. and the strongest one. she clearly runs the show. she has fired the family lawyer, and now they are scrambling to find a good lawyer to help them in court. Turns out that someone knows a secret about one of the sisters, and that secret could be worth a lot of money. It's pretty good! clearly, secrets and things that might be shocking in 1942 are really no big deal today. it was a different time, and of course the film code was in full force in the 1940s. Directed by Irving Rapper; had made SO MANY films with perfectionist Bette Davis... he must have been a pro!
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
fascinating film
bailodhia9 April 2007
This was probably one of the most well-made films of the 40's - Warner Bros. at the very height of their style. The photography by Sol Polito is arguably his finest achievement - gorgeous compositions and lighting with delicate shadowing. Max Steiner contributes one of his most complex and beautiful scores - the epitome of his classical leit motif method. The music adds great emotion and excitement to the plot and is exquisite and memorable. It's interesting to note that the same production team that made this movie went right on to make "Now, Voyager" later that year - a fine film which won honors and awards and went down as a historical favorite, ciefly because it starred Bette Davis. IN my opinion, "The Gay Sisters" is a much better film - better made in all departments, and more interesting, complex and enjoyable. A most unusual film which entertains those who take it for what it is, rather than project their own modern creative sensibilities or their advanced and demanding standards of hyper-critical perfection. Each thing has to be judged in it's own time reference and for what it is trying to achieve on its own terms. Most of the complaints I've read in these reviews are so childish and totally missing the point. If you're hungry for a perfect filet mignon, don't go to the bakery counter and start whining and complaining about the fluff pastry. The art of film criticism is truly lost on a large segment of the population. Sorry folks - maybe if this movie had had a score by the Rolling Stones and a hundred intricate and soul searching subplots, you'd all be gleefully gratified. I'll take an old movie without modern intellectual pretensions an day of the week!
37 out of 50 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
It's a real head-scratcher...
mrsastor15 May 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Spoiler alert – although I think this one was spoiled coming out of the can… It's hard to even imagine that a film with these stars, from this studio, made at this time period, could be so awful, but it is. It is the film's biggest flaw by far that it just doesn't make any damn sense.

Rich widower American aristocrat Penn Gaylord leaves his small daughter "in charge" and goes off to World War I where he is killed. Then we flash forward to present day (1942) and total confusion. The three sisters are in court where they are said to have spent the last twenty years, and some jerk named Barclay is trying to take their home away from them. This is just the beginning of an endless series of unanswered questions that comprises the script, more holes in it than The Warren Report. What happened to the Gaylord fortune? If the will is worth half a billion, why has the family home gone from an opulent palace to the house on The Munsters? Who the devil is this Barclay clown? And why is he able to take someone's home away from them? The questions just pile on top of more questions.

The usually affable and charming George Brent is playing Barclay, who is inexplicably a total sod tromping all over everyone, taking whatever the heck he wants no matter who it belongs to and without a twinge of guilt; yet no one besides Fiona (Barbara Stanwick) seems to particularly dislike this cretin. Why? None of these questions are ever answered. We instead just follow Fiona's life from one train wreck to another, the evil Barclay takes away her home, her fortune, and even her child. What does she do? Shoot him? Set him on fire? No, too logical. In a completely improbably wrap-up, this woman, who's only prior romantic involvement with Barclay was, save for the technicality of marriage, rape, suddenly decides mid-sentence (literally) that she does not hate him, she loves him. And they're going to live happily ever after. All of a sudden for no reason in the world, this early female role model of independence and authority is transformed into the usual helpless ankle-twisting twit more commonly found in films of this era. Yeah, sure, steal everything in the world that belongs to me and I'll fall in love with you. On what planet does that happen? I can only guess the reason I never heard of this film before I happened to catch it on Turner is that it was as lost on contemporary audiences as it is today.
14 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Good melodrama
hmpulham14 August 2002
When you have three fine actresses like Barbara Stanwyck, Geraldine Fitzgerald and Nancy Coleman, plus an intelligent script, and a good director, you have a very watchable movie. What makes the film particularly good is, that it concentrates on lives of each of the three sisters. Yes, it is a chick flick, but as a man, I found it quite engaging. The one weakness of the film, is George Brent, he lacks sexuality. But, the important point is, that it is an interesting story line, with complexity, and sophistication.
16 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
"What I want, I take, and what I take, I love."
utgard145 August 2014
The three Gaylord sisters (Barbara Stanwyck, Geraldine Fitzgerald, Nancy Coleman), lose their parents at an early age and fight to keep their family mansion. George Brent plays the guy after the mansion and when you find out why your eyes will roll so hard they'll fall out of your head. Stanwyck is feisty to the point of obnoxiousness and Brent is a prick. He's also a rapist, if I interpreted one crucial scene correctly. Very disappointing melodrama with a plot that's much ado about nothing. Inappropriate moments of humor don't help. Protracted opening with Donald Woods as the father who goes on and on about the family legacy and what it means to be a Gaylord has next to nothing to do with the rest of the movie. One little bit of interesting trivia: actor (and future murderer) Gig Young took his stage name from the character he plays in this movie. Before this he went by his real name of Byron Barr.
4 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A threefold dilemma
dbrayshaw25 July 2019
Like so many movies that were produced in the B&W era, much of this one is filled with melodramatic scenes and lines written to carry along the diverging feelings of a family of three sisters whose lives intermingle merely because they are related, not necessarily because they agree. In fact, it is often difficult to see where the three blend as a family, except that they are guided by the commands of a big sister.

