Good start, but then it gets ruined

The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

Yo, there's no way for me to review this film without saying, take your *insert ethnicity + "ass" here* to see this film,like now. You have to see it in order to know what you're really messing with.

Comedy and drama is not a common mix of the silver screen. Probably because it's a tough thing to blend the two and have the end product come out well. Meaning, of course, that it is palatable to the public. When it works, it usually provides a sparkling product. "The Impatient Years" is one such film. It combines comedy and drama with some other genres as well. Wartime romance, love and family are part of this 1944 Paramount film. I couldn't help but think how this film must have struck a chord with some audiences of the day. World War II had been raging for five years, and America's young men had been in the fight nearly three years. Some childhood sweethearts married before the young men went off to war. Many couples met while servicemen were on furlough stateside, and some married during leaves. What must it have been like for those couples on their next meeting, or after the war? "The Impatient Years" looks at that situation and addresses the question with an eye of realism. The screenplay is superb as it combines comedy with the drama. It doesn't dodge the difficulties such couples might encounter. But it uses comedy to lighten some moments. Underneath the surface, little embers of the original romance that led to this union still smolder. We of the audience want to nudge the guy or the girl to make the first move. Finally, a plot to have the couple relive their meeting and whirlwind romance and marriage is the vehicle to ignite the spark of their love. And that happens with absolutely howling humor. Jean Arthur, as Jamie Anderson, shows the range of her talent and acting abilities. She was undoubtedly one of the finest comediennes of the silver screen in the 20th century. Her humor wasn't slapstick, antics or witty dialog. Rather, it was situations. Those involved more ability for acting, and none could do better than Jean Arthur. With mood swings, character changes, facial expressions or changes in voice, Arthur could segue from serious to funny at the drop of a pin. Lee Bowman is a fine match as Staff Sergeant Andy Anderson. Bowman is hardly remembered today. He never rose to the top as a leading man in Hollywood. But for the late 1930s and through the 1940s he had leads in some lesser films and played top supporting roles in some first rate films. In "Impatient Years," he has some of the funniest retorts – all delivered with a straight face or turn away.The supporting cast for this film are all very good. Charles Coburn is wise and funny as Jamie's dad, William Smith. Charley Grapewin and Grant Mitchell are hilarious as the hotel bellboy and clerk, respectively. This movie has a happy ending, and may have been an encouragement for young couples who wed during the war. For audiences far into the future, it's a sentimental and humorous look at a time in history with particular unusual situations in the starting of families. The film doesn't dodge the awkwardness and difficulties of young wartime couples setting up house. And its last half hour has some of the most hilariously funny scenes ever put on film.

When a couple who married impulsively are separated after three days and reunited after he returns from active military duty, they discover they don't even know each other and decide to divorce even though she has had a child. The wife's father doesn't approve of the divorce, and the judge decides to test their marriage even further by sending the couple back to where they first met to re-live their romance. Both are stubborn, but with the interference of some eccentric characters, this couple just might find out the hard way that they do love each other.Jean Arthur and Lee Bowman are the young couple thrown together by circumstance in a situation they don't want to be in with the other. Charles Coburn is the delightful papa who interferes with the couple, and "Uncle Henry" Charley Grapewin is the over-the-hill bellboy in the San Francisco hotel who takes it upon himself to keep them together no matter what. Edgar Buchannan (as the judge), Harry Davenport (justice of the peace) and Jane Darwell (his wife) offer support and much advice, particularly that of how war-time weddings weren't always thought through, a reflection of the loneliness of the era even though it was a very romantic time, in movies, music and for the homesick sailors on leave longing for the war to end so they could return home.This movie offers a gently written scenario, sweetly spoken in a soft manner that helps with a plot line that at some points seems to be going all over the place. This was Jean Arthur's last contract film at Columbia, and she gives a very dignified non-frenetic performance. As for Bowman, he seems to be a missed opportunity, a romantic hero that never rose above mostly second leads, this film being perhaps his only chance to become a star. This seems to have fallen through the cracks of classic films to be remembered, perhaps because it is so low-key, a valentine to a softer side of the war.

I disagree the movie is just ordinary. While somewhat predictable in its outcome, the uncomfortable interaction between and Mr. and Mrs. Anderson was delightful. Her father provided the kind of advise Dr. Phil could learn from. Whenever I watch the old movies for the first time, the notion of a simpler time in America and the world is refreshing. I don't want to see the same garbage we call movies today. Hollywood's golden era need not be ashamed of "The Impatient Years". It takes us back in time to when saying "I do" was supposed to mean something. Thank you Jean Arthur and Lee Bowman for an uplifting movie experience.

While I am a huge fan of Jean Arthur's films, this final film from her Columbia Pictures contract is a rather mediocre film--at least compared to her more famous films (which are many). Now this isn't to day it's bad--certainly not. No, it's more just a film with excellent acting but a premise and writing that just don't deliver.Jean and Lee Bowman star as a couple that knew each other only a few days before they married. He then shipped out overseas after only knowing her four days. When he returns, it's now very awkward since they hardly knew each other and it seems that what they do discover about each other they don't like! This is an excellent idea and could be the basis of a good film (sort of like a follow-up to THE CLOCK--an excellent Judy Garland film where she meets and marries a nice guy she hardly knows). However, what happens next is pretty silly and impossible to believe. They decide to divorce and the judge (Edgar Buchanan) decides to follow Jean's father's advice (Charles Coburn) and sentence them to spend four days together re-living the four days they'd previously had--in an effort to get them to realize WHY they married in the first place! This plot device is just silly and impossible to believe. However, if you look past this, the film is amiable enough and entertaining. Not a great flick, but certainly a must for Jean Arthur fans. Also, it is interesting to see Coburn playing a not-so-gruff "nice guy" role for a change. I actually watched the film mostly for him, though I also adore Jean's films.