Reviews

I am glad that Ingrid Bergman did not pursue her career in Germany.

This film, however, is quite interesting considering its time. It is 1938 pre-war Berlin. Four college mates determine to make their living through their arts by establishing an adevrtising company. Bear in mind that movies in 30s and 40s were full of melodrama and romance. So, this is like a fresh air.

Bergman plays Marianne, the leader of the pack. They try to make a living and swear that even loves and men can't deter their allegiance to the company. Like a sisters' pack or something.

Bergman speaks German fluently. It's insane how multilingual she was. One time you hear her in Italian, the other French and this one in German. She looks fresh and beautiful (obviously the most beautiful of the four, duh). Recommended for Bergman fan.

This is my second viewing. I did not really like it the first time. Now having rewatch it I found it quite interesting although I did not really understand the psychoanalysis mumbo jumbo. But I managed to get through the basic plot.

Ingrid Bergman and Gregory Peck made a very lovely couple and their tender scenes look so believable as if they were really in love. As it turns out, yes, they did have an affair off screen. Oh, how lovely. Ingrid is always a feast to the eyes and so is Gregory who looks so boyish.

I need to see more Hitchcock. I do believe that Hitchcock films need repeated viewing to fully appreciate his art. This happens to me with Vertigo, Rear Window etc. You just can't get all this picture with just one viewing because of its complexity. I fully recommend Spellbound even though you dont like psychoanalