Hellen I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

Baseshment I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

Arianna Moses Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

Ariella Broughton It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

mark.waltz This Norman Krasna play of the war era was a surprising Broadway hit and makes for an above average domestic comedy where surprising performances and a charming light-heartedness make it much better than predicted. Joan Caulfield is Ruth, the 21-year old bank employee who still lives at home (with parent Edward Arnold and Mary Phillips, and pesky teenaged sister Mona Freeman) and finds herself the victim of an unintentional deception which the impish Freeman played by writing letters in Ruth's name to a lonely soldier (William Holden). Freeman, a teenaged champion of causes, is an amusing pest to everyone in the house who can't help but be bemused by her devotion to war causes, particularly her fight for peace and her devotion to the poor soldiers drafted all in the cause of freedom. Caulfield has somehow became engaged to bank executive Billy De Wolfe, a stuffy older man who gives impressions of interests other than in women, especially when being offered a drink and asked if he'd like it "straight". Holden shows up and all is revealed in time, and when Caulfield meets the lonely soldier on leave from Europe, she can't help but be charmed by him.The best performances in these types of films are those which really don't seem to be acted, and in the case of romantic leads Caulfield and Holden, they do their job so effectively it really seems as if they are real people, not movie stars giving a "performance". Arnold, of course, displays his usual boundless energy, showing that while more grandfatherly in appearance towards the two young girls, he still has what it takes to rule the roost, chew the scenery and steal the moment every chance he gets. But for me, the real star of the show is young Mona Freeman who takes what could be truly an obnoxious character and turns her into someone very likable. What Shirley Temple was doing at the same time shows the difference that less is more, and Freeman's ease in her portrayal makes for a much more tolerable character than Temple and certain other young actors were doing at the same time in films somehow more remembered today.There's lots of surprises here and a delightful adventure on the New York Subway is a comic gem, especially when De Wolfe gets his nose out of joint for something which got him a summons. This plot has been repeated so many times (with a nebbish young man loosing the pretty heroine to the handsome hunk) that it could have been a predictable generic sitcom like film, but the fresh writing, fast direction and amiable performances make this a delight from start to finish. Two sequels popped up after this became a hit and are curios to search out to complete the saga of this wacky family where the judge isn't always moralizing and the mother isn't always fretting for Andy Hardy to stay out of trouble.

ivan-22 I saw this movie many years ago and hardly remember anything, except loving it. Here is what I wrote in my diary:"One of the most delightful comedies I have ever seen. I was in awe of the writer's wit and wisdom. The moral of the movie is that the greatest duty is the duty to oneself, the duty to be happy, to do as one pleases, not as one should, for the "shoulds" are nothing but other people's opinions."At the time I didn't know the writer was Norman Krasna. Eventually, he would become one of my favorites. A Krasna movie is guaranteed excellence. His sense of humor and dignity never fail. Of course, one needs some of his smarts to understand him.

renfield54 Wonderful performances by all. Marvelously executed comedy. For those who don't already know, J.D. Salinger, the author, spotted the movie marquee heralding the stars of this movie, William Holden and Joan Caulfield. Thus, the inspiration for his character's name in "Catcher in the Rye", Holden Caulfield.Looking to the supporting cast, Billy de Wolfe gets to play the same character (or is it really him?),he always plays, prissy and particular. De Wolfe never fails comedically and is a major factor in taking this film over the top. The 2 sequels, Dear Wife and Dear Brat, were showcases for him. Even in the 1960's TV sitcom "Good Morning World", with Joby Baker and Ronnie Schell, de Wolfe's signature character still brought laughs.Now, to Mona Freeman. Although she never achieved major stardom, or any stardom in adulthood, she carved a nice niche for herself playing the precocious teenager in many films. Freeman made enough of a mark in her day to be immortalized (caricatured) in cartoons, just like the more recognize-able Bogey and Bing. Think about it, yup, that was her.In Dear Ruth, Freeman was ever the volunteer or manipulator. She ends up as a very positive female role model. Even more so because of the "place" of women in the 1940's. She was a very talented young lady. Freeman's interaction with her dad, Edward Arnold, is universal and timeless. A fine performance by Arnold "squeezes" all the humor out of what should be typical and predictable dad/daughter(s) comedy. Arnold was the perfect choice for the dad.This was a very funny ensemble performance. It's great family entertainment. Dear Ruth was deserving of 2 sequels....

huff This was one of the most delightful films I have ever seen. Film makers have forgotten what the elements of a good film are. This one has it all: character development, snappy dialogue, humor, love, and a happy ending. The actors and actresses tell their story not only with words, but with their expressions and other non-verbal communication. Who needs fantastic stories, mindless violence, etc. This kind of film really entertains.