sbasu-47-608737 First of all, out of the 5 stars, about 2 are to Ms Russel. Else it is probably 2 star or 3 star movie, all of which goes to smooth flow of the story.Though I say story here, but that is a poorly executed one. None of the character-built up is mature, starting with the two main protagonists. Both the lead actors are - well ready to jump in casting - or should I say business - coach, at least almost, at the drop of a penny, and the definition of morality is strange. The hero is ready to walk out (on the heroine), when he considers her offer to be of becoming her Mister ( masculine of Mistress) , but is ready to be a Gigolo without much ado, and even does that part admirably (from her angle) ! He does need money, but that is for his hobby, to go to Mexico for painting, and he was walking off her even then on the mister offer. Heroine is of course ready to have a relationship with her clients, to get an order. It might not have been to physical stage, but probably because Hayes won't have accepted it. Otherwise I don't see how she could have deflected all the clients. There goes the two main protagonists. Then the role of the two beaus on the quadrangle, Mr and Miss Caldwell.Multi millionaire, Caldwell (McDonald Carey), after four costly alimonies behind him, is ready to pay the fifth one to Ms Russel, after marrying her of course, despite being perfectly aware that she is madly in love with Tom (McMurray. Naturally for another, sooner or later (probably quite sooner) divorce and alimony. He gets her to accept his proposal, but on a cleverly manipulated (and stupidly behaved by his opposition, Tom) rebound, and after putting his man-eating sister (Constance Moore), loose on Tom ! It sometime reminds me of the World War propaganda movies of Hollywood, where the Nazis and SS were shown to be stupid beyond belief, and even some idiotic American (or British) hero would take care of a full battalion of them. Here of course the idiot wasn't Nazi/SS but the hero, Tom.There would have been nothing to gain for either siblings, all to loose, in terms of the double alimony, sooner or later. And just to think of ! The two in love, staying in close proximity (on account of being married to the siblings) the ember simply can't be covered in ash, it would have flared quickly.The sister looked to be more intelligent, she flirted, even almost proposed, but probably she understood and respected the play-condition, which her brother, already burnt several times, didn't. Even the ending seemed to be too hurriedly brought, and the way the director tried to sort out the equation, didn't look convincing. Since this is a Russel movie, one could just manage to stand it.

dougdoepke The first half-hour sparkles. Tom (Mac Murray) is hired as a male secretary to what turns out to be a female (Russell) advertising executive. Worse, A.M. (that's her name) insists the tall good-looking secretary act as her beck-and-call escort. Remember, those were the days of strictly defined gender roles that were being transgressed by the arrangement. Hence, it's a setup with all sorts of entertaining complications. Meanwhile, Tom sees his masculinity slipping away, playing second-fiddle to a woman even if she is a generous paymaster. Those early scenes crackle with amusing by-play and are beautifully performed by two of Hollywood's best. I just wish the versatile Mac Murray had gotten the recognition his talent deserves. However, once the focus shifts to complications with the Caldwells (Carey & Moore), the movie settles into more familiar and less sparkling terrain. Nonetheless, the results remain a fine example of studio craftsmanship from the '40's. Screenwriter Binyon, for example, was renowned for the wit and satirical abilities that show up here, while director Leisen certainly had the right touch for the frothy material. Note, for example, how many of his scenes don't end with a conventional cut-away from cast principals. Instead, Leisen ends the nightclub scene with two extras engaged in some card-playing business, or the scene that ends with a bellhop extra walking a dog up the hallway. These are colorful touches from a director who obviously cares.Anyway, in my book, the movie's an imaginative little comedy from the studio that certainly knew how to do them, Paramount.

snoopdavidniven The title of this comment is not reflective of this movie, a witty and expertly-handled farce; a shiny, energetic bit of bric-a-brac representing a memento of what we'll look back on one day as the high point of American popular entertainment (if not American civilization - once so down-to-earth, and disarmingly unpretentious). Rather, it refers to the sad reality of what the powers that be are allowing to befall the pre-1950 Paramount back catalog, as vital a part of American cultural history as any you'd care to name. Whether it's Sony, or Universal, or Vivendi into whose corporate clutches the rights have now fallen, I've frankly lost track of - it's one of them, though (and maybe all three).Point blank: these films are not being cared for, let alone properly restored. You see it time and again with vintage Paramount films - if it's a famous title they're sure they can make money on (like DOUBLE INDEMNITY, say, or the ROAD comedies or Sturges classics) the print looks and sounds pristine; but these days - if it's one of the hundreds of less-well-remembered Paramounts - invariably the picture is bleached and indistinct, the sound deteriorated, and the entire experience of watching the film deeply compromised. There's no other word for it than "disgraceful" (particularly as it's been Sony/Universal/Vivendi who've been keeping these films OUT of circulation for decades now, resulting in their less-well-remembered status in the first place!) if for no other reason that it robs us, and future generations, of the joy of REdiscovery that's such a rewarding aspect of watching vintage Hollywood films; of seeing, and appreciating, aspects and nuances that its contemporary audience perhaps missed, or weren't even looking for, the first time around.I'm possibly making a mountain out of a molehill here, and particularly in TAKE A LETTER's case, as the picture is soft but certainly still watchable, though the crispness and contrast of the original image isn't there. (The the cast-listing after the picture ends, however, is so washed out it's utterly illegible. You can barely make out a single name.) And compared to the unmitigated audio-video horror that is now SWING HIGH, SWING LOW (another Fred MacMurray Paramount comedy, screened by TCM a few weeks ago), TAKE A LETTER is flawless by comparison. But it bothers me no end that seemingly nothing is being done to restore, to save, these movies. Paramount wasn't PRC or Monogram, for God's sake: their roster of pre-1950 features are easily the equal of Warners, MGM....any of the other majors. How is it possible that a billion-dollar entertainment conglomerate, even though it's one unconnected to the making of these pictures, can show such casual contempt for film history? "Lost" films are one thing; this is more like watching them being abandoned. Maybe an old-fashioned write-in campaign is called for.

hi_juli 'Take a Letter, Darling' has both great actors (Fred MacMurray, Rosalind Russell) and a fun, timeless plot [this film could easily be applied to the here-and-now]. It relates a touchingly humorous story of love and jealousy and is a tribute to the romantic notion that true love never runs smooth. Elegantly done and a pleasure to watch.