Three Sons

The first time I had seen this movie I was in my 15th year of service working for a major department store and I had just seen Three Sons again fifteen years later while still working in the same store department store.

I was so taken with Three sons that I had never forgotten it. I loved it and had wanted to see it again. Grant it this time I had missed a great portion of the film this time around as I was flipping channels but was stopped dead as soon as I had seen the title on the cable guide. I highly recommend Three sons and especially recommend it to anyone who works in retailing because you will truly understand how the company was built, how it operates, and what has kept it alive for so long.

Thank you - B R Lanoie

Back in 1933, RKO made a dandy film--one of their best of the era. "Sweepings" starred Lionel Barrymore (on load from MGM) and it was the saga of Daniel Pardway, a man who built up a large and incredibly successful department store. During the course of this rise to power, Pardway got rich and spared his four children nothing. He sent them to the best schools and they traveled extensively. But, ultimately, by the end of the film they turned out to be rather worthless...and self-absorbed. And, as Pardway was nearing the end of his life, he finally comes to realize that it was all for nothing.

Now, in 1939, RKO decided to remake the film and, oddly, entitled it "Three Sons"...odd because it's the story of Pardway, his three sons AND a daughter! It's still the same basic plot...but it offers nothing in the way of originality and offers no improvement over the original. In fact, if anything, the original was better--mostly because Barrymore was perfect and the new cast never quite reached his level of acting and realism. Now this isn't to say "Three Sons" is a bad film...the original plot is essentially there. But if you had to see one version, see the original...it's the best.

I saw this film twice on T.V., both times I was still living with my parents on our first B/W T.V.. I enjoyed it then as did my Mother, who consistently was pulling for Freddie to rejoin the family. With Abe buying up the stock that the rest of the family was selling, to which I believe was to keep the dept. store in the family which he,Abe,put in more time to build the stores size than did the the rest of the family.

I saw this a very long time ago, somewhere in the mid-50's, I thought it was a good film as it dealt with in-family conflicts when it comes to heirs keeping a family business in tact, the same conflicts are in place today as it was depicted in the film.

Thank You: W.B.Redmond

I caught Three Sons on TMC one morning and really enjoyed the movie. Edward Ellis as the father and J. Edward Bromberg deliver strong and sincere performances. The story line of four children, three sons and one daughter and how their father unintentionally spoiled them, is not unique but still holds interest. The Father rescues his children and protects them through their troubles and tribulations but they turn on him and sell him out. All except one... Freddie who you can tell has a good heart and is the "Prodigal Son". I was cheering for him at the end and his reconciliation with his father is heartwarming. Made in 1939 I suppose this film was somewhat lost in the large number of wonderful movies of that year. Perhaps the greatest year in the history of the cinema. It deserves watching for it's fine acting performances and good story line.

It is rather difficult to know what RKO intended with this sort of film.The lead role cries out to be played by a dynamic actor such as Edward G.Robinson.Instead of which we have Edward Ellis.I seem to recall him in many supporting roles.So clearly this was designed as a B feature.He plays a shopkeeper who comes to Chicago with his wife after the Great Fire and builds up the business to become a big department store only to loose first his wife to death and his children to self indulgence along the way.Even by 1939 this sort of film had been done much better on many previous occasions.Given that the film seems to cover a period of 30 years that is rather too ambitious for the allotted 72minutes.