donwc1996
I can't believe that I just sat thru this film. James Stewart came off as so naive and really creepy. Margaret Sullivan played him along after she found out she could/t get rid of him. She should have told him right at the top that she was in love with Walter Pidgeon But, no, she didn't " realize" that Stewart was in love with her. The ending was real bad--so convenient for Stewart to die in battle. HELP!
jjnxn-1
Beautifully wrought picture with exquisite performances from the two leads. Margaret Sullavan was truly one of the most effective actresses of the golden age, able to wring the most genuine emotions out of any situation. The brevity of her filmography is really a shame. Much more comfortable on stage than film she was reportedly difficult to work with because of her discomfort with the medium but even with that delivered the goods once the camera started to turn. She and Jimmy made a great team since her slightly bruised fragility always blended so well with his gentle naiveté. The story is just a boy meets girl tale with a few twists but because of the stars as well as Walter Pidgeon, complicating matters but also being wise and warm, and the always amazing Hattie McDaniel, being her usual flip self it remains involving throughout. The ending is heartbreaking in its simplicity.
marcslope
Even the great Margaret Sullavan can't make sense out of a character who starts out as a bossy, obnoxious, self-centered Broadway star, is humanized by hayseed soldier James Stewart by about the third reel, suddenly becomes a Nobly Suffering Heroine, still leads steady beau (and keeper) Walter Pidgeon on, and tries in every way to have her cake and eat it too. Later Sullavan and Stewart have a contest to see who can have the wettest eyes. It's a Borzage-like romance without the Borzage touch, and with cliches that must have been cliches even by 1938--the chorines trilling "Pack Up Your Troubles" as the World War 1 soldiers depart for France (and Sullavan's incongruous dubbing is unintentionally hilarious), the lovestruck private dreaming of his ladylove while peeling potatoes, the bombs-bursting-in-air war montages with ominous music. Amid such blarney it's a relief to have Pidgeon's unsentimental if slightly inert presence, and Hattie McDaniel as a maid who seems smarter and more commonsensical than anyone else in the movie.
Enrique Sanchez
What others might say is a lack of chemistry between Stewart and Sullavan in this charming picture, is what I call "acting".People from widely different social circles react to situations differently. It is evident that the rich talents of these two actors contributed strongly to the feeling question of their compatibility.
That is the whole point of this story! The examination of things that sometimes happen during a war between unlikely pairings.Without trying to reveal any of the story, I will say that one never felt as if Sullavan portrayed the complexity of her character without conviction, in fact, she did it admirably. She merely expressed it in the only way that a person of another "class" from Stewart's would. What I did find refreshing in Sullavan's character, although taken from the mold of a Broadway star, she displayed none of the expected snobbery which those parts normally include. It made her character all the more likeable.
Stories about romance during a war are filled with stories that sound fantastic - but may have very well occurred. This movie is no exception and I took that perspective into account as I watched the story unfold.I would recommend this movie to any fan of James Stewart or Margaret Sullavan. They delivered their parts with originality and a lack of staleness which is normally associated with such simple stories.
AD
