Good concept, poorly executed.

There are women in the film, but none has anything you could call a personality.

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

Amazing worth wacthing. So good. Biased but well made with many good points.

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?

I watched this late last night, shaking myself to stay awake. Bergman as ever is sublime, and has a great life with her own successful business, wealthy clientèle and a sophisticated relationship with her lover, Roget (Montand), who insures himself against his own ageing body by using a string of youthful lovers whose names he can't be bothered to remember. Paula (Bergman)is referred to a job by Roget and there she meets a bored wealthy young man who has never been told "no" by his mother, his boss or anyone by the looks of things. Because she is basically not interested in anyone but Roget she does not fall at his feet, which intrigues him and he begins to pursue her, mistaking his growing infatuation for love. She is vulnerable because she is aware of her lover's own dalliances and becomes hooked on the adoration from this young pup, ending in an affair when Roget is out of town for a couple of weeks. This does not fit easily with any of them, she feels uncomfortable being with a man 15 years her junior, and he wants to live the life he wants with her in tow, giving him the affection he clearly missed out on from his mother. Eventually Roget and Paula reconcile and she gently evicts the youngster, not without a pang and marries the older man, only to have the realisation that he has not and will not change. It was as realistic as could be expected. Paris (even in black and white) was lovely and the acting was beyond criticism. I didn't weep however, nor did I want to - and I'm usually a soft touch for tear jerkers. This is obviously a classic and I'm glad I have finally seen it!

Ingrid Bergman stars in 1961's "Goodbye Again" along with Yves Montand, Tony Perkins and Jessie Royce Landis. The setting is Paris, and Ingrid plays Paula, a 40-year-old designer carrying on a five-year affair with Roget (Montand) that is less than satisfactory much of the time - for one thing, he is promiscuous. However, they have a codependent relationship and breaking off with him is difficult. Finally, though, she does it, turning to a younger man, Philip (Perkins), who is madly in love with her.Based on a novel by Francoise Sagan, Ingrid Bergman does a beautiful job as Paula, playing the role with great emotion and depth and, as usual, she makes it look effortless. You can well understand why Philip would fall for her, but one has trouble understanding why Roget would want anyone else. As usual, whoever cast the film had no understanding of what an older woman finds attractive in a younger man. With perhaps two exceptions - both versions of "The Roman Spring of Mrs. Stone" - the casting is terrible in these May-December romance plots where the woman is older. Someone on the board suggested Robert Redford - undoubtedly, the person who suggested him is not a casting director. Normally, the "younger man" is TOO young and/or too boyish, so it seems almost mother-son - the beautiful Linda Gray playing opposite Christopher Atkins on "Dallas" is a great example. A role like Philip requires someone younger, yes, but sexy and masculine. This is not a criticism of Tony Perkins, a fine actor, but rather how the role was cast.Several people mentioned having a good cry over this film. I confess I had no urge to cry. I was frustrated as hell, though, that Paula could not break the cycle of codependency. Frankly, it's hard to feel sorry for people who put themselves through that type of emotional abuse - it's sad the first time, but when they continue doing it, it's annoying. Several people also used the word "independent" to describe Paula. Paula is not independent. She is codependent. My heart did go out to Philip. As for Roget - Montand was excellent, and the less said about his character, the better.Unfortunately, men like Roget exist, and there are still women like Paula who, with a chance to make a positive change, don't. There's something about the "prize" that's just out of grasp that must be very satisfying. Kudos to Bergman for showing us the emotional price to be paid.

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?