Good movie, but best of all time? Hardly . . .

As somebody who had not heard any of this before, it became a curious phenomenon to sit and watch a film and slowly have the realities begin to click into place.

The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

There's a more than satisfactory amount of boom-boom in the movie's trim running time.

"Chilly Scenes of Winter"was originally called, "Head Over Heels" and had its ending re edited and dramatically changed so that the film swerved from a positive, uplifting little character study of quirky, interesting and flawed people into a sad, depressing portrayal of losers mired in their failures with no hope of redemption. I always wondered why Joan Micklin Silver decided to re edit the original film,which had an ending that fit the tone so much better. Was she forced by a studio? Did she actually think that she was improving it by abandoning the positive and embracing the dark? The title "Chilly Scenes of Winter"may fit its edited ending, but diminishes the film.

I, for one, love Head Over Heels more than the newer release of CSOW. I loved the choices the director made with camera angles in telling the story - halting to allow the protagonist to talk directly to the camera. It was a brilliant and witty film, and Heard was so good I actually felt his pain of pining away over a lost love. There was so many memorable characters in addition to Charles' mom: the stepfather; the office worker, Betty; the boss; the roommate; the sister and her fiancé; Laura's ex-husband.I loved this movie, and I would love to get a copy of the original Head Over Heels version. I liked the original ending much better.Why this movie didn't win a plethora of awards is beyond me.Valerie

A brilliant film. Check it out. Marvellous in so many ways. Acting, script, you name it, it's great. It's a fantastic "little" film as they would say, but the "little" ones are often the best. So many small and subtle moments that make it quite memorable.

The pivot on which this story turns is Laura's character; unfortunately, that character is drawn less thoroughly than one might wish. How are we to understand her vacillations? (We have to guess, because the picture doesn't explain them, and she herself is apparently unable to explain them.) Saying that she is confused by her choices tells us nothing worthwhile about her character. Does she - out of a sense of guilt - feel compelled to draw away whenever her lover draws nearer? An interesting enough concept, but it isn't brought out in the film, so such an interpretation is no more than speculation. If Laura's attachment to her daughter is so strong, how was she able to walk away? (There is, by the way, little in the film itself to suggest that the two were especially close.) As for the men in her life: her husband seems no better or worse than average, and her lover - except for his persistence - also seems unremarkable. As for the ending: the one in the version I saw (running, running, running faster in the park) is no ending at all. It just happens to be the last scene of the picture.