Cleveronix A different way of telling a story

Gurlyndrobb While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

Marva It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

Logan By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

bkoganbing Four Wives is the first sequel in the saga of the musical Lemp family that Warner Brothers brought to us in Four Daughters. This family film about widower Claude Rains and his four musical and unmarried daughters struck a nice note with the movie going public in 1938 and John Garfield in his screen debut earned himself a Best Supporting Actor nomination. Garfield is back here, but only in flashback to the original film.The main plot line involves Priscilla Lane who ran off with Garfield leaving Jeffrey Lynn at the altar and in a lurch. Garfield still comes between them and he's left a permanent reminder of his brief marraige to Lane.The others also having their early marital adjustments, Lola Lane to banker Frank McHugh, Gale Page to Dick Foran and Rosemary Lane still unattached to Priscilla's pediatrician Eddie Albert. Albert seems to fit right in with the general harmony of the group.One thing with the Lemps they seem to do everything together from playing classical music with their music teacher dad to having babies. The only question left unanswered is will Claude Rains ever have a grandson in this girl's town he's started.Four Wives is a worthy film, a fine sequel to Four Daughters and Warner Brothers wasn't through with the Lemp family yet as soon enough out came Four Mothers.

jjnxn-1 Follow-up to Four Daughters is okay but pushes the mawkish sentimentality pretty hard. Most of the cast perform well. Frank McHugh is most appealing as Lola's flummoxed husband and Priscilla Lane is good in her bruised sadness unable to move on or get over her guilt after her sudden loss in the original. Claude Rains and May Robson add their special brand of enjoyment but really are wasted in small supporting parts. The one actor who is terrible and throws the whole enterprise off is Jeffrey Lynn, supposedly an ideal man he is attractive but a dull, bland presence and the constant comparison to the magnetic John Garfield who is superimposed throughout only makes him worse. Plus he must be the most unconvincing orchestra conductor ever! Curtiz gets the job done direction wise but he must have recognized the mediocre quality of the script and just moves the story from point A to point Z with none of the flourish he could infuse into a superior project like The Adventures of Robin Hood.

misctidsandbits I like this family overall. It's a rich blend of some vital elements. In this particular series, as with others, the savor seems to diminish a little as it goes along. But, with that, the core group is always there and I find it a winner. The first is the best, this one weakens with script, and the last one has a real problem script-wise. While some are impressed with the portrayal of Ann as the disturbed widow and reluctant fiancé, I find that a rewrite of history from the initial film. I wanted Ann to throw that junk off and get with it. Jeffrey Lynn's character should have gotten a purple heart for long suffering in this one. It's a reversal of what they had going. In the first film, Ann was realistic as the overly sympathetic young woman who went so far as to marry a guy who needed her, when the one she really loved was seemingly not available to her. Okay, all that got fixed and fixed well. This film seems to moot the turnaround, and we find her more focused on her unsatisfactory dead husband and pushing away the true love who is readily available to her now. Yes, she does find she is carrying the first husband's child, and becomes emotionally vulnerable in her memory of him. That can happen, but it just wore on me. However, I still valued the film because of the winning ensemble and overall premise.

iammrssmith a silly movie from the 30's that show how much we have changed. Today, no such movie would ever be produced, but then again one never watched a movie from that era for social understanding. the acting is .....well....bad, the plot, convoluted. Mothers having babies, adopting babies, getting bored with adopted babies and giving them again to someone else. But the gowns are gorgeous, so that is important. I have only seen the first two of the series, and am only familiar with one of the actors. this is classic Hollywood, happy stories with Oh so happy endings that bear little resemblance to reality. So if you are bored on a Sunday afternoon, and want to see something frothy and silly, this series is right up your ally. Just don't be surprised if you go into diabetic shock.I guess because they made three of these movies they must have been popular in the 30's. thank God we grew up.