A deeply frustrating story that leaves you fuming.

All Time Classic. The acting can only be described as powerhouse and the dialouge never feels snappy or meandering but very honest. I'm not sure how else to describe it. It just feels very real like were watching a reality show if that makes sense. Like someone has a video camera and is making a home movie (not in a found footage way though) and capturing these real moments. Falk & Rowlands are incredible in this and watching them explode with emotions is amazing. It's a long film but man the drama is so deep and heartbreaking at times. My take was a woman is crazy for just wanting to be happy and spend time with her husband and be loved. And yet the husband arguably the one who is even crazier is seen is arbitraily seen as sane by family and society. A clear double standard that the film never stands on a soapbox and preaches. The family dynamics are so real and raw. Masterfully edited and paced as well. It never felt dry either and the setting of a simple house in 1974 feels so memorable at the same time. I didn't love it personally but I can't deny how well done this is. Everyone should give this a try once.

Very well acted and I expected to love it, but I have to confess that I thought it was deadly, only got about a third of the way through. I found it both annoying and boring. The main character is a woman with obvious mental health issues not getting the help she needs by, spinning out, and overall weird family dynamics.

The pacing is way too drawn out. For me, the emotional weight could have been sufficiently made in an hour and forty-five to a max of two hours, but not at two and a half hours. A few of the scenes felt like they were relentlessly long. My good heavens was Peter Falk's character an A-grade selfish asshole that pushes Gena Rowlands's character into the deep end of the insanity pool with the extreme amount of stress he places on her with all his yelling. It was tangibly evident when she returned from her six months at the mental health institution.

A Woman Under the Influence has some of the greatest acting one could see, especially from Gena Rowlands, but that’s about it. It could’ve delved into other subplots to keep the viewer engaged, instead of relying solely on one and the same idea, especially that it spawns for about 150 minutes. This movie is not made for everyone, but rather for those with patience. If you don’t like slow-paced movies, then you most probably won’t enjoy this one - without denying its cultural significance.

Didn't enjoy it. The acting is atrocious. The dialog is embarrassing. I think Cassavetes wanted them to improv most of their lines. That's a mistake because they sucked at it.

A punishing viewing experience but that's why it has always lingered in the background of the cultural discourse for so long. Well that and the unflinching performances.

Easily, they could have cut about 45 minutes of film, and maybe I would have considered it near worth of the status it has. Some very long scenes that didn't told anything. At least anything interesting. A good, serious theme that could have been treated in a very much better way.

Easily, they could have cut about 45 minutes of film, and maybe I would have considered it near worth of the status it has. Some very long scenes that didn't told anything. At least anything interesting. A good, serious theme that could have been treated in a very much better way.

Marvelous acting and the intense plot make this a movie to remember forever.

As the film begins, the tone is quickly established through a score that employs numerous dissonant chords, cementing the theme of disconnection that runs throughout A Woman Under the Influence (1974). Not in quite some time have I been so impressed by, and cognizant of, a film's score. Composer Bo Harwood cradles the entire film using only a piano and an acoustic guitar (throwing in a youthful kazoo during the closing scene). The only orchestral dynamic is when Italian opera is injected as music being listened to by the characters. The actual score is underdone and naked, which makes it perfect as a thin blanket upon which the story can rest. This film made my 2023 must-see list because of the highly heralded and Oscar nominated performance of Gena Rowlands. She plays Mable Longhetti, a Los Angeles housewife and mother, married to Nick (Peter Falk), a construction foreman who is absent from the home for long periods of time. Mable is a woman who doesn't conform to the social norms of a woman her age and of the era. She experiences many of her daily moments from a childlike innocence, while also being a mature woman who's in need of attention and will seek that attention through unconventional means. Rowland imbues Mable with physical tics and vocal patterns that are superbly conveyed and amazing to behold. The story was written by Rowland's husband, John Cassovetes, who also directed the film. The story was originally written to be a play, but Rowland wasn't sure she could portray Mable eight times a week, so it was rewritten to be film. This movie is much more character driven than plot driven. We are given a look inside Mable and Nick's relationship, how it started, how it survives, and how it is challenged. What we aren't given are clear answers to complex questions. We know Nick and Mable love each other, but is their relationship a healthy one? Mable's adoration of her children is evident, but is she a fit mother? Mable clearly has some level of mental imbalance, but to what degree does her husband and family exacerbate or abate that imbalance through their "help"? What is the ultimate influence that the woman is actually under? The answers will depend on the viewer… and that is just one of many, many things that make this movie a superb one. And what of all those accolades for Rowland's performance? That's one question that certainly has a clear answer. She was worthy of them all. And I would be remiss not to mention how great Peter Falk was as well. His portrayal was subtly impressive and never overshadowed by Rowland's, which was a tough feat. In fact, Falk was so dedicated to having this film produced, that he put up $500,000.00 of his own money to help fund it when major studios repeatedly turned Cassovetes down. In the end, this film became an independent gem. A gem worthy of being gazed upon and admired for its brilliance.

