Herm Schoenfeld of "Variety" unfavorably compared the film to "The Little Foxes" (1941), writing that it is "without the same dynamic power of story, acting, and social preachment. Also unlike 'Foxes,' this film hasn't a single moment of contrast; it piles on and on a tale of woe, but without once striking at least a true chord of sentimentality." Mae Tinée of the "Chicago Tribune" wrote "All the acting is commendable, but somehow for me, the characters seldom 'came alive.' ... And I guess I wasn't alone in that action, because people sitting me exhibited a baffled restlessness." Manny Farber, reviewing for "The New Republic", criticized Welles's radio-style approach writing: "...at the times when something is on the screen and Welles tells you what for. Meanwhile, for something to do, you count the shadows. Theatre-like is the inability to get the actors or story moving, which gives you a desire to push with your hands. There is really no living, moving or seeing to the movie; it is a series of static episodes connected by narration, as though someone sat you down and said "Here!" and gave you some postcards of the 1890s."