Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

Worth seeing just to witness how winsome it is.

I don't see any poor people, except the servants of course, when i see this picture. There is idleness all around. Everybody seem to be asking for a good thrashing on there buttocks, preferably engineered by their servants. I guess this is the American way: To believe to be a millionaire - some time in the future until you are too old to believe anything anymore. How else could you explain poor people voting republican? Stupidness knows no boundaries - ask an(y) American. They all look at themselves as temporarily embarrassed millionaires as John Steinbeck put it. Imagine that! How could anyone be so screwed and evil, by the way, then who but a very evil person would like to be rich while others are poor? Well, most of these evil persons are poor anyway, thankfully.

This rarely seen film is a fairly average British Gainsborough drama that is lifted by a sneering, saturnine performance from darkly handsome James Mason. The sheer presence of the excellent British actor enhances the film by a mile, and it's interesting theme of spousal abuse make it worth watching.Mason stars as the husband who taunts his wife with verbal (and occasionally physical) abuse. His constant abuse and his general disinterest in the union cause his wife to turn to drink, and she eventually degrades into an alcoholic. The film follows the wife's plight as her two sisters try to save her from this nightmare marriage as well as focus on their own lives.Mason enhances the rather dry script, taken from a novel, with his characteristic smooth, sardonic dialogue delivery. You've seen him in this role for Gainsborough films at least half a dozen times, yet his portrayal still works. Mason provides the film's highlights and his character is far more interesting than any of the transparent, thinly created sisters. That said, Phyllis Calvert gives a strong performance, the film's second best, as a concerned sister who is childless.If one does not know of the off-screen relationship Mason has with the actress playing his daughter (later Pamela Mason)one would assume their scenes together as father and daughter are tinged with incest. His embraces are frankly disturbing in their affection and his wish to dominate over her life is paramount. This incest angle could be due to Mason's real-life affection for the woman, or the film-maker's actual intent. Freudian theory and psychological explanations were very much in vogue in the mid 1940's (see Spellbound, The Seventh Veil). Mason's suffocating love for his daughter projects what little humanity and affection he possesses-it is a dastardly love but a love he is still capable of. In some strange way, this could redeem his character.Overall, watch it for Mason. He is terrific in all of his films and he does well with his role in this one.

I once read an article which stated that Phyllis Calvert and Peter Murray-Hill would have been "Britain's Nick and Nora" had they made more films together. On seeing them act separately in films, I took that commentary to be a bit too hopeful. Then, I saw "They Were Sisters". And - move over Myrna and Bill! When together, Phyl and Peter did not seem at all like they were acting, they were just a happily married couple bantering, teasing the other lightly and ad-libbing as if they were not in a movie at all, but just out for a weekend picnic. Their scenes together were by far the movie's best.At the other end of the scale is James Mason and Pamela Kellino (later Pamela Mason). They were playing father and daughter in the movie, and if you hadn't known about their off-screen relationship, seeing the way they interacted on the screen would have been a bit worrying.With the wrong actors, "They Were Sisters" could have easily been a ridiculous farce, and at times it does begin to stray towards over-acting. But with the right actors, including the three youngest children, it comes across perfectly and is a movie well worth watching. 10/10

Possibly the most compelling, if not nauseating depiction of non-physical domestic abuse that I've seen. Also, it seems about as clear as it could be at the time the film was made that the James Mason character is having a sexual relationship with his daughter, and the dynamic in their relationship is sometimes a bit too real to watch. James Mason seemed to get typecast in this sort of role for a while, probably because he's so good at it.