To me, this movie is perfection.

If you like to be scared, if you like to laugh, and if you like to learn a thing or two at the movies, this absolutely cannot be missed.

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

This is an excellent movie well worth viewing. As the film opens, you hear the Brahms theme and it triggers memories of the 1946 film "Undercurrent" starring Katherine Hepburn and Robert Taylor. I hoped the film would equal it in quality. It does. Well written, beautifully shot in France, and well acted, it clicks on all cylinders. Surprising for me (and maybe it should not have been) was Ms Bergman, 20 years after "Casablanca," looking as gorgeous as she did 20 years prior and demonstrating the acting separation that distinguished her from the mere pretty-faced Grable, Turner, and Gardner. I may be late to the dance, but I am now convinced as an actress she stands on the front line with Hepburn and Davis. She can really bring it.For some strange reason, many have unfairly criticized Tony Perkins in his role as the young infatuated lover, often referencing his then recent (and to be definitive) role in "Psycho". This is nonsense. Perkins was an actor of great breath, which included the New York dramatic and musical stage. Check him out in Stephen Sondheim's 1966 Stage 67 TV special "Evening Primrose." You wouldn't get cast to premiere Sondheim material in 1966 if you didn't have your sh*t together. Perkin's character in "Goodbye Again" does demonstrate some quirky love-driven behavior (like stalking), but its reflective of the adolescent character he is playing and has NOTHING to do with his performance in "Psycho." Who knows, the script writer could have in fact added some of this quirkiness expressly to play off of his recent Psycho role. Remember, Perkins didn't write the script, he merely acts it out well.Also of note is the a brief cameo role played by Diahann Carroll as a Paris jazz club chanteuse (jazz aficionados will recognize American jazz expatriates Kenny Clarke on drums and Eli 'Lucky' Thompson on tenor sax, both major modern jazz associates of Gillespie and Parker in New York in the 1940's and 1950's). Carroll was in Paris in 1961 for this movie and her next released the same year, "Paris Blues." These two roles were seen by Broadway composer Richard Rodgers and it influenced him to write his next Broadway musical, "No Strings" (opened in NYC March 1962) expressly for Ms Carroll. Coincidentally, the musical was about love in Paris. Both Ms Carroll and Mr. Rodgers won Tony awards for this musical.This is an excellent love story without the usual forced, corny Hollywood happy ending. Bergman is so appealing in this film that you wonder how Yves Montand could be sleeping around with other women. But when you see the willing, delectable young women he sleeps with, you can understand if not excuse his behavior. Love is always complex.

As a reviewer said here, when we praise a movie, we overdo it, and when we diss one, we're really down on it.But, this has to be one of the best movies Ingrid Bergman ever made. The casting in this movie was inspired. Ingrid loves Yves Montand, but he won't commit to the married life, and Montand is perfect as the man who wants both his freedom and Ingrid, who also has her freedom to date other men, but doesn't want to. "Some freedom," her maid says. Her maid is like the french equivalent of a Thelma Ritter character.Ingrid is an interior decorator. Enter Jessie Royce Landis, who is just great as an exacting and demanding (and cheap) client of Ingrid's, who's also very rich. Enter Anthony Perkins, soon after making "Psycho," as Landis' son. He obviously falls for Ingrid, and she loves the attention, since she's unhappy with her situation.The rest you have to see for yourself. The viewer is on a roller-coaster ride of emotions, as we feel everything Ingrid feels and even Tony, too. Miss this and you miss true actors at their best. By the way, do you like Brahms?

All three characters are distinct in their expression and pursuit of "being loved." We have all encountered a Roger - cool, indifferent, the free spirit that cannot be tamed, and furthermore, does not WANT to be tamed. Yet he cannot be alone. We all have personally experienced the terrifying moment in our lives of becoming a man/woman over night. Phillip is clearly not prepared to emerge from his childhood of security and entitlement, his choices always having been guided by a mother, or the underlying norms of his social circle. The daunting task of assuming his own identity leads him to attach his self to Paula, forming a classic example of codependency. His choice for an older woman is his way of prolonging the actuality of having to develop his own identity, his own path. For example, when Paula goes to work his day consists of nothing but finding things to do to kill time until she is back to entertain him. It is as if without her presence he is on the "pause button," and only resumes life on her cue. Paula, however, sees this as is not pleased. Paula is the most interesting character, because her feelings and behavior in this film are so diverse that just when we think it is apparent how she is feeling she does something that questions our previous assumption. Roger is the classic ladies' man, his stance staunch against the wind. Phillip is the typical tragedy that happens to a boy who has been given everything, yet has never asked for anything. These two men are simply unilateral characters framing the abstract piece that is Paula. Does she really want Roger to commit to her? We think the obvious answer is yes, but then we see her with young Phillip - we see her with this sexual energy and freedom that she cannot suppress, and we wonder whether Phillip is simply an outlet for her emotional frustrations with Roger or whether he is not actually a venue for her to express her own longings for excitement, trysts and desires. Yet we learn more from the scene in the bedroom, with the single shot of Paula lying in bed after (we assume) Paula and Phillip have shared an intimate moment. Her facial expression tells us she has reservations about leading this lifestyle; she knows it will not work. It is almost as if in that moment, watching Paula's facial expression, we are swept back to a time when we ourselves were caught in a relationship, or an act, that we knew were were going to regret later, but could not stop ourselves in the moment. Diane Lane's subway scene in "Unfaithful" draws many similarities to Ingrid Bergman's bedroom scene. Another scene where Paula bears her emotions, yet reluctantly, is when she is having lunch with Roger after he has just returned from his 10 day trip. She reveals to him that her friendship with Phillip has become more serious. She tells him this not for honesty, nor to inform him that she is moving on, yet she tells him this to see his reaction. This is a pitiful scene. When Paula complains that she always has to hear about his girls, he says something along the lines of that at least his is normal. In other words, he has called Paula a joke. There is a beat, and we feel the impact that she feels. As she stumbles away from the table we see exactly how vulnerable she is, how insecure she actually is about her age. We don't want to, but we feel sorry for her. We feel pity for her because there are moments when she is with Phillip when she appears truly happy, and yet the stigma attached to the relationship causes just as much misery. However, in the end, when we learn that she will never find that true happiness (with love), we are hesitant to feel that same sympathy for her. Is it because she pursued a love that she knew she would have to share? Or is it because she sacrificed the only love that ever really made her feel happy, and young?

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?