Laikals The greatest movie ever made..!

Tockinit not horrible nor great

Inadvands Boring, over-political, tech fuzed mess

AshUnow This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

MartinHafer I know that among film snobs that the films of John Cassavetes are considered amazing works of art. And, of all of Cassavetes films, this is his most famous because it was nominated for two Academy Awards. Yet, despite this and some very positive reviews, I felt that watching this film was like SLOWLY chewing on broken glass! It was thoroughly unpleasant and seemed to be in need of massive editing. As a play, this might have worked....as a film, I see it as something that the average film viewer couldn't possibly enjoy.The film consists of what appear to almost be home movies that last a very, very long time. The camera work is better than home movies but the graininess of the print and the complete lack of even minor editing made it seem like a movie not yet ready for the movies. There isn't a lot of story. Instead it's full of scenes were Gene Rowlands screams and yells--acting at times like she's mentally ill but at others like she's just a very nasty and occasionally self-destructive person (more like a person diagnosed with a Borderline Personality Disorder than anything else). And, as for her husband (played by Peter Falk), mostly he's impassive...until he blows up and screams at her. If you like this sort of thing as well as knowing that it is an art house favorite, you'll probably enjoy the film. As for me, it was a major chore to finish it.

Larissa Pierry (tangietangerine) After watching this, I can say I am literally fascinated by John Cassavete's films. Although this is only my second experience with his directing, I can say I love the sense of reality and humanity he transmits through his characters. The first film I watched was "Shadows", where the movements of the camera give us the sensation of witnessing a real life story, and although the summary said it was about interracial relations, I thought it was really a film about people, simply.A Woman Under the Influence is not very different, for that matter. It's a film about something that happens every day, and it might even have happened to one of us, to someone we know. It's a film about incomprehension, in this case there is a "reason" for it (though it shouldn't be), Mabel has a psychotic personality structure - using the right Freudian term – but that kind of failure of communication might as well have happened to someone who is not psychotic, who is just a normal housewife, and I'm sure it has happened. Gena Rowland's performance is absolutely spectacular in what is certainly one of the best female roles in the history of cinema.I think we should begin from the common point, which is acknowledging that, having a psychotic personality organization does not necessarily mean you are mentally ill and cannot have a family and live a normal life. The neurotic organization was always socially accepted, and I guess it wouldn't be crazy to say it's a part of pop culture, having become popularized through countless characters, such as Woody Allen's. The problem with the psychotic is that, the only cases we hear of are those in which the person is involved in some sort of breakdown, and yes, it is likely that it will happen at some point, but it doesn't mean they have to be institutionalized. Mabel was an example of a well-adapted psychotic personality, I don't remember if it's shown whether she takes some sort of medication or not, but she supposedly had a family to back her over and was fine at home.What happens is that this family fails to understand her needs and simply refuses to listen to her. I'm not saying she was 100% happy as a housewife or that some kind of external and medical help isn't needed in some cases, but the episode that made Mabel's husband decide to commit her was far too ordinary to be taken so seriously. It shows total incomprehension from the husband and everyone else involved. Most of the time I thought Mabel was the sanest person in the movie, no kidding. Of course, these events take place in the 70's, when it was much more common for families to simply have their loved ones committed and be excused from all responsibility, placing the sickness only in the person who was supposed to be taken care of and loved in a moment of crisis.I didn't really understand the ending, though. Throughout the entire movie, we see Mabel struggling to have her voice heard and not being considered by her family, something that is shown especially in the dinner scene. Later on, Mabel and her husband have a final discussion where things seem to be just like they were before she went to the asylum, or even worse, and then the ending shows them reconciling. I thought it was too unreal for them to end fine after a physical fight and a suicide attempt. I wonder if John Cassavetes didn't want to go all the way or if he really took the previous events for granted and decided to have a lukewarm ending. One way or the other, I thought it was a great film.

