Very disappointed :(

Don't listen to the negative reviews

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

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

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.

Even with Bergman's star actors, all three or four, it's a question whether the "psychological turmoil" they undergo is interesting enough. It seems like another Bergman drama involving people with deep problems caused by traumatic events in their lives which no doubt is more than anyone can handle yet they involve each other yet it doesn't help anyone because the scars are too deep where they can't help the other damaged person in coming to some kind of a healing but even causes more harm than good. Add to that random cruelties in an isolated area and you have the makings of a Bergman film. Outstanding photography, and beautiful Liv Ulman, and Bibi Andersson in the prime of their careers make it a worthwhile experience.

In re-watching all the Bergman films, this one was a bit more elusive. There are so many secrets here with layer upon layer put over them. Then we have the subplot of the animal torturer and killer on the island. Probably most interesting beyond the story itself is a quick analysis of each character by each of the actors who leaves his or her role for a moment. They discuss how they view their people with a great deal of depth and insight. I wonder if they were prompted or it was extemporaneous. I would guess the latter. As with most Bergman characters, the people are doomed to their suffering and offer little comfort because they are so full of angst themselves. The living Andreas is a complex bundle of nerves. If he hadn't seen the animal killer and rescued the dog, I might have seen him as unbalanced enough to do these things, himself. Of course, the story never makes point, but the thought occurred to me. Anna is a royal mess but is able to keep her composure with those tight lips and that half smile. Pushed, she becomes a powder keg. As is usually the case, their personal problems are never solved and we wonder what the next frame in the film will be. It's quite a thoughtful and frightening film.

A writer lives on a remote island and occasionally shouts in the woods when he gets drunk. Oh, and he likes to talk to the camera, but as himself – Max von Sydow. He is friendly with an architect – with whose wife he, naturally, has sex. And let's not forget Ullmann, the widow. He likes her, too, and they hook up – much to his regret. She turns out to be even more mentally unstable than himself. In-between all the dull, pretentious dialog we have a couple of animals getting tortured and slaughtered.Seriously now, if you like Bergman's static, depressive, and overly self-indulgent movies, watch this one, too, and have a ball. And afterward, you can take that whole bottle of sleeping pills you hide from your spouse/parents/whomever, or you can just lock the door of your bathroom and have a nice lie down in the bath-tub while you slit your wrists. I hear hanging is pretty good, too! I have seen 7 or 8 Bergman films so far, and I have yet to come across one that can even fulfill the criteria needed for being average. They are mediocre, at best. I know, I know… Those of you who love Bergman probably think that I don't possess the necessary intellect to comprehend his films. I mean, they are all, after all, simply BRILLIANT. So DEEP. So very DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND… Believe me, there is nothing difficult in these films, and I am referring in particular to his relationship films of the "Passion of Anne" kind (or "Cries & Whispers" and "Autumn Sonata", for example). They are rather simple, in fact. Sure, they may be tough to understand by your average Steven Segall fan, but the fact that Bergman's films aren't idiotic doesn't mean they're good. They do not entertain. Heavy drama? Fine. But let's have grander themes than just relationships between a couple of depressed, troubled Swedes. All that these bergmannesque Scandinavian characters need is a nice trip to Hawaii - you know, somewhere warm and sunny – and they wouldn't be on the verge of suicide so much. I NEED SOMETHING GRANDER THAN WHO IS DEPPRESSED AND WHY AND WHAT THE REAL ROOTS ARE TO THEIR ANXIETY, SELF-LOATHING, and other wonderful traits. You want deep? Check out "Possible Worlds", "2001", "Picnic At Hanging Rock", "Solaris" (the 1973 film, not the shoddy Soderbergh version), or "Stalker". Don't bore me with "why does so and so not love his missus any more and why her childhood has scarred her and hence still influences the course of their marriage" type of trite stuff. YAWN. Bergman dramas are like daily TV soapers but with better acting and dialog.Sweden's best exports remain ABBA,their tennis players, and "Muppet Show's" Swedish Chef. I don't think that Bergman's contribution amounts to much – unless you'd take seriously what a plethora of pretentious film critics say about him.Did I mention that Swedish is a beautiful, melodious language that is like a mermaid's song to my ears?If you are unhappy with with this movie, which you must be, just google "Vjetropev Bergman Spoofs" and this will lead you to my video clips with the vastly improved version of the film. Have fun.