À demain mon amour

I thought that this movie had a very saddening effect, but i really liked the acting and you kinda get stuck in front of the Tv set, so i really recommend this movie.

Filmmaker Alan J. Pakula was the true definition of an actor's director: he paid so much attention to the nuances and details of a performance that he often lagged behind in his pacing. With "See You in the Morning", which Pakula directed and wrote, not only is the narrative flow made of lead, the characters simply don't emerge (despite an apparently hand-picked collection of actors). Divorced psychologist and father Jeff Bridges meets a new lady (with children of her own), but blending the families proves to be difficult. With so many television-movies (not to mention TV-sitcoms) mining this territory, it's amazing that Pakula thought he could unearth fresh sentiment out of such a stale situation. He gets the milieu down right, and his picture looks good, but very little of the drama rings true. Linda Lavin stands out in top supporting cast, though Farrah Fawcett (as Bridges' flaky first wife) is lost in the muddle. *1/2 from ****

This was the first film i've ever seen that addresses what a man goes through emotionally when dealing with all the ramifications of divorce, separation from his own children and blending families when he enters into a relationship with a woman with children of her own. It deals with what it must be like to assume the role of caretaker in another man's house, with another man's children while someone else is in his former home with his children. Women and children aren't the only ones who have complex feelings when families play musical homes.

Don't EVER listen to the critics. Despite that fact that Alan K Pakula directed some of my favorite films of all time ('Klute,' 'The Parallax View,' 'All the President's Men'), I failed to see one of his best and most personal films for forty years simply because the critics disuaded me. Turns out, this film is just as good as any of the other great films he directed.

I won't go into the story because if you're reading this you already probably know something about it. What I will say is that the film is full of real moments, well observed. The film keeps you guessing which way it will go throughout and it's totally believable and laid out with measure, confidence and aplomb.

Jeff Bridges is the lead and he's never given a bad performance and here is no exception. Alice Krige is the smart and sexy woman he's in love with. But it is three actresses (Farrah Fawcett, Linda Lavin snd Frances Sterhagen) that really shine and Pakula shines, too, in the way he uses each of them. Each, in their way, gives what I would call the epitome of what I think of when I think Best Supporting Actress Oscar.

Why was the film not successful? Perhaps it seemed too upscale, too Patrician. The film features a good deal of symphony and jazz music and, since it all happens in New York, perhaps the film seemed too much like a Woody Allen without the belly laughs. It did, most assuredly, have a horrible ad campaign.

Either way, judge for yourself. I really loved it and could've missed out if I hadn't taken the chance.

This has to be one of the most boring films I have ever watched. It just did not capture my attention at all. For a start, it was billed as a comedy- which it was not- there was only one semi amusing scene near the end. But worst of all, nothing particularly interesting ever happens. The characters are not fully developed enough for you to care about them at any great length, although the actors were good in their roles, particularly Lukas Haas. Most of the storyline was very superficial, you could see that they were trying to play on a variety of human emotions- but they failed in most if not all cases. It played a lot like a pilot for a drama series that never made it into a full season of episodes. A total waste of time really, unless your analyse this for a social study class.