Too much of everything

I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

Yo, there's no way for me to review this film without saying, take your *insert ethnicity + "ass" here* to see this film,like now. You have to see it in order to know what you're really messing with.

Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

Gena Rowlands is cast as the woman under the influence of some undefined mental disorder. Her acting is superb; when the camera is in a close-up of her face, her chops are just better than anything I have seen. Her facial gestures, the eyes, furrowing of the brows, nose twitching, everything - is the best I have seen in an actor portraying emotions and thoughts without having to say too much. Wow.In my opinion, it was her husband, Nick (Peter Falk) who was the one who needed to be put away. He portrayed a man who was angry, and he was angry and violent throughout the movie, for the most part. Poor Mabel (Rowlands), she was at the mercy of his anger and emotionally did what she had to do to cope.But this was a different era; it was shown, through Cassavetes' writing and direction, that it was acceptable then, in some American blue-collar homes, to slap women around, threaten people, give children alcohol, as long as it was the man of the house doing it.How times have changed, and it was through movies like this, where bizarre social behavior that was on the borderline of acceptable in that era, may have been a catalyst for the audience to examine their own emotions and mores.

I know that among film snobs that the films of John Cassavetes are considered amazing works of art. And, of all of Cassavetes films, this is his most famous because it was nominated for two Academy Awards. Yet, despite this and some very positive reviews, I felt that watching this film was like SLOWLY chewing on broken glass! It was thoroughly unpleasant and seemed to be in need of massive editing. As a play, this might have worked....as a film, I see it as something that the average film viewer couldn't possibly enjoy.The film consists of what appear to almost be home movies that last a very, very long time. The camera work is better than home movies but the graininess of the print and the complete lack of even minor editing made it seem like a movie not yet ready for the movies. There isn't a lot of story. Instead it's full of scenes were Gene Rowlands screams and yells--acting at times like she's mentally ill but at others like she's just a very nasty and occasionally self-destructive person (more like a person diagnosed with a Borderline Personality Disorder than anything else). And, as for her husband (played by Peter Falk), mostly he's impassive...until he blows up and screams at her. If you like this sort of thing as well as knowing that it is an art house favorite, you'll probably enjoy the film. As for me, it was a major chore to finish it.

This John Cassavetes' film is a sincere and in-depth examination of mental illness on family life. Featuring powerful performances from both the leads, it is a compelling drama with strong emotions.Most of the events in the films are focused on the two lead characters. Mabel is a middle aged, married woman who has completely dominated her life to her family. Her eccentric behavior seems inappropriate at some stages but the character is treated with utmost care. One could never go as far to call her mad. I believe, it is her excessive love towards her family and fear from seeing them harmed causes her mental depression and she looses the control. She is the woman who is concerned about everyone else, who just couldn't leave anyone unsatisfied. Her past is not known to us but her sensitive emotional states are nicely presented throughout. I think Mabel is a woman who just couldn't let be herself because of all of these, that's why under the influence. Gena Rowlands gave one really really great performance.But it is not just Mabel and her mental illness which the film is all concerned about. As I said earlier, it demonstrates how it the family life. Peter Falk gave equally good performance. It is his character whom I equally sympathized. Some viewers see him as the one who is really ill and states some of the scenes showing his questionable behavior. But I do not share such school of thought at all. I believe, he was a true family man. A hard-working man, devoted father and a husband who fights almost everything to protect his wife. He never believed in his wife's illness though admitting of not understanding it. He stands by Mabel but couldn't stand it when her actions started involving his children. His character and children towards the ending shows how much it takes to love someone.Movie has camera-work quite similar to documentary films, matching with film's plot that helps it up building realistic atmosphere. All in, it is a compelling triumph with masterful film-making.

Fresh to Cassavetes' canon, A WOMAN UNDER THE INFLUENCE is tiresome and exhausting for my first-time viewing, throughout the entire running time (155 minutes), we watch a series of intense clashes between Mabel (Gena Rowlands) and Nick (Peter Falk), sometimes catalyzed by their family members or close friends, and the repercussions includes Mabel exacerbates her mental disability and the collateral damage to their 3 young children. Using intimate and irregular camera-work to demonstrate a fly-on-the-wall authenticity opens a maximum door for thespians to show off their superlative working-class liberation of feelings and emotion, Gena Rowlands, immerses into her character with optimum dexterity, from her quirks of sputtering and word-mouthing, the fervid and persistent advocacy of opera aria to the time-bomb of her squeamish frailty, we never know when will she explode, whilst time is ticking and the wait is taxing both for the players and the spectators. She also shines in her warmer facet during the heartwarming episodes with her kids. Mabel is a dream role any actress would be ever craving for, Rowlands is the performer nonpareil for her concentrated and committed dedication of embodiment without falling into the pitfall of borderline OTT. Falk, a flawless pick for an ordinary blue-collar, bedeviled by his wife's unhinged nature and stumped by the futile and consuming communication, improperly catches the worst moment to throw a surprise party for Mabel, his quandary could be easier to be related by the audiences, besides, his trademark out-of-focus eyes betray his frustration and it is certainly the situation is at his wits' end. This tiny budgeted film is a family workshop, kinfolks and friends constitutes the cast, e.g. both Cassavete's mother Katherine and Rowlands' mother Lady plays the in-laws in the film. Overall the film is a challenging project which unflinchingly debunks the underbelly of the marital bond, "till death us do apart" is so harrowing to listen under this circumstance. During the conjugal tug-of-war, Cassavetes pluckily interposes their children into the game, at the eleventh hour, it is the kids' relentless endeavor thaws the edginess induced by the heavy volley of laborious squabbles. Finally I must bellyache about the befuddling time-line, when Mabel brings a stranger to her house at night, it is the next morning Nick and his workmates come back from working, they have an unpleasant midday dinner, then it is the morning after Mabel's mother brings the children to home before school, right? Then how come later Nick's mother accusing Mabel for adultery at "last night"? Help me out here, it does bugs me, otherwise it is an indeed unique film of its own kind, although it doesn't gratify my satisfaction thanks to the frivolous and dreary altercations, I am always coveting for a bit more from the story plainly extracted from the lifelike experience, other than accentuates the tedious and irksome sensory overkill, it would be nicer if a sensible approach could lead us to a palliative nostrum to set our cerebral phase back to a normal state.