Faithful in My Fashion
Faithful in My Fashion
NR | 21 August 1946 (USA)
Faithful in My Fashion Trailers

A U.S. Army sergeant is home on leave to reconnect with his girlfriend he hopes to marry. However, in the years he's been away, she's gotten a huge promotion where they used to work together - and has become engaged to another man.

Reviews
Protraph

Lack of good storyline.

... View More
Crwthod

A lot more amusing than I thought it would be.

... View More
Marva

It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

... View More
Raymond Sierra

The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

... View More
MartinHafer

Jeff (Tom Drake) has been away at war for years and has just returned home. The first place he goes is not home but to see his fiancee, Jean (Donna Reed), at her job at the department store. However, she's now engaged to another man...but doesn't tell him and her co-workers go along with this. So through most of the movie, she lies to him as they plan the wedding!"Faithful in My Fashion" has a LOT running against it. After all, WWII had just ended and the notion of a guy coming back from the war to find his fiancee engaged to another is a tough sell...particularly when it's supposed to be a romantic comedy. I bet a lot of theater goers (particularly those who'd been in the war) were ticked to see such a film. Additionally, IF she ends up marrying the nice soldier by the end, you'd wonder WHY he would take her back! And, most importantly, how could you string all this along for 81 minutes?! After all, he returns, you tell him, he goes on with his life....5-10 minutes tops! To make it worse they cast Tom Drake--the perfect 'nice guy' actor for such a role and the notion of a woman lying to him or cheating on him seems particularly evil!! Yet somehow someone at MGM thought this would make a great film...and parts of it are (ALL the portions with Harry Davenport are like gold)...but overall it's a dud....an ill-conceived one at that. Slickly made...but horrible.

... View More
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.

... View More
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.

... View More
David (Handlinghandel)

The arch title doesn't fit this gentle romantic comedy. Donna Reed and Tom Drake don't have much chemistry -- but their characters aren't supposed to. Both are extremely likable and attractive.The supporting cast is a dream -- with the exception of Sig Ruman's annoying faux Russian.

... View More