barrymn1
It's clear that Warners was attempting to repeat the same success they had with "Four Daughters" right down to casting a number of the same actors. Rolland Young and Fay Bainter (along with the wonderful May Robson) are among my favorite character actors of the era.Priscilla Lane is just fine, but Jeffrey Lynn really isn't a particular good actor. Yes, he was fine in "All This and Heaven Too", but he's dull as dishwater in "A Letter to Three Wives". Joseph Mankiewicz referred to him as a "leaner" - a weak actor. He was right.All in all, it's a very watchable Warners programmer of the late 1930's. I can think better ways to waste my time.
timothymcclenaghan
Rounding up much of the cast of the popular, money-making film, "Four Daughters", Warners Bros. probably figured that it made sense to keep "teaming" Priscilla Lane with Jeffrey Lynn. In my opinion, they do play well opposite each other, as they did in the aforementioned film, and subsequent films in which they appeared together.The material is dated to us, so take it in the context of the time in which the film was made. Consider it a period piece as you do when you watch films like "Patriot" or "Marie Antoinette". You expect actors to behave as they did in the time, and the plot to be consistent with the thinking of that era.But, even taking all that into account, it's a so-so film. I suspect the Broadway play upon which the film is based, was toned down to meet censorship rules, and that must have weakened the story considerably.So,don't blame the actors if this film doesn't come off as great cinema. Nevertheless, it's worth watching if you like the particular actors appearing in this film.
reelguy2
Jeffrey Lynn gets a real bum rap by one reviewer on this site. He has an impossible part to play here, in which he's subjected to Priscilla Lane's endless platitudinous chatter. It's certainly refreshing to see a liberated woman in an old movie, but Lane's character is positively emasculating. Under the circumstances, Lynn does very well. Based on a popular play, this film was considered racy in 1939. Seen today, it's so innocuous, it's almost offensive! Needless to say, Lane retains her virginity even though she goes away for the weekend with boyfriend Lynn.Forget the sociological implications, however, and you have a reasonably witty entertainment, successfully "opened up" from its stage origins.
Randy_D
While this story of an unmarried couple's weekend together is obviously tame by today's standards, Yes, My Darling Daughter does have a moment or two that is a bit on the racier side. Well, at least for the time it was made.Led by the beautiful and unfairly underrated 'Lane, Priscilla' (qv), this movie has a good ensemble cast, with maybe the exception of Jeffrey Lynn.While Lynn has been likable in his other movies with Priscilla Lane, i. e. _Four Daughters (1938)_ (qv) and _Roaring Twenties, The (1939)_ (qv), he doesn't come across as the most likeable character. Or the brightest, either. In other words, if Priscilla Lane asked me to spend a weekend with her, platonic or otherwise, I think I would show a little more enthusiasm than he did!Anyway, Yes, My Darling Daughter is worth watching, thanks in no small part to the aforementioned Miss Lane.
AD