Barbara Stanwyck is that big sister who rules the roost, though not in a way that is intentionally abusive. She thinks she knows what must be done to keep things in line with the purpose she was given as a little girl. It is what her father would have wanted, a devotion to something above even God. He leaves to fight in Europe during WWI where he is killed, which places the house in the care of Barbara Stanwyck.

Do the sisters love one another? Yes, in an argumentative sort of way, as each one's desires cross the others'. Big sister wants no man in her life, doesn't trust them, considers them merely a means to an end. Middle sister is playing romantic games with her little sister's love, Gig Young, which causes the youngest to attempt a drastic solution.

In addition to a housekeeper, the three sisters share their home with a little boy who knows nothing of the secret that's been hidden for a number of years and whose future is a matter for the courts. The little fellow is one of the most polite boys I have seen on screen in a long while -- a refreshing breath when compared to today's norm.

I recommend this film despite the melodramatics. The lines are well written and well spoken. Don't be run away by the negative reviews. This one is worth the time whether you like the ending or not.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The one with the strange title
jarrodmcdonald-127 February 2014
In the case of 1942's The Gay Sisters, more is supposed to mean better. The mansion set and the very epic-like nature of the sisters' story lines signify that it is a top-grade project from a top-grade studio (Warner Brothers). Barbara Stanwyck, as the older sister, Fiona Gaylord, seems to be particularly tough. She is never really a soft-touch, except in those moments where she undergoes a severe script-sanctioned transformation. But I think she is at her most real in this film, and it is more true to her off-screen self. Like the character she plays, she was also orphaned; and also, like the character she plays, she had one son, so in many ways, this project is tailor-made for Stanwyck. It is a treat watching her, and if modern audiences can get over the title, they will discover a classic gem.
7 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
The Gay Sisters-Goes Unmerrily Off the Track **1/2
edwagreen14 November 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Donald Woods tells the oldest of his 3 daughters never to sell the land-in land there is value! This is not "Gone With the Wind" in any sense of those famous words.

There is too much going on here. After feuding with George Brent for half the film, we suddenly learn that they were once married and in a one-night stand, a child was produced.

If that isn't enough, Gig Young got his stage name from this film by playing a character by the name of Gig Young! Well, after all, they shoot horses, don't they?

It is never fully realized which sister Young goes to the tempestuous Geraldine Fitzgerald, who proved her nastiness once again and the usual benign Nancy Coleman.

Barbara Stanwyck plays the hard-boiled eldest of the 3 sisters, but in reality, she is anything but. She tries to do the ultimate in the end by giving the child up to dad, George Brent, but you know where that will come to.

Gene Lockhart, as a family attorney, showed that he had some devil in him, by embezzling family funds and Donald Crisp showed his meddle as an understanding but extremely competent attorney.
4 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A powerful drama about a powerful family consumed by red tape.
mark.waltz5 December 2012
Warning: Spoilers
This highly underrated drama has seemed to have lost its way along with the many court documents filed in the case of the Gaylord family. Whuile the story seems to wallow in the melodramatic structure of soap operas, it is interesting, not only for its outstanding leading lady (Barbara Stanwyck) but its view of the family traditions of honor and the sometimes seemingly hypocritical lives of those in the public eye. This could be influenced by any number of celebrity poor little rich girls, from Barbara Hutton to Doris Duke, with the Gaylord family obviously influential in New York society like the wealthy Astors were around the same time.

Young Ms. Gaylord (Mary Thomas) is first seen with her widowed father who is going off to fight in World War I, and the strength of her character dissolves when she realizes her legacy. As 25 years go by, she turns into a force to be reckoned with. Stanwyck, one of the greatest powerhouses of the golden age of Hollywood, delivers a performance that covers all emotions-toughness, vulnerability, humor, and even sexiness. Once again, she is paired with George Brent, the man making claims against the estate. Geraldine Fitzgerald and Nancy Coleman give strong performances as her sisters, with the wonderful Donald Crisp in great support as the family retainer. A great deal of the detail is shown with everything that wealthy families like this go through in estate court, creating law books based on their probate case, and being utilized by law students in their studies. While the narrative gets a bit overwrought by sudden revelations that pop up out of nowhere, it is unique in its storytelling even if at times it does seem to be rambling all over the place.

