Too much of everything

The greatest movie ever made..!

Lack of good storyline.

A story that's too fascinating to pass by...

Disappointing after Shame, which was near-perfect. Clearly an experiment to break the third wall in a Bergman film, just not at all something I wanted from a Bergman film. I like to be completely absorbed in the reality of the situation. An improvised dinner-party scene where the actors bandy about miscellaneous pretentious ideas, mockumentary moments where "Liv Ullman" and "Max von Sydow" are interviewed about the characters just didn't work for me. I had to turn it off. Will try again at a later date maybe, but I've only just started finding Bergman films I love, this was not a good choice...There were scenes I liked, but then I'd get dragged out of the spell by the mockumentary scenes, very strange.4/10

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.

Ingmar Bergman is the greatest Swedish director and a great influence in cinema. Along with The Seventh Seal, Fanny and Alexander, Wild Strawberries, Cries and Whispers and Persona, The Passion of Anna is one of his best. But sadly it is not as recognised as much as these and I think it should be. Visually, as always with Bergman it is remarkable. The colours are really warm in look. The cinematography and direction are superb, as are the haunting score and thought-provoking dialogue. The story I cannot praise enough, the relationship between Andreas and Anna is one of the most intense and convincing of any film from Bergman's resume, and while detached somewhat everything feels realistic and the intensity of the story and the relationship of the characters really drew me in. The characters are not likable in a way, but what they are is compellingly real, one of Bergman's greatest strengths in terms of characterisation was always his understanding of women and in my mind The Passion of Anna is one of the finest examples of that. The two lead performances are outstanding, Max Von Sydow's facial expressions and eye contact always tell a lot and Liv Ullman's acting shows many complex emotions and seamlessly, her beautiful eyes are also very expressive and telling. Overall, a brilliant film and deserves to be more regarded than it is. 10/10 Bethany Cox

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.