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.

MartinHafer Following "Four Daughters" (1938), Warner Brothers had almost all of the same cast return for a film that wasn't really a sequel--but it was so similar to the first film in so many ways that the audiences must have been thoroughly confused. John Garfield's character had died at the end of "Four Daughters" but suddenly he was alive and the sweet father (Claude Rains) was a jerk who'd abandoned his family two decades previous! Finally with "Four Wives" is there a true sequel. It picks up right after the first film--with Garfield's character STILL dead and his widow (Priscilla Lane) beginning to date her old boyfriend again--not knowing that she is pregnant with his child! It also finds one of the sisters (Gale Page) learning she cannot have children--putting a strain on her new marriage. Another sister (Lola Lane) is also married--leaving only one (Rosemary Lane) to try to trap, I mean 'find' a husband for herself--and the prospective groom is Eddie Albert.The main theme of the film is Priscilla's depression following her hubby's death. Eventually, she snaps out of it (of sorts) and finally marries Felix (Jeffrey Lynn)--but memories of the dead man keep intruding on their happiness. So once again, Priscilla appears to be the main focus of the sisters--probably since at the time she was the most popular of the three real-life sisters.This film is (finally) a worthy follow-up to the first film--and perhaps a bit better film (it's a lot sweeter and more sentimental). Priscilla's character is STILL a bit annoying and the rest of the folks are back just as they were in the first movie--a rather pleasant bunch who you wish could be your family! While there were no huge happenings, the film is sweet and worth seeing. Very nice but nothing earth-shattering.By the way, you may notice John Garfield in the credits--an odd thing since he died in the previous film! This is not 'zombie' John Garfield but he is shown in a somewhat creepy flashback sort of scene as Priscilla is pining for him. It's only a tiny cameo and nothing more. Also one other odd thing about the film is the scene where Gale Page has apparently arranged to adopt a baby without telling her husband. Even back in the good 'ol days, I find it hard to imagine any agency approving an adoption without the prospective father knowing!!! Only in Hollywood!And, if you care, the disease Eddie Albert's character is always talking about (Pneumoconiosis) is a real disease and comes from inhalation of coal dust or asbestos. It includes 'black lung' and several other related illnesses.

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.

Randy_D On the strength of an outstanding performance by Priscilla Lane, Four Wives succeeds as a sequel to the popular Four Daughters.Priscilla Lane gives a performance that any of the more acclaimed actresses of her time would be hard-pressed to match. She does an outstanding job of portraying a woman whose life has been completely turned upside down. How she reconciles the past, which keeps intruding on the present, will determine how well she handles the future.There is an examination of certain issues in this movie, grief, guilt, depression, and loyalty, for example, that goes a bit deeper than one might expect at first glance. At the core of Four Wives, however, is the stunningly beautiful Priscilla Lane, whose beauty is at least the equal to any of Hollywood's actresses of that era, or any era.As for the rest of the cast, Jeffrey Lynn does a nice job opposite Miss Lane, and Eddie Albert and Claude Rains both do a fine job in support. And, lest I forget, Priscilla's real life sisters Rosemary and Lola, and the "fourth" Lane sister Gale Page.After the next sequel, Four Mothers, it's too bad they didn't make one more movie to finish the series. Four Sisters has a nice ring to it, doesn't it?