Watch The Gay Sisters For Free

I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

The Worst Film Ever

The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

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.

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!

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.

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.