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.
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.