The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

The first must-see film of the year.

The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

Easily the biggest piece of Right wing non sense propaganda I ever saw.

The last of the Warner Brothers movies about the Lemp sisters has three of the four mothers. And they are carrying on the family tradition of having daughters. With four daughters, three daughters and his sister May Robson around will Claude Rains ever get a grandson.Some of the usual family problems are there as the daughters go through the adjustment to marriage. Jeffrey Lynn and Priscilla Lane aren't sure Lynn should take a job offered him in Chicago. Dr. Eddie Albert is just too busy at the research lab and Rosemary Lane is feeling neglected. Dick Foran and Gale Page seem on an even keel. Most successful is Frank McHugh and Lola Lane who got in on a real estate boom and sold a lot of shares to townsfolk through Claude Rains's good name.While McHugh and Lola Lane are visiting from Florida a hurricane and tidal wave wipe out that community McHugh was talking up. McHugh is flat broke and a lot of the town 's citizens have taken it on the chin.As is usual for the Lemps daughters and sons-in-law band together to get the family through the crises, big and small.Family patriarch Claude Rains who in his career played an astonishing range of roles that included two members of the Bonaparte family and Julius Caesar has the most normal part in his career that of Adam Lemp. I'm sure he must have liked the change of pace.After almost 80 years Four Mothers still holds up well as good family entertainment.

Pet Peeve: miss-using and over-using the phrase, "had very little to do." Someone picked that up from a professional critic and it keeps getting passed around. It's not a catchall phrase. Does that really apply here? This is the same group carrying the movie as before. It's a big family, and the immediate members are the focal points. There are four daughters, after all. The husbands are naturally lesser support figures. There is a problem with this one in particular, but let's s try to be accurate about it. Actually, most take issue with this particular script. It's not the distribution of labor; it's what the writers did this time. Perhaps there was criticism that the family was too squeaky clean or something along that line. They just seemed to disassemble everyone, only to put them back together again - quite artificially in both cases. Whatever it was, it was not effective. If you like hanging out with the gang in general, you might enjoy this one for that reason. But, if you want to remember them pretty much as they were, best to skip this one.

This sequel to "Four Wives" (which itself was a sequel to "Four Daughters") came out a year and 10 days later. In many ways, this third film in the series seemed unnecessary, as things seemed quite resolved and fine as they were left off at the end of "Four Wives". But, the films were successful, so Warner Brothers brought back the entire cast for yet another installment--necessary or not! While at the end of the second film it seemed like all was perfect for the family, "Four Mothers" manages to do something that I am sure few in the audience liked--stripped away the family's successes and bring them low. Who thought this was a good idea considering how beloved the characters had become in the two previous films?! One plot line has a marriage to a researcher on the rocks because of his devotion to his job. Another features the rich sister and her husband losing everything--including the good will of the community. Another has two and of the sisters and a husband caught up in the beginning of a love triangle! And, finally, the father's house is about to be taken from him!!! What in the world were they thinking?!? Why not just give them all the plague or have them killed by a serial killer?! While this was all pretty awful, the way all these dreadful plots magically worked themselves out perfectly (too perfectly) was also bad--very bad...and unnecessary. In TV language, it's obvious the film series had jumped the shark! Despite good acting, the script simply isn't up to snuff and it makes you scratch your head and wonder who and why did anyone approve this daffy script! A poor way to end the series. Oh, well...at least all the babies in the film were awfully cute.

Four Mothers (1941) ** (out of 4) Claude Rains along with Priscilla Lane, Rosemary Lane, Lola Lane and Gale Page return for this second sequel to Four Daughters but it's clear the studio was desperate for cash. This time out the family finds themselves falling apart after they lose all their money due to a hurricane. WIll they end up broke or will things work out for them? I'm pretty sure you already know the answer to that so in the end this is a pretty worthless film that only has some strong acting for it. Rains delivers his strongest performance of the series and the Lane girls do just fine as well. The supporting plays like May Robson, Dick Foran and Jeffrey Lynn are also back and they too do fine work but the screenplay gives them very little to do.