Jackson Booth-Millard From Oscar and Golden Globe nominated director John Cassavetes (Shadows, Faces, The Killing of a Chinese Bookie), I found this film in the book 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die, I was certainly interested in watching it for this placement, and the leading stars sounded appealing. Basically in Los Angeles, housewife and mother Mabel Longhetti (Golden Globe winning, and Oscar nominated Gena Rowlands) is slowly developing strange mannerisms and her behaviour is becoming increasingly odd, she wants to please her construction worker husband Nick (Peter Falk) who she loves dearly, but he is concerned about the way she is being in the company of other people. He believes she is becoming a threat to other and herself, so he reluctantly has her committed to an institution to undergo six months of mental treatment, but left alone with their three children he seems no better or wiser than his wife, he cannot fulfil the role society expects him to play, and he is changing in the way he relates to and reacts to his offspring. Six months pass and Mabel returns home, but is clear she is still mentally and emotionally strained in doing so, and her husband seems ill prepared for her return also, he at first planned a welcome home party with guests, but at the last minute cancels and send the guests home, knowing that this is foolish. Mostly only close family, including Mabel's parents, Nick's parents, and their three children, go to greet Mabel for her return, but even this is overwhelming for her and for Nick, and the evening becomes another night or torment and anguish as the couple emotionally and psychological argue. During this very bad fight Mabel cuts herself, and following these events the rest of the family leave, she and Nick are left alone to put the children to bed, but they cannot sleep knowing that the distress may mean her leaving again, they profess their love for their mother, she eventually gets them to bed, and the film ends with no real resolution as Mabel and Nick get ready for bed themselves. Also starring Matthew Cassel as Tony Longhetti, Matthew Labyorteaux as Angelo Longhetti, Christina Grisanti as Maria Longhetti, Katherine Cassavetes (John's mother) as Margaret Longhetti, Lady Rowlands (Gena's mother) as Martha Mortensen and Fred Draper as George Mortensen. I can see why Rowlands was nominated the awards, she is pretty convincing as the mentally unstable wife who struggles to keep the family she loves, and Falk is equally good as the husband struggling to cope with his wife's erratic behaviour, it is a simple premise, a wife having a mental breakdown, being sent away for treatment, and returning with no real change, I agree that if the film was judged just by acting it would is fantastic, but being just over two hours it does feel a little too stretched, otherwise it is a most watchable drama. It was nominated the Golden Globes for Best Motion Picture - Drama and Best Screenplay for John Cassavetes. Very good!

lasttimeisaw Fresh to Cassavetes' canon, A WOMAN UNDER THE INFLUENCE is tiresome and exhausting for my first-time viewing, throughout the entire running time (155 minutes), we watch a series of intense clashes between Mabel (Gena Rowlands) and Nick (Peter Falk), sometimes catalyzed by their family members or close friends, and the repercussions includes Mabel exacerbates her mental disability and the collateral damage to their 3 young children. Using intimate and irregular camera-work to demonstrate a fly-on-the-wall authenticity opens a maximum door for thespians to show off their superlative working-class liberation of feelings and emotion, Gena Rowlands, immerses into her character with optimum dexterity, from her quirks of sputtering and word-mouthing, the fervid and persistent advocacy of opera aria to the time-bomb of her squeamish frailty, we never know when will she explode, whilst time is ticking and the wait is taxing both for the players and the spectators. She also shines in her warmer facet during the heartwarming episodes with her kids. Mabel is a dream role any actress would be ever craving for, Rowlands is the performer nonpareil for her concentrated and committed dedication of embodiment without falling into the pitfall of borderline OTT. Falk, a flawless pick for an ordinary blue-collar, bedeviled by his wife's unhinged nature and stumped by the futile and consuming communication, improperly catches the worst moment to throw a surprise party for Mabel, his quandary could be easier to be related by the audiences, besides, his trademark out-of-focus eyes betray his frustration and it is certainly the situation is at his wits' end. This tiny budgeted film is a family workshop, kinfolks and friends constitutes the cast, e.g. both Cassavete's mother Katherine and Rowlands' mother Lady plays the in-laws in the film. Overall the film is a challenging project which unflinchingly debunks the underbelly of the marital bond, "till death us do apart" is so harrowing to listen under this circumstance. During the conjugal tug-of-war, Cassavetes pluckily interposes their children into the game, at the eleventh hour, it is the kids' relentless endeavor thaws the edginess induced by the heavy volley of laborious squabbles. Finally I must bellyache about the befuddling time-line, when Mabel brings a stranger to her house at night, it is the next morning Nick and his workmates come back from working, they have an unpleasant midday dinner, then it is the morning after Mabel's mother brings the children to home before school, right? Then how come later Nick's mother accusing Mabel for adultery at "last night"? Help me out here, it does bugs me, otherwise it is an indeed unique film of its own kind, although it doesn't gratify my satisfaction thanks to the frivolous and dreary altercations, I am always coveting for a bit more from the story plainly extracted from the lifelike experience, other than accentuates the tedious and irksome sensory overkill, it would be nicer if a sensible approach could lead us to a palliative nostrum to set our cerebral phase back to a normal state.