Gena Rowlands is amazing. Hard watch but me every time.

Gene's performance is golden. Mabel is a warm and loving person, and it seems like her mental illness is primarily exacerbated by the embarrassment and shame that others project onto her. She is surrounded by selfish and abusive people, the main one being her husband, yet she is always the one being derided. It's sad to see her struggling with her mental health, oftentimes seeming completely lost, but it's also sad to see the behaviour of those around her and towards her. !!SPOILER AHEAD!! Mabel throws a party and dances with the kids and gets committed for it, yet it's fine that Nick can shout and bully and manhandle and ply the kids with alcohol? Such bullshit. This film made me angry. I would punch Nick in the face. Mabel is the one with the mental illness, but it seems like it's everyone around her that's wired wrong. Nick's the one with the real problem... he's deceitful, manipulative, aggressive, and just a general all-round dickhead. Mabel's return is painful to watch - the fake fawning from the people who fucked her over; the creepy and spineless parents; the husband who sent her away for being crazy and now wants her to "be herself" but berates her for doing so; the doc telling her to "calm down", as if that ever helped anybody. None of them really care about her mental health, they just want this particular acquaintance of theirs to be "acceptable". I guess this film is a great representation of the ignorance of and stigma towards mental illness and the toll it takes on families, and the fact that just because someone is "crazy" doesn't mean they can't be a better person than the so-called "sane" people around them. P.S. Did I mention I hate Nick? P.P.S. Those poor kids.

Outside of lingering annoyances, Cassavetes finds behavioral truth that dictates story. Though I believe in similar means to achieving a result, I disagree with his too loose approach, which amounts to people simply acting weird or loud on screen. There are times we really connect to empathy-worthy emotions, and other times it's a dramatic equivalent to mindless Hollywood action for the sake of action, completely losing my attention.

Brilliantly well made just not enjoyable to watch. You'd really have to be in the mood to sit through a searingly intimate scene of a woman who is out of control and her hot headed abusive husband. It's not the light hearted and whilst it's well acted it's just too much and too little at the same time. A chore.

Cassavetes' overlong semi-improvised portrait of a blue collar marriage buckling under the strain of addiction and mental illness is compromised for most of its running time by self-indulgent acting and direction. What should be seriously affecting becomes maudlin and self-important, as if everyone involved believes they are creating a cinematic masterpiece that will garner awards. Such a pity because the subject itself is certainly worth dramatising, and has been with greater artistry by others.

A Woman Under The Influence - Everyone Is Under The Influence There are some who regard Cassavetes movies as fine examples of improvisation but this is quite removed from the truth, they are as scripted as anything you could watch. This one is slightly more ‘connected' than some others, but still contains all his trade-marks:- overacting, formless overlong scenes, with sloppy camerawork and editing. Many of his ‘home-movies' appear to have been made to provide work for his drinking buddies and immediate family – often they seem to play-out more like extended commercials for Booze and King-size cigarettes. Within this same formulaic approach, his pals and family consume massive quantities of alcohol, courtesy of J& B, with endless shots of the bottle labels placed in prime positions of each shot (often with the label facing directly to camera to make sure you get the message) They also smoke back to back, endless cigarettes and whatever else – in fact, it looks more like these movies might have been designed to keep everyone in free grog and smokes (this, from what we are constantly told, is an accepted endless pastime in Hollywoodland) The scripts for any one of these films would be lucky to have handfuls of fully written dialogue pages, but most all run for well over two hours - with endless repetitive scenes that could easily have been wrapped up far more convincingly in 80-90mins maximum. Those who don't mind spending time with a chap who sadly drank and smoked himself into an early grave – might last the distance, others might be warned to seek more ‘accessible' entertainment. Apologies to the fans but ticket sales suggest John was actually a better actor than movie-maker, and it's a pity we did not see more of him in quality mainstream shows such as ‘Edge Of the City', etc.

Painful watch, especially the dinner scenes.

Who is the crazy one at this house? How "normal" should look like?

Fair to say I definitely did not expect to be sucked into this naturally raw and exquisitely shot film about a family undergoing crisis. The domestic tension Falk and Rowlands were able to create with some of the most uncomfortable scenes of marital strife I have ever witnessed in a film were beyond admirable and made it possible to become totally absorbed in these longer scenes, which when strung together create an emotional portrait of the impact mental illness can have on a family. The cinematography was exceptional as the intimate manner in which this was shot made you feel right in the middle of these private and personal moments, which many of us may never experience or witness, usually taking place in homes behind closed doors.