Yawn. Poorly Filmed Snooze Fest.

Very disappointed :(

if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

A lot of perfectly good film show their cards early, establish a unique premise and let the audience explore a topic at a leisurely pace, without much in terms of surprise. this film is not one of those films.

Fay Wray (yes, her, the blonde from the 1933 "King Kong," still the only KK worth watching) plays the materfamilias in this family romance/melodrama. Unfortunately, she dies off from one of those romantic-era illnesses early on, leaving the family involved to the not-so-tender mercies of the scheming Susan Hayworth, who faces off against the virtuous Ingrid Bergman as the new family governess (in what was only Bergman's second U.S. film role). Hayworth is good as the greedy girl who turns the head of one of the sons of the title, and marries him, while carrying on an affair with one of his brothers. Worthwhile film but a bit predictable and corny.

I am a fan of this actress, more so than of Bergman, but Susan's acting was shall we say "Over the top"..It was early in her career so obviously she tried to make an impression by over acting. I later learned, some 20 minutes had been chopped from this women's picture...still what i saw and heard made no sense whatsoever. There was no plot really to speak of. What made her character act that way...? They were rich? She had no idea it would be the end of her by messing around with Jack, and then quickly for the third brother? She was a nut job, unbelievable. A bad performance. In a way, her character reminded me of Hedy Lamarr's character in "The Strange Woman", which she did pull it off as a possessive, manipulative B...h, but there was a plot involved at least. I later found out that Susan and Hedy were great friends. How does that saying go, "Birds of a feather, flock together"? LOL

Once again, I dissent from the majority. I thought this was a very good film, and it didn't really go where I was expecting it to go at the beginning of the film.Warner Baxter portrays the wealthy businessman whose loving family finds hard times after his wife dies and the stock market crashes (not the 1929 crash). Their governess, who had recently come from Europe, strives to keep the family together, but the hard times results in the father and the boys moving into an apartment, and the governess (Ingrid Bergman) returning to Europe. Over time, the business climate improves and the father buys back his house, but now the boys are off to war...but not before one of the boys marries Susan Hayward. The problem is that Hayward is a conniving slut. Bergman attempts to cover up the indiscretion of one son with the other son's wife in order to keep the family together. In the end, Hayward is found out by all, is forced to leave the family, and all (except Hayward) live happily ever after -- particularly Bergman and Baxter. Some viewers will be bothered by the extreme age difference between Warner Baxter and Ingrid Bergman. I'll be honest, this is the first film in which I really noticed Warner Baxter. He did a very fine job in this role, but I was startled at how closely he resembled an older Ronald Colman (without the accent, of course). Bergman is also very fine here, and it was a very positive role for her. It was impossible to like Susan Hayward in this role, not only because her character was the villain of the film, but frankly, I felt her acting was almost childish. Fay Wray was fine as the dying wife. Richard Denning turns is a good performance as one of the sons. The other actors did their parts well, though not exceptionally.If there's a criticism here it's about Warner Baxter's character (not Baxter's acting). The father figure seems terribly naive at times, although perhaps he needs to be for the script.Recommended as a very good film. In fact, I think I'll buy a copy for my DVD shelf.

I watched this one twice because being an Ingrid Bergman (and Fay Wray) fan, I was wondering why she would have ever agreed to do this turkey. The only reason I can think of is that it was early in her career and she had no choice. On the other hand she was the headliner so it would seem she must have had some pull.But I digress. The story is not a bad one albeit a tad hard to believe. You have a young woman arrive from France as governess for the family's four boys, the family's wealth evaporates, the governess returns home, WWI erupts and unfolds, ten years pass, and the governess is asked back. Give me a break! Why would they want her back, to care for the now practically grown sons? Why would she want to come back, didn't she have a life during those ten years other than pine for the patriarch she fell in love with? This premise is just way too weak to be taken seriously. Call me a grinch but it's hard to believe she had no offers during that time.It also turns out everyone involved is clearly clairvoyant. They understand things on first sight. When Emilie (Bergman) meets Hester (Hayward) she immediately divines that she is a viper. That's just one example, there's lots more. Without words or background people intimate facts not in evidence and the story moves on. I guess this has to do with character development and unfortunately there's little of that here.And then there's Warren Baxter, an actor with just one expression: a wooden one. The only reason I've ever watched a film with him was because of his co-stars. We have three here: Bergman of course, classy Fay Wray who is as beautiful as ever and always a joy to watch, and Susan Hayward in only her fifth credited part. The male parts are all forgettable, it's the women who rule this film. The tension between Bergman and Hayward is palpable although not entirely understandable. Still it adds a little spice to a yawning bore of a film so I guess that may be one reason to sit through the first half when nothing happens.