InformationRap
This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.
ChampDavSlim
The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.
Edwin
The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.
Neil Doyle
INGRID BERGMAN plays a sensible, warm-hearted governess who has feelings for the head of the household, WARNER BAXTER. His four sons are shown first as boys, and then with the passage of time, as adults facing service in WWI.SUSAN HAYWARD is the bored and flirtatious wife of the youngest son, who can't resist throwing herself at the others when the mood hits her. She does her standard Hayward bit as an amoral and feisty creature who drinks hard and plays around. By contrast, Bergman is sweet and refined, and not above saving a bad situation if it will spare any embarrassment for Baxter. Her nobility is a bit unbelievable in one key sequence where she keeps Hayward's behavior a secret from Baxter.Of the sons, only RICHARD DENNING really stands out in his scenes with Hayward. Likewise, Bergman has her best moments in confrontational scenes with Hayward.But despite some good ingredients for domestic drama, the film seems to have been hurt by some bad editing and comes across as bland rather than compelling.Worth watching to catch Hayward in one of her first showy roles.
Kara Dahl Russell
In this, Ingrid Bergman's second American film, she once again plays the nubile love interest of a much older man (as she did with Leslie Howard in INTERMEZZO, which was a remake of her Swedish film by the same name). This is a period film, made in the 1940s, it is set back before WWI, so it has that "old world" feel about it, and her accent is used to great advantage, as she plays a nanny from "the old country." In the 1940s many many films had a rosy remembrance of the 1890s and early 1900s, just as today we have sweetened remembrances of the 70s, like " Almsost Famous" – a film that turns a band-following sleeze into some mythological dream girl/woman of easy sex and maternal sweetness. (Ah yes, the early 2000s, they will be saying in the future, where once again, the only purpose of a girl in a film is to be a willing vessel for a man.) But I digress… which your mind might do during this film, because it is a pretty bland and predictable story, despite the catty game playing of a young Susan Hayward. It's also a little ikky by today's standards, when we realize that we are supposed to be rooting for Ingrid to pair up with a man who looks at least 30 years older than she is. But we must remember what financial stability meant in a post depression era world.Susan Hayward has a very interesting role here. It became a prototype for her later roles, sexually and personally aggressive, and morally bankrupt. It is also interesting because you can see her acting never really changed or progressed. She had everything here in this powerhouse performance that she had as an older actress. Lots of strength and pizazz, not much nuance. (Watch VALLEY OF THE DOLLS, and she is interchangeable – just older, with a better script.) Consequently, this film gives us a stark contrast between Hayward & Bergman, heightened by this contrast in acting style. Susan Hayward hits you over the head while you're on the doorstep. Ingrid quietly lets you come inside. This makes their scenes like fire and ice, and wisely, the filmmakers let the story build to a confrontation between them. That is the best part of this film – at heart a woman's story.Being that this is essentially a woman's story, it is oddly overrun with little boys and men, older men and little boys who need to be looked after and catered to, young men in uniform who parade in like colorful birds – who need to be looked after and catered to. Ah yes, the war years.One real irony here is that Susan Hayward's character is introduced in uniform. It is not commented on at all, but instead of this conferring respect on her, we know immediately that this shorthand means she is hard, aggressive and probably sexually promiscuous. Definitely NOT what those boys were fighting for; they may have wanted Susan in the field, but they wanted Ingrid to come home to. Amusing in retrospect, and also a frustrating reminder that women who give their lives in service to their country are still regarded with an odd mixture of intangible suspicions.Somewhere in this mix is Fay Wray (I didn't recognize her)… She played the sainted, oddly healthy looking mother of the boys who dies. In the titles she is identified only by her first name, and the mother is never called by the first name within the film, it is "mother" or "Mrs.". I can only assume that audiences at this time would have known her on sight, so they couldn't conceive that one day people would be trying to figure out which one she was. Wray did a lot of work on the stage, and actually kept pace with the times, acting-wise she grew, and her work fits nicely with the more subtle work of Bergman. It is her features and profile that pinpoint her as a beauty of the silents and early talkies. Very similar build and look to Gloria Swanson.Solid, studio bound production from this period, with some unexplainable gaps of logic in the story and large gaps of time left unmentioned. This period of films was a little suffocating even for those who like it, so you can probably skip it unless you really want to see the early work of Bergman and Hayward.
mgconlan-1
By 1941 Columbia was a full-fledged major studio and could produce a movie with the same technical polish as MGM, Paramount or Warners. That's the best thing that could be said about "Adam Had Four Sons," a leaden soap opera with almost terminally bland performances by Ingrid Bergman (top-billed for the first time in an American film) and Warner Baxter. Bergman plays a Frenchwoman (this was the era in which Hollywood thought one foreign accent was as good as another) hired as governess to Baxter's four sons and staying on (with one interruption caused by the stock-market crash of 1907) until the boys are grown men serving in World War I. Just about everyone in the movie is so goody-good it's a relief when Susan Hayward as the villainess enters midway through — she's about the only watchable person in the movie even though she's clearly channeling Bette Davis and Vivien Leigh; it's also the first in her long succession of alcoholic roles — but the script remains saccharine and the ending is utterly preposterous. No wonder Bergman turned down the similarly plotted "The Valley of Decision" four years later.
ferbs54
"Adam Had Four Sons" (1941) is a perfect movie for folks who enjoy watching stars performing early in their careers. In this film, there are four such performances to draw the viewer's attention. The story here concerns the quaint Connecticut household headed by Warner Baxter and Fay Wray in 1907, and the French governess (Ingrid Bergman, in her second American film) who is brought in to care for their four young boys. Years later, trouble brews when one of the boys brings home a new wife, Susan Hayward, "the Brooklyn Bombshell," in one of her earliest screen roles. Hayward wastes no time in becoming drunken, bitchy and flirtatious, especially with the hunky eldest brother, Richard Denning, in one of HIS earlier roles. Need I even mention that a Grade A confrontation looms between the protective governess and the interloping bad girl? This is actually a very warm little movie, with nice performances by all; an involving, over-the-years type of story; and handsome production values. The three lead actresses look as beautiful as one could wish for, especially Hayward. Honestly...has there EVER been an actress with such a combination of drop-dead good looks and sheer acting ability? Not for me, anyway. But in this picture, our sympathies are completely with Bergman, and she is just radiant and lovely in her sweet role. The contrast between the two is quite striking here; what a shame that these wonderful actresses never worked together again. Anyway, I really did enjoy this movie and do recommend it to all IMDb viewers. Oh, I almost forgot. A 16-year-old June Lockhart also appears in this film; yet another early performance to relish!
