Beystiman It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

PiraBit if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

Plustown A lot of perfectly good film show their cards early, establish a unique premise and let the audience explore a topic at a leisurely pace, without much in terms of surprise. this film is not one of those films.

Janis One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

Tristan Schafer This is the third Bergman film I've seen, and easily my least favorite of the three (the others being THE HOUR OF THE WOLF, and the legendary THE SEVENTH SEAL). While I didn't really *like* either of those two, I still appreciated them for their visual style, especially THE HOUR OF THE WOLF. However, I just downright hated this one. The only reason I watched it is because I wanted to see more Bergman films (since his reputation is just astounding). The characters are so bland, they had to include scenes where the actors explain to you why you should care about them. The characters are so bland that I was completely indifferent to the outcomes of spousal abuse and attempted murder. It comes as no surprise that this film is also insanely boring, seeing as it was directed by Ingmar Bergman. Almost nothing worth watching happens until about 1 hour and 30 minutes in. Now is a good time to mention that the movie is about 1 hour and 40 minutes long. Nearly everything memorable before that point is animal abuse. For example, a puppy being hanged 15 minutes in. Of course Max's "character" saves the dog, and gives him to some other "character" later, and it is never mentioned again. So, why was the dog introduced? Oh, to show that there was an animal slaughterer on the loose. Why is that important? Because a friend of Max's kills himself because he is accused of being the killer. But why do we care about that? It barely even had an effect on Max. Plus, we barely even knew the friend so it didn't really impact us as an audience. And how was it determined that he was the animal killer? Who was it that beat up the friend resulting in his suicide? Did they ever find out who the real killer was? Why was he killing the animals? Should we even care? What happened to the puppy? What happened with the character who got the puppy? What happened with that character's husband? What was up with the pictures? Who's Andreas? Isn't Max Andreas? Why did Max have the same name as Anna's ex-husband? Are the two Andreases the same person? Wouldn't that mean that the film takes place in both the past and present tense? Am I over-thinking it? Isn't the point to think about it? Am I thinking about the wrong thing? Why aren't I thinking of the right thing? Oh yeah, it's because this is a bad film. This film did nothing but anger me. Scenes that came out of nowhere and went nowhere, characters I couldn't care less about, emotionless acting in emotional situations, a complete lack of events, and a less-than-amazing style. This film is, quite frankly, a joke.

Cosmoeticadotcom Ingmar Bergman's 1969 film A Passion (En Passion, misnomered in America as The Passion Of Anna) is a great film, and out of the series of late 1960s films (also including Persona, Hour Of The Wolf, and Shame) dealing with relationships and the self, it may be the best. It stars many of the Bergman retinue of actors: Max Von Sydow as Andreas Winkelman, Liv Ullman as Anna Fromm, Bibi Andersson as Eva Vergerus, and Erland Josephson as Elis Vergerus.It follows Andreas, an ex-convict, as he recovers from his wife's abandonment, on a small farm on a Swedish island- ostensibly Bergman's own Farö, where it was filmed. One day, Anna, a crippled widow, comes to his home and Andreas listens in on the phone call she needs to make. She then accidentally (or not?) leaves her purse at his house, and he reads a letter of her rocky marriage, as he digs through her purse to find her address, and learns of her dead husband's fears for her sanity. When he returns the purse, that night, he meets the Vergeruses, the couple whom Anna lives with. He is later invited over to dinner, and the foursome discuss life and philosophy…..Throughout the film, a number of other subtexts emerge, such as Bergman again breaking the fictive spell of the film by having his four main actors portray themselves talking about their characters. Another side story involves the abuse, torture, and killing of local animals. A local hermit, with a history of mental instability, is suspected. Andreas knows the man, Johan Andersson (Erik Hell), and it's clear he is not the culprit, because he is an old lumbering man, and early in the film the audience glimpsed a young man speedily running away from a scene where he is hanging the puppy that Andreas saves. Nonetheless, as sheep, and other animals, are killed, a band of young vigilante islanders have apparently beaten and tortured the old man to confess. This act of cruelty drives him to suicide, and he leaves a note of thanks for Andreas, for all his kindnesses, that the police bring to him….This film's ending is famous, but has been misinterpreted in many ways. First, Bergman has admitted in print that he did not zoom in to get the graininess of the final images, but merely blew up the shot. As for what it means? Many take it simply as the psychological dissolution of Andreas Winkeleman, which is the final in a series of character dissolutions in this series of late 1960s films….But that's too melodramatic a claim.….The ending leaves a visceral impact, both for its visuals and its often overlooked critical revelation….The film succeeds magnificently, in an understated way that many of Bergman's more famous films do not. It's that good.

lawrence_elliott This movie captures the essence of the brooding Northern Germanic man. A sullen almost depressing piece, the truth displayed in this film is startling. This psychological drama probes four interesting characters.Max Von Sydow tries to hide from life by isolating himself on a remote island. His longing for social contact driven by his sexual needs propel him into an affair with his architect neighbour's wife and an eventual tragic relationship with a widow played by Liv Ullmann.A montage of interviews with the four main actors about the roles that they are playing are interspersed throughout the film giving an immediacy to the sense of mood and truth in this cinematic effort.Bibi Andersson is sensual in her role as is Liv Ullmann, who is at her loveliest. This movie speaks more truth about the desperation in peoples' lives than most.A brilliant effort worth seeing over and over.

sol- A quite typical Ingmar Bergman film, it is as powerfully acted and as well shot as one would expect, however it otherwise fails to rise above the ordinary. The film has a unique, unusual structure in which the story is broken up by interviews with the performers in which they discuss the characters that they are playing. While a rather interesting concept in itself, it does not really work. It is clumsy way of getting across the emotions of the characters that are not obvious on screen, and it does jar the flow of the story. The story itself is rather slim in content too, and over one and a half hours in length is a stretch. It is overly talkative, and overall not one of Bergman's best films, but Bergman still manages to end his film on a potent note, plus the Sven Nykvist cinematography as well as the quality of the acting keep it worth watching.