Kirpianuscus it is one of films who remains in memory for the different manner of actors to build their characters. for the beauty of few scenes. for the tension who are just puzzle of nuances. a film about love as sense of life. it preserves the spirit of Sagan's novel. and transforms the pages not exactly in images but in a special flavor of spring and autumn's leaves. Ingrid Bergman is herself and gives to her character admirable precision. Anthony Perkins seems discover his character step by step and that does him a kind of comrade of viewer. Yves Montand is the ordinary man looking for easy form of happiness. the result - a touching film who remains as useful tool for rediscover the rhythm and the sensitivity of a lost period.

MarieGabrielle Well, in 1961, it had to be. It had to be the outcome (sadly) that Paula cannot enjoy Phillip and instead looks in the mirror, applies cold cream, and settles in for yet another evening of rejection and alienation as perpetuated by her faithless husband Roger. Well portrayed by Yves Montand, the trite and true comment "they mean nothing to me", as he cavorts with yet another substance less mistress.The tables are turned when a very young Tony Perkins(Phillip) appears on the scene and falls for Bergman. He is sympathetic in that he is searching for a deeper relationship, tired of young frivolous girls, and wants something he ultimately cannot have.Some of the scenes where he is elated, driving through Paris and reveling in the new affair are cinematic and affecting. Also there is a nice scene with a young and gorgeous Diahann Carroll, a lounge singer, singing the blues, telling Perkins life will go on..., love is just a word.This is a wonderful, forgotten film of cinema verity, at first I had assumed this was the comedic film fluff Bergman had filmed with Cary Grant, a forgettable romantic comedy. No,this film is the opposite, an affecting and relevant drama. Today perhaps the story would end on a positive note for the woman rather than her staying in a dead marriage with a faithless boor. 9/10.

PudgyPandaMan I feel like I have split personality after watching this film. Usually I immediately know how I feel towards a film - sometimes early on as I'm watching, but definitely by the conclusion. But this one leaves me unsure of how I feel. One thing I know for sure is Ingrid's performance is stellar as usual. She is so believable and honest in her emotions.But Perkins is a little squirrelly to me. Like other viewers, I have a hard time seeing Ingrid's character falling for such a immature excuse for a man. Perhaps the only explanation is that her esteem is so wounded, and Perkins so lavish in his affection, admiration and even worship of her, that she can't help but turn to Perkins. I don't know.I hate that she goes back to that cad played by Yves Montand. Its so obvious that a tiger can't change its stripes.What I don't understand, is I read how many viewers were moved to tears. I will readily admit that I'm usually easily moved to tears with a good tear-jerker. But this movie didn't even come close. So I'm still left wondering - what did I miss?

nycgrl7 I absolutely loved Anthony Perkins in this film! To see him smile and be so charismatic and sneaky none of the eerie, psychotic Norman Bates and I welcomed this departure. Some have posted that Anthony Perkins was too skinny to play the role. What the hell does that even mean? We can all relate to having fallen for someone who was "not what we want" and there is noting wrong with that! By the way it is completely believable that Ingrid's character would be intrigued by him. His youth, his brazen attitude, openness and desire for this older woman. Oh and what of the lovely Ingrid Bergman. Need I say more? The woman is fantastic. Yves Montand is sexy and awful at the same time. A great performance. There were some lovely supporting roles throughout the film. And the back drop of France makes this a beautiful film visually. I feel this is a great film to see.