Overshadowed possibly because of Warner Brothers' two other soap operas of 1942 ("Now Voyager" and "King's Row"), "The Gay Sisters" is certainly better than their other "sister soap", "In This Our Life", in which Bette Davis and Olivia de Havilland played two sisters, one irredeemably bad and the other oh-so-sweetly good. Each of the sisters has their own distinctive personality, although it is made very clear who is boss when Barbara Stanwyck is on screen.

The music department and photography of the Warner Brothers production team made sure that every detail was outstanding, and the artistic look of the film is breathtaking. The storyline is romantic and filled with conflict. It is certainly no different than what producer Ross Hunter and director Douglas Sirk would do with the series of soaps they made at Universal with such leading ladies as Stanwyck, Jane Wyman, Lana Turner and Susan Hayward. The film is also noteworthy as the major debut of Gig Young who liked his on-screen character's name so much that he utilized it for his professional name.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Could Have Been Great
krocheav22 December 2012
I have to agree with the majority of other reviews posted here. This film gets off to a cracking good start. So good that I wondered how they were going to keep up the strong pace. They didn't!

Now I know why I had not heard of this film before seeing it on TCM. Maybe Warners buried it early after release, yet it did display some 'crowd pleasing' attributes.

So confusing was this film, we had to stop and re-watch parts over to see if what 'seemed' to be happening, actually was!

Great cast, great production values, great cinematography, great music, but oh, that overly odd, quite unbelievably resolved story!
4 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Unfocused and La-di-da
Handlinghandel18 July 2005
When I'd seen the name of this movie, I'd always thought it was a musical. Like "The Harvey Girls." It's not. It's a pudding that overcooked, hit the kitchen ceiling, and was pried off and cobbled together. No music and not a period piece but thoroughly improbable.

It starts with patriarch James Woods telling the eldest of his three daughters, a small child who grows to be Barbara Stanwyck, that she must maintain the family name and home.

We thus think it is going to be a historical intergenerational tale. And it is, for a brief time. Then it turns into the story of cold-hearted Stanwyck's fight against lawyer George Brent. Why is she so dead set against him? Well, why else? As we learn in a strange flashback sequence narrated by Stanwyck, she had once thought she could inherit some money (for her sisters as well as herself, of course) by marrying. She hit on someone she took to be a country bumpkin, who was in fact budding lawyer Brent.

Lest anyone think the child they had, a young man of eight or so at the time of the main plot, is -- well, you know ... They had a hasty marriage and during the very short time they were together, he was conceived.

One of her sisters is in love with a painter named Gig Young, who is played by Gig Young. The other sister tries to take him away. Etc., etc.

It is a shrill, unengaging mess -- well enough acted but without a shred of logic or plausibility.
6 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
It's odd that with such an impressive cast that they'd give them a rather limp script.
planktonrules7 May 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Despite the titillating sounding title, the film is about the three Gaylord sisters--not some weird porn flick.

The film begins with a father about to go off to war. He tells his oldest daughter that if anything happens to him to NEVER sell the family estate...never. Well, not at all surprisingly since it was telegraphed all the way, the guy is pushing up daisies almost immediately afterwords and for the next 23 years (yes, 23 years), the will is in probate--being contested by all sorts of folks. During all this time, the oldest daughter (Barbara Stanwyck) is steadfast--no matter what happens, they will not sell their home.

The particular party who is now contesting the will is Charles Barclay (a great choice for a name, huh?)--played by George Brent. Why he and Stanwyck are fighting so bitterly and why he insists he MUST have the mansion (even though his cut, if the court upholds it for Brent's charity, is only 10% and they'd never award him the mansion) is eventually revealed...and this seemed pretty dumb. Although you never had any indication of this before, you find out that the two had very briefly been married--and almost no one knew about it. This is very awkward and the flashback scene showing the marriage and breakup is poorly done and makes no sense. Why they had it narrated was odd but also what was odd was why Stanwyck stomped off in a huff almost immediately after the wedding. WHY?!?!?! None of this made any sense and just seemed random and illogical. What was even more illogical was after their divorce, Stanwyck had his baby and told no one whose child it was--claiming she'd adopted it! Huh?! The rest of the film consists of very nasty Stanwyck and almost as nasty Brent arguing until, thankfully, they make up and the film ends (and wow, did it take too long for this to happen).

Sadly, almost none of the plot made sense (particularly Stanwyck's intense hatred toward her ex-) and the film seemed very forced. It's sad, as Stanwyck and Brent were very good actors and deserved a film with a decent script...which this film did not have. Stanwyck just comes off as nasty and impetuous---and I can see why Bette Davis declined this film project--and I am surprised an actress as big as Stanwyck agreed to it. Good acting and good direction apparently can't make up for the crappy plot--and she, Brent and the rest gave it their best try.

