After learning (from posthumously discovered love letters) that her late mother had for some time been involved in a romantic extra-marital affair, an impressionable LA disc jockey embarks on a similar liaison, with less than satisfactory results (for both herself and the film). Jamie Lee Curtis portrays a character obviously less intelligent than she first appears; married lover James Keach wasn't given a character at all; and the sparks meant to ignite between them fizzle rather than fly. It's too bad the rare chance to see a love story told from a woman's point of view was wasted on such a conventional romance, in which the protagonist is unable to define herself beyond her (purely physical) relationship with an undeserving man. Even worse: there's a distinct suggestion at the end of the film that she only chose the wrong guy. A cast of familiar faces all but disappears in superfluous supporting roles.

"Love Letters" is a remarkable and enthralling piece for many reasons. It resists plot contrivance and genre strait-jacketing to concentrate on character nuance, freshness of observation, and originality of milieu. It presents it's material with clarity, intelligence, and a refreshing lack of stylistic tropes.Jaimie Lee plays a classical music DJ at a small, under-funded local radio station. One of her colleagues, a kind of hip nerd typical of the early 1980's time-frame, is played by 'Harold and Maude' star Bud Cort. He was, amazingly, 35 at the time but looks all of 20. During an in-studio performance by a home-made synth wizard (a delightful little sequence) she meets married photographer James Keach and almost immediately begins an affair. The film then follows the course of their various assignations until the inevitably messy conclusion, and it's ambiguous correlation with a cache of her dead mothers secret love letters.The film captivates with it's perceptivity. The characters seem completely 'real', in the sense that they are quirky and human, and not merely constructs required to advance the plot. Their actions and motivations are often recondite, but always believable. Particularly intriguing are Jaimie Lee's relationships with her best friend, played by the delightful Amy Madigan, and her father (Western veteran Matt Clark). Amy and Jaimie create a wonderful rapport: we immediately accept that these gals are old buddies. And Clark's father is a superbly unsettling creation. We never know for sure whether his strange outbursts and creeping, leering presence are merely a combination of his boozing and grief over his wife's death or something more sinisterly incestuous.The handling of the central sexual relationship avoids cliché and exploitation from the first meeting. The trysts are sketched with deftness and economy. Both leads are excellent. Keach plays it nicely low-key as an 'artistic' photographer turned advertising man who is, in truth, a rather selfish pseudo-intellectual bore. Curtis has never been better than here, as a tormented, passionate, almost schizophrenic character (just check her wardrobe changes from sensuous and stylish to bizarrely homely). Appearing just after her reign as the 'scream queen' of early 80's horror films, she evinces a startling, original presence, mixing controlled physicality and strength with numerous subtle character shadings. She's mesmerising, but somehow too unique to suggest a conventional 'star' presence. It's a real shame that she has not been granted such freedom since.Written and directed by former Scorsese associate Amy Jones, who also, as yet, has done nothing as captivating, 'Love Letters' is a most interesting one-off. Eschewing trite corollaries and crowd pleasing expedience, it remains a quietly forceful achievement.

Jamie Lee Curtis looked great stretched across the bed. Her Lover looked appreciative, but the sight of the microphone at the top of the screen destroyed the illusion and any positive impression of the scene. Such lack of care left the entire production lifeless. IMDB lists this movie as a thriller, perhaps because it contains no adventure, action, romance, etc. Waiting for the "thriller" payoff was futile. Without a buildup to the central relationship of the movie, one is left wondering why it occurred. Although the primary difficulty in the relationship is anticipated at length, the encounter that resulted was lacking in tension and passed much too quickly.If you are not a Jamie Lee Curtis fan you may not want to watch this.

If you love Jamie Lee Curtis, you must see this film. She is young, vibrant, and intense, with her piercing eyes set on stun. She runs the gamut of emotion in this film, and most important of all . . .SHE IS NAKED OFTEN! Her scenes in Trading Places are pablum compared to her extended nudity in this film. I've been a fan of Jamie Lee since Halloween, always preferring her sharp features and cute dimples to P.J. Soles' cheerleader bimbo looks in that film. The first time I watched this film I almost had an effing heart attack at the first CUT TO Jamie Lee in the bathtub. It gets better from there. Jamie Lee completely lays to rest those nasty hermaphrodite rumors. A flashback to a truly voluptuous time. Thanks for the mammaries!