edwagreen Donna Reed and Tom Drake are a perfect pair in this 1946 light film about a returning soldier who doesn't know that the love of his life has been promoted in the place they both work in and as has a new love life interest.Margaret Hamilton reminded me of Lily Tomlin with the way her hair was set for this film.The wonderful supporting cast tries to keep the news from Drake for the two weeks that he is in before he'll officially be discharged from the army.Invariably, Drake finds out the truth and the group sets upon an idea to bring the two back to each other. How they compare it to selling shoes is funny.Sig Ruman is great as the Russian music teacher who is occupying the apartment that Reed left when she was promoted.Light fanfare with Harry Davenport good as the great-grandfather to Drake, who hopes to see him marry Reed.

dougdoepke Jeff returns from WWII, during which his girl has been promoted to department store executive and is now engaged to another man. So, just how much has war changed the homefront. Typical MGM second feature of the time gives their younger players a chance to shine, while backed up by a veteran cast of supporting players. It's strictly lightweight since all dark traces of war have been removed from Drake's returning soldier. As a comedy, it's more sweet and mildly amusing than funny. Drake's ultra-boyish Jeff is the idealized boy-next- door, while Reed's conflicted Jean is still the picture of wholesomeness. Together, they're the audience's ideal young couple for facing a post-war future, with all the essentials moving into place. Above all, the movie works to reassure anxious movie-goers then readjusting to peacetime.The comedy itself depends on two extended segments—the "mad" Russian (Ruman) playing cupid, and the shoe department "merchandizing" the couple back together again. And although the veteran players try hard, the episodes come across as more frantic than sparkling. Too bad the studio didn't assign a more talented comedy director with a better sense of timing and pacing. True, Drake may never have become the studio's second Van Johnson, while Reed is mainly remembered as one of TV's favorite moms. Still, the two do have their moments of genuine charm in this otherwise forgettable period piece.

gkeith_1 My observations: Postwar hilarity. Tom Drake and Grandpa from "Meet Me in St. Louis" two years later (the year I was born). Donna Reed charming and pretty. Margaret Hamilton good as always; smaller part than in "Wizard of Oz". Spring Byington way prettier, also with the prerequisite perky small nose lacked by Hamilton. Tent scene at end with former boy next door was hilarious. As a two year veteran of Army tents, he looked pretty youthful and inexperienced when I looked into his eyes.I used to work in a department store, and it was just as elegant as this one. Sadly, it has disappeared and faded into obscurity. We were famous for those great show windows that were used to lure passersby into the store, to get them to buy all of that wonderful merchandise.10/10

valinis On the surface, this is an above-average post-war romantic comedy. Beneath the veneer, it is MGM character actor stunt-casting at its funniest.The leads are straightforward, but all the secondaries are cast much against type. Margaret Hamilton (aka Wicked Witch of the West), Edward Everett Horton (professional obsessive-compulsive fussbudget), and Sig Ruman (the Marx Brothers' nemesis in _Night In Casablanca_ and the always-wonderful _Night At The Opera_), playing a well-intentioned gang trying to bring the two leads together, instead of driving them apart as their "usual" characters would do.It also pokes fun at many romantic-comedy conventions, which is another indication that this could be not so much a "straight" romantic comedy, as it is a wry send-up of the many post-war romantic comedies & their 2-dimensional, stock characters.I've seen it only once, with interruptions, so I can't be positive, but this movie may be one of those that worked better in the context of the time at which it was made, but is less successful now that viewers "see" these secondary characters through a completely different lens. I'm assuming this is the case when I give it 9 stars. I thought it was hysterical.