By the way, didn't it seem like the film was possibly implying that Brent raped Stanwyck when she announced she was leaving him? See it yourself. If the film had made this clear, this WOULD have made all this drivel seem logical and worth seeing. Then you could have understood much of her anger--though you never had any idea why she married him and almost immediately announced she was leaving. Duh.

Here's an oddity about this movie. Byron Barr played a character named 'Gig Young' in this film. Subsequently, he changed his name to that of his character and that is how actor Gig Young got his name.
3 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Too many contrivances spoil an interesting premise.
cinefan-721 January 2004
Here is one of those movies spoiled by the studio's insistence on a happy ending. Conflicts which have stretched out for years are settled in a few minutes. It would have been far more interesting to inject a tone of ambiguity. The talented Barbara Stanwyck is undone by a sudden metamorphosis from independent and assertive woman to a compliant female of the kind she has put down all her life. Brent, as usual, is well over his head and then there is the ludicrous situation of Gig Young playing a character named Gig Young. Someone mentions "Gig Young" and then who appears but Gig Young, the actor! Worth seeing though far below what it could have been.
2 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
taming of the shrew
bcrumpacker6 October 2011
Warning: Spoilers
WARNING: SPOILER ALERT! Other reviews cover the basics. Some complain that the story withholds information in order to create suspense, but that is standard practice. And the dialogue about the effects of losing parents and of divorce upon children is sound. Very good supporting cast, cinematography, and score.

As usual, Barbara Stanwyck is a flaming bitch, oops, "strong woman", but at least here she has some reasons to squawk. As usual, George Brent underplays, and acts the decent fellow. His gentlemanly approach explains his popularity, and is misunderstood by other reviewers.

On the other hand, he does accept cash for a quickie divorce; commits marital rape during his brief marriage to Barbara; tries to throw the sisters out of their home; and again seduces Barbara at the end of the movie, telling her by way of explanation that she hates anything that would make her happy. So according to the script, Barbara only needed a "real man" to steer her towards her biological imperative, and to show her who is boss. Apparently this was acceptable to 1942 audiences, or at least to the studio. It just doesn't sit well with viewers now. Bottom line: George tamed this shrew.

P.S. Agreed, it's a bit surreal to see Gig Young play Gig Young.
1 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I thought it was a musical with Betty Grable.
gkeith_17 October 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I thought this movie was a Betty Grable-or-someone movie, maybe The Dolly Sisters type movie, or some song and dance 1942 outing to relieve the seriousness of wartime, but boy was I mistaken. Still, finding out that it was a drama piece actually good by Barbara Stanwyck standards, I decided to watch it. That is, after I turned on the DVR recording and found out the drama part by the host's introduction. I was intrigued enough to watch. I found the movie very interesting and impossible to stop watching. It started out with the Lusitania disaster and a wealthy woman's being killed on that unfortunate ship. Next, a World War I era soldier, in a wealthy mansion, was signing his last will and testament before he went off to war to get even with those enemies who torpedoed the ship. I looked for officer's insignia on his uniform, but didn't see any. I assumed that being so wealthy, he wouldn't just be an enlisted man. Turns out he was a major. Anyway, he meets his demise after going off to the front in World War One, and his three minor daughters are orphans. The woman killed on the Lusitania was his wife and the girls' mother. Next thing we know, the girls are grown up and supposedly penniless. An evil bad guy is trying to take away their mansion, and we spend most of the film seeing people trying to avoid him. He is successful and handsome, a namesake of our current basketball guy Charles Barclay/Barkley (?). The sisters have secrets from each other. All have been married. The eldest secretly married the bad guy, and had a child as a result of the first night of the marriage. The second sister married an English lord, but he is on the other side of the pond while she makes a play for the youngest sister's boyfriend. The youngest sister is married but trying to get an annulment while messing around with Gig Young (played by Gig Young, lol #^$%%r!!!). Later she says she got an annulment with some money, apparently to pay a lawyer, but it is fuzzy as to how this happened. I will leave plot holes to the other reviewers. Anyway, her marriage is over, and does she marry Gig Young? I don't know. The middle sister: her husband dies in a British plane crash, but she is SOL with Gig Young as he is in love with the youngest. As for the oldest, Fiona (Barbara Stanwyck), first she supposedly divorced (??) the bad guy, then at the end he says he's still her husband. Supposedly they marry/re-marry/cohabitate (??), and plan to live with the son they finally admit to having. Poor little kid. He wanted Gig Young for his uncle. I thought the monkey in the zoo was really cute. This movie was funny, maudlin, historic, etc. I enjoyed all the lawyers, especially Donald Crisp and Gene Lockhart.
1 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed