incredibly boring

I believe this is the last film by the master Carl Theodor Dreyer. Almost no modern audiences will appreciate this, but film buffs should definitely check it out. NOTE: is it just me or do none of the characters look at each other when they talk, throughout almost the entire movie?

111

Cool if you like furniture and long monologues.

Masterpiece of static camerawork. Dreyer wrote and shot this work as a series of conversations a deux, with nearly immobile long takes and minimalist performances. Slow pace of film creates its own tempo. Worth a look.

While some of the discussion is interesting (for a while), and the compositions are carefully crafted, and the cinematography is very well done, much of this seems very dated (and probably was already very dated in 1964).

"Gertrud is a film that is as richly mysterious and inscrutable as it is earthy and wry." - Eric Henderson

Suffocating in its miserable outlook on love and life, overwrought with philosophical meandering, and dryer than a bone lying in the Sahara. Absolutely gorgeous in its aesthetics--each shot could be a portrait in its own right--but it comes across as a slower, less-interesting, and much more frustrating Bergman film. It will absolutely test your patience. To re-appropriate a quote from the film: "Gertrud is suffering. Gertrud is unhappiness."

#111

Certainly not THAT good, at first I wasn't sure how I was going to get through it. Still, somewhere along the way those same qualities that annoyed me (the entire atmosphere, really) eventually grew on me. Lesser Dreyer to be sure, and not for everyone, but an interesting watch for those willing.

prowler's review nails it better than I ever could.

Exquisitely photographed. That's the only nice thing I have to say about this movie. Ridiculously melodramatic dialogue brought to life by ridiculously bad actors. What a waste of time.

# 97

Dreyer's final film is tantalizingly slow, almost daring you to tire of it, with its ensemble of dreary middle-aged characters speaking slowly and monotonously during long, static takes (one conversation occupies a single 10-minute medium shot). It's also a thoroughly captivating masterpiece about a lovelorn society woman, to whom "love is all", and her gradual rejection of the men in her life. It's a flawed but unique gem, probably one of the bleakest films ever made.

Good, but the commentary on love failed to resonate with me and the acting was average at best. All the characters, while not particularly unlikable, aren't very sympathetic and the constant harping on the conflict between love and work felt undeveloped. We're told a whole lot in conversation and see some consequences but the causes are left off screen. It is a very finely crafted film visually, though, and deserves credit for that.

Watch it more than one time. And pay attention to character "Gabriel Lidman". You'll remember, "Amor Omnia".

108

the bleak, static style, the countless shades of grey, the pauses, the fixed outward gazes, all pleading for an answer from the audience. an uncomfortable masterpiece.

It's very old-fashioned, classic style. The dream-like flashback sequences are magnificent.