Hadrina The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Ava-Grace Willis Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

Fatma Suarez The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Kayden This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

Cristi_Ciopron Rohmer and his Racinian dialogs remind that persons still exist who make movies as objects destined to a higher appreciation. I am pretty certain that his movie requires more than one viewing. I have found it interesting, nuanced and well—handled. Rohmer's movies are the true hallmarks of contemporary cinema; It is true that today I have sipped CONTE D'HIVER as an antidote; there was a time when, able to like Fellini, Kitano and Griffi, I disliked a Rohmer movie (as well as movies by Mrs. Duras, Tati—and the fact is that I did not identify their cause as art's own)—but nowadays I feel so offended and sickened by the current rubbish and so wholly Europhile that I resorted to Rohmer's outing as to an antidote, a balsam. I had this feeling of approval—yes, this is the way, that is how one should film …. I sipped it, I got it approvingly.Rohmer and his uniquely charming art are an encouragement and a substantial achievement for those who seek an adult art;as a movie buff, he had earned my respect long ago. Now, he has earned my esteem as a director as well.I would suggest a small history lesson—the very man who made CONTE D'HIVER (and, incidentally, gave me a renewed taste for the Shakespearian play) is the same who praises Hawks and considers him an essential director; so much about the simplistic dichotomy operated between schools, etc.. So, feel proud to exalt Hawks' movies—why, this is the sanest thing for a Rohmer fan!

Henry Fields Second chapter of Rohmer's Tales Of The Four Seasons (before filming Winter's Tale he made Spring's Tale). This time the french director tells us the story of Felice, a girl in the search of her soul mate. Actually she had found him in some holidays, his name was Charles, and she got pregnant, but at the end of that summer of joy and love she gave him a wrong address... so she never saw his love again and couldn't locate him either. Five years after she's living in Paris, at her mother's house, with her daughter and she's going out with two different men, although she's not in love with none of'em. She can't love anyone but Charles. Will she ever find the lost love of her life? Does she believe in miracles? That's something we'll find out as we watch this Rohmer's film.Gene Hackman said in some movie that "watching a Rohmer's movie is just like watching a plant grow". Obviously that'll be the opinion of most of the people (especially those who enjoy themselves watching Steven Seagal or Van Damme's movies); but there's something else in cinema (and in life) as well as kicks, guns, explosions, and parties. What about feelings, reflexions, love, doubts, philosophy? That's what Eric Rohmer seems to care about, and that's what he usually talks about in his movies. Ordinary people, living ordinary lives, with their ordinary problems, and their ordinary conflicts. In some way he's such a "voyeur": he puts his camera in some corner of the room and lets the characters express themselves. How they feel, what do they expect from life, what are their dreams, their fears... I think that's why he usually works with unknown actors and actresses: that way the audience feels like they're watching a completely unknown talking or crying, or laughing. I would not work the same if he picked Gerard Depardieu or Juliette Binoche for this sort of movies. Also he uses a literary language in the dialogues (dialogues, the base of Rohmer's cinematography), though his movies show ordinary situations the people in there definitely doesn't talk like normal people. Some may say that's a handicap, that people doesn't talk about existence and the meaning of life when they're having a coffee in some coffee-shop; but when I want to hear real-life dialogues with real-life sentences, rough language, and so I just go and watch some Tarantino movie. I wouldn't recommend Rohmer's movies to anyone; 'cause I assume that movies such as Winter's Tale may result boring for many people. So I only recommend this movie (and the rest of Tales of the Four Seasons) to those who look for something else in cinema and (again) in life apart from hollow entertainment.My Rate: 8/10

lexm4 Rohmer's 1969 film 'Ma nuit chez Maud' had explored at great length about "Pascal's wager", which came down to the fact that people willing to bet against enormous odds to attain their life affirming gain (sorry I never read Pascal). This movie is basically a human story built around this Paradox. It did mentioned Pascal once.I find the character of Felicie is well developed and evoke empathy from me. I was a little disappointed at the ending because it doesn't really answer my question, "... but what if I lose?"But I guess like Checkov said the artist duty is "the correct way of putting the question". The question is well put in this film and I can't ask too much.Very intelligent film. Since I don't speak French, at times I feel like reading a book (subtitle) rather than watching a film. But overall I highly recommend it.

bomb20 I have seen a lot of Rohmer, but this is the best of the lot. As opposed to the way hollywood would have made this film, where the outcome would be more obvious as time passed, this gets more uncertain throughout. the interminable wanderings and sulkings of the lead character create an almost unbearable emotional tension, which makes the impact of the end even more astonishing. watch this film as soon as possible, and then compel your mates to see it. if they arnt touched, they live in an emotional vacuum.