Absolutely jaw-dropping in its treatment of the man, his work, environment, and the technique in which the filmmaker conveys this all. I cannot get these uncomfortable, despondent stares out of my mind. The editing is especially phenomenal.

Watkins' technique of using a documentary style proves to be an excellent method for a biopic. Through narration, interviews and recreations we get an astonishingly complete portrait of the man. I feel quite educated about him and his work, and without ever having been overwhelmed by the information. Poetic touches like quick, repeated flashbacks to childhood traumas or lost loves. A superb, engaging and sometimes beautiful film, easily my favorite by Watkins so far.

Of all the films I have discovered in the last couple of decades, this extremely complex, innovative and multi-dimensional masterpiece is the one that, more than any other, I would wish, with the benefit of hindsight, to have had the opportunity of seeing before embarking on my own little cinematic adventure. Watched the 221-minute version: it is a shame that the Blu-ray does not include both versions, but wonderful that it exists at all. Re-watched December 2020: now in my all-time top twenty.

"...images of sensuality captured like birth on film."

If you want to shut up some of these elitist snobs who don't consider cinema to be a legitimate form of artistic expression and philosophical inquiry, make them watch this one.

Wow, what an impassioned film! Distinctly inquisitive and presumptuously impulsive yet seemingly carefully structured... Sometimes there's as if Watkins seeks to "imitate" (or at least follow up on) Munch's distinctive, impressionistic sensibility, the frames becoming somewhat blurry and painterly at times, entrapping a withdrawn Munch (stirring somewhat nervously into the camera) in a foggy and somehow mystical landscape.

To me this is what a film ought to be (logically, ethically and aesthetically). Through the masterful layering and repetition of sound and image, overlaid with acute attention to historical detail and simultaneous appreciation for the bigger picture, Watkins constructs a compelling portrait of the love, death, loss and longing that defined the life of Munch the artist. Watkins makes all the affordances of film work for him. I consider it the best film I've seen to date.

Layer upon layer upon layer upon layer.... Incredible.

A high point of PW's style of reconstructing events on film using non-professional actors. Even more memorable is the constant intercutting between timelines. This underlines how a few key experiences formed Munch as a person and an artist. It successfully balances these two contrasting uses of time; the chronological retelling of events and the constant shifting between timelines. Succeeding in showing both the social political climate as well as the personal emotional live of Munch.

Bergman thought that this 211 minute biopic featuring untrained Norwegian actors was a masterpiece. It's a very thorough portrait of the artist and his inner life with very little plot. Watkins' direction and original devices (people talk to the camera, interview-style, and sometimes break the fourth wall during regular scenes by looking directly out at the audience) and the casting make this rather compelling nevertheless. And if that's good enough for Ingmar, it's certainly good enough for me.

I don't know much about Munch himself, but what I really like about this film is how it shows the development of an artist in his world -- how the environment, circumstances of history, spirit of the age, all interact together with the individual's own personal relationships, psychological makeup & artistic drive.

Demanding, but brilliant.

Much better than usual for a TV biopic. Munch did original, bizarre paintings, so, fittingly, Watkins has made an original, bizarre biography of him. Between the usage of Munch's own diaries, the nonprofessional cast, and the frequent addressing of the camera by the supporting players as if they were being interviewed, it feels like Watkins and his crew travelled back in time to 19th-century Norway, somehow explained to a terrified Munch and family who they were, and filmed a documentary there

Utterly kaleidescopic in the denseness of it's editing, enough to make even Nicholas Roeg blush. More of a Terrence Malick film than Malick himself was making in the '70s.

I knew nothing about Munch coming into this film (except that he made The Scream). The film, and Watkins' signature style of faux-documentary as if the documentary was filmed contemporaneously with the events, taught me a whole lot and the style really goes a long way toward drawing you into what could otherwise be a bit dull subject matter (despite enough affairs, murders, and other hijinks to make a soap opera blush.) Recommended even if you have no interest in the subject.

Becomes a little meandering near the end, but in general it's an odd, vivid, and entertaining piece of work. I don't think there's anyone else out there who does this kind of thing than Peter Watkins.

It's impossible for any sensible well rounded film lover to not at least appreciate the enormity of Watkins' undertaking with Edvard Munch. His faux documentary approach transcends gimmickry to explore the inner and outer life of an artist in an obviously superior fashion to the Mike Leigh's of this world. Westby's uncanny resemblance to Munch is a definite plus, but it's a fairly dry and bloodless portrait with overly obtrusive narration and somewhat simple psychology.

Very well shot and thought out. Each character displays a particularly vivid account of the person they represent. The use of light and the bleak colour palette display a washed out and depressing view of the era, while still posing interesting questions. Criticisms are that it's slightly too long and slow at times. Also, it seems slightly overrated by the few that have given it a ranking.

"But he lingers on those criticisms quite a bit." http://illusionpodcast.blogspot.com/2014/10/episode-32-peter-watkins-edvard-munch.html

There is a sense both of contextualizing, placing the subject in his milieu, via very ambitious editing [impressively, by Watkins himself], and of tactility-- of texture, surfaces: the fibers of a canvas, the smoothness of a lithography plate, contours of a woodcut block. The grainy, textured photography can look on occasion amateurish, and sometimes painterly. I must say, though, I prefer the opposite face of the coin, which reveals its subject by way of anachronism: viz. Jarman's CARAVAGGIO.

Great expansion on the normal biopic format, putting everything in a historical context, letting the characters break continuity to speak directly to the audience, with Munch more as an observer and reflector than actual protagonist in the centre... A bit overlong, though.

I loved the concept, and the subject matter was for the most part handled exactly as I would have wanted. I felt at times that the film had the tendency to spin in circles at moments, but I suppose that was supposed to be our insight into Munch's subjective experience.

Peter Watkins sinemayi degistirmis haberimiz yok. Dokumenter kamera yabanciligini yitirdikce biyolojik goze donusuyor ve zaman ve mekan hafiza araciligiyla Munch'un opusen insanlarinin suratlari gibi birbirine kayniyor (Tarkovski solda sifir kalir). Hem zeki, hem politik, hem de sanat pesinde kosan filmlerden cok daha sanatsal.

It requires your patience, but this very different take on the artist biopic by Peter Watkins is both one of the only films to successfully convey crafting a work of art of any type, and is one of the tentpoles of his filmography, using his traditional meta documentary style combined with period scenes, and shifts into the past and future through rapid editing, that successfully works.

The clever-clever approach to portraying this story is original, but raises a barricade against any engagement we can have with any of the characters, namely the title one. But what keeps one watching this very long saga is the massive wealth of information on Munch's art-work and the best possible explanations as to why he created them and what or who inspired him.

"Edvard Munch, in Watkin's subjective documentary setting, is one of the penultimate cultural crusaders, a relic of a dying era in which individualism could, apparently, still conceivably be intuitive and not reactionary." - Eric Henderson

Unusual and original biopic about the great expressionistic painter Edvard Munch and his trials and tribulations. The non-actor cast members do a better job with the parts that are supposed to be a documentary, and not quite as well with the more dramatized parts. Although the movie justified its nearly 3 hours of runtime well, the pacing sometimes felt a bit off.