It's interesting to read our reviews of this film here at IMDb. Interestingly, most of our reviewers give it pretty decent marks, which was not what most reviewers said at the time of the film's original release. And I must concur with those reviewers some 70 years ago. Stodgy is a good descriptor for this film, and it seemed like it went on forever. And I say that as a tremendous fan of Bette Davis. And I note that this film was made at the beginning of what one might call "the golden age of Bette Davis". By this film was not gold, rather bronze.Many viewers will be disappointed in the demise of legendary Bette Davis costar George Brent very early in the film. As stodgy as this film is, particularly during much of its early scenes, it was rather daring that Davis' character had an illegitimate child, which she then raises as a foundling.I recently read that with Mariam Hopkins, you either thought she was wonderful, or horrible, with very little room in between. I tend to dislike her as an actress, though she had some roles that were tremendous. This is not one of them, though she is passable here.To be honest, it's the last 20 or so minutes of the film where you will find the best scenes by all the actresses, particularly some strong scenes by Davis. Before that, there are occasional strong scenes, with lots of pap in between. But that last 20 minutes...mmmmmmmm.The only other actor worth mentioning here is the great Donald Crisp, who is superb as the doctor and family friend.This film is worth watching, but I doubt it'll find its way to many home DVD shelves. Some of Bette Davis' films I can watch over and over and over. But not this one. Once is fine. Perhaps if the writers had totally redone the plot it might have been a great film...as great as its initial premise.

George Brent is in and out of this picture pretty quickly - and in and out is an apt description. It is set during the Civil War and opens with Miriam Hopkins'marriage, made awkward by the untimely return of her old flame (Brent). Bette volunteers to smooth things over, and does yeoman work, giving Brent a memorable send-off back to the front... 9 months later the send-off becomes reality, and thereby hangs a tale, as they say.This is vintage Davis, better here than in Dark Victory. She is petulant and pouting and takes over the picture as the aunt/ mother to her own child, deferring to Hopkins as the mother/ aunt. She is backed up by some of Warners best supporting actors, among them Donald Crisp, Jerome Cowan and Louise Fazenda.It is very entertaining and well worth your time. It is a straight drama, with no action sequences - a soaper, if you will. But even so, it is extremely well done and holds your interest from beginning to end. In retrospect, it all sounds very hokey but the story holds up and is a must-see for BD fans.

Civil War-era cousins Bette Davis and Miriam Hopkins seem to have a close relationship while living with their wealthy grandmother in Philadelphia, but Davis is hiding a secret: she conceived a child out of wedlock with Hopkins' ex-fiancé and went West to have the baby. Upon her return, Davis opens a school for war orphans--her own daughter included!--which now infringes upon her wedding to the brother of Miriam's husband. Edith Wharton's book became a Pulitzer-Prize winning play by Zoe Akins before Warner Bros. got hold of it and turned the whole enterprise into a glossy stew for the ladies. It moves along at a fast clip, yet doesn't quite give Davis a strong enough showcase (she was never very good interacting with children, and the character of Charlotte is a bit of a puzzle). Hopkins, the unofficial queen of knuckle-biting, knows nothing of subtlety, though her fluttery dramatics goose the narrative and give the picture some camp appeal. The men are stiff and colorless, however the production is handsome and director Edmund Goulding sorts out the overly-involved plotting for us in a satisfactory manner. **1/2 from ****

This is a well made film but despite everything, I felt a tad disappointed. I think some of it might be the inconsistencies in the characters and another is probably due to the low energy level in the film. In real life, the film's stars (Miriam Hopkins and Bette Davis) hated each other and getting these divas to work together was a major ordeal. I really wish that the energy from this volcanic relationship had somehow been translated to the screen. Instead, you have two characters who have reason to dislike each other (in particular, Davis's character really had every reason to want to kill Hopkins' character), but spent the movie quietly seething--so quietly that the only sparks came out near the end and even these were quite muted. Perhaps this very controlled manner was more realistic than a histrionic relationship but it certainly was a lot less fun to watch. And, as I said at the beginning of this review, the characters were inconsistent and not especially believable. Hopkins generally played a decent person in the first half of the movie when, out of the blue, she stabbed Bette (figuratively) in the back. Then, in a subtle way she spent the rest of the film undermining Bette until the end when she repents and shows some decency. It was like the character had a case of Multiple Personality Disorder ("Dissociative Identity Disorder" for all you psychotherapists out there). And Bette was very decent in the first half of the film, only to become bitter and cranky. I understood why the writer chose to do this with Bette--showing how a disappointment in love can change a person's personality radically. But how could they explain away Hopkins' strange and inconsistent actions? Despite all this, the direction and entire production was first-rate Warner Brothers entertainment. And when Warner pulled out all the stops, their films were amazing--even if a bit flawed as in the case with this film. A bit of a disappointment, yes, as I am a HUGE Bette Davis fan, but still well worth seeing even if sparks don't fly.