utgard14 Young couple struggle to make their marriage work. He's a dreamer (aren't they always) and she tricked him into marriage in the first place (ugh). This movie offered nothing that I haven't seen before. The characters whine a lot and it got on my nerves. Then there's the speeches. So many I lost count. The cast looks great on paper but mostly disappoints. John Garfield is one big sad sack of gullible self-pity. Anne Shirley, an actress I absolutely adore, can do little to redeem her character. She starts out likable enough but once her wretched sister gets in her ear, she becomes a manipulative brat. At least she's pretty to look at. On the plus side, there's Claude Rains and he's always great to watch. Maybe I'm being too hard on it. The story and characters are sincere enough. I've seen many of these "plight of the young married couple" movies from the time, many from years before this film. But the staginess and dated ideas make it all seem pretty tired.

hollywoodlegend This film is a comedy with sad parts. If you want to see the past, the fashions, the way women were treated, or just escape from modern films, you might enjoy this. I watched it solely for Claude Rains, but found the female lead to be very likable and certainly very pretty. A girl of 22 meets a man at her new job, and they begin a solid friendship. I liked that she wasn't a typical girlie-girl, trying to catch a man. She was a person first and very honest. It's her sister who is determined the two must marry. The marriage runs into trouble mostly due to finances--nothing much has changed in America, has it! Claude Rains is absolutely charming as ever, kind, gentle, funny, and very devoted to his daughter. It shocked me that a 1940s film, or any father, would tell his daughter it was OK for girls to sow some "wild oats" as well as boys! Dad's action toward the end of the film shocked me as well, and overall this was a fairly poorly written, unrealistic kitchen-sink drama. However, Anne Shirley is so lovely and likable, and Claude Rains is wonderful. Great to see him not playing a villain or an overly intense individual for once (though he did that so well!) Worth seeing for those two actors. Without them, it would be a miss.

edwagreen The director of this film died recently as we was approaching 100. Dennie Moore, who plays the common Gertie, with a typical Brooklyn accent, turns 99 in December.Wonderful seeing John Garfield in a non-gangster role. As the sympathetic Sims, an inventor whose a dreamer, Garfield etches a totally believable character. Anne Shirley plays the girl who loves and tricks him into marriage.Garfield plays basically another George Bailey type. The opportunities are there for him but situations arise which prevent him from fulfilling his dreams.Claude Rains plays his philosophical father-in-law who plots to do away with himself so that Garfield and Shirley can live happily ever after.The two work in the same office, fall in love and marry. With the coming of war, she gets laid off and he is asked to take a pay cut.Sad but realistic. This true to life film does end happily.

jaykay-10 The picture is consistently out-of-joint as a result of the filmmakers' decision to deal with some rather substantial issues (marriage, poverty, ambition) as themes appropriate for a lighthearted, quasi-comic treatment. Smiling and accepting throughout, the characters suffer no more than mildly bruised feelings before turning their thoughts toward supposedly better days ahead. Seemingly, just about any setback can be overcome by optimism, however groundless, and an acceptance of whatever it is that life holds. That such naive characters would presume to counsel one another verges on the ludicrous. None is a success, all have been manipulated by others and by the vicissitudes of life itself - apparently without having learned a thing from their experiences. The wisest, most thoughtful of them all, played by Claude Rains, has good advice for his family, but has achieved no measure of success. Anne Shirley, sweet and innocent, lacks the wherewithal to come to grips with life. The foremost liability here is the egregious miscasting of John Garfield as a wide-eyed, vacuous sap who, for all intents and purposes, might have been born yesterday. What may have been meant to be a refreshing change from his familiar type of character results in a role which is not beyond him, but beneath him.