I really wanted to like this movie. I feel terribly cynical trashing it, and that's why I'm giving it a middling 5. Actually, I'm giving it a 5 because there were some superb performances.

Fanciful, disturbing, and wildly original, it announces the arrival of a fresh, bold voice in American cinema.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

...where there would be worksheets with 4 drawings and you would have to select the one which didn't belong. Well that's why this film series is such a mess. There were 4 films in a series: "Four Daughters" (1938), "Daughters Courageous" (1939), "Four Wives" (1939) and "Four Mothers" (1941). And even though they had almost all the same actors (with the notable exception of Fay Bainter), in "Daughters Courageous" the actors play different characters in a different setting. And if you don't know this -- as I didn't when I started watching -- this is a pretty confusing film. What happened to the mother; oops, different characters. What happened to the father that instead of deserting his family, he now seems to be the perfect father; oops, different characters.The cast here is likable enough: Claude Rains as the musician father, Eddie Albert as one husband who's a scientist, May Robson as the aunt, Frank McHugh as another husband, Dick Foran as another husband, the Lane Sisters as the wives (along with Gale Page). No one is particularly great or bad; they all do their jobs.The plot seems slapped together. McHugh sells shares in a real estate project in Florida which is swept away in a hurricane. The whole town has invested in the sunken project. The father (Claude Rains) decides he will pay back everyone in the community for their lost investment...although that seems to get lost in the plot before the end of the film. The highlight is that Rains conducts the symphony orchestra...although I fail to see what that has to do with the lost investments. At least they live happily ever after.Pass this one by. Instead watch the really good film in the series -- the one that doesn't fit -- "Daughters Courageous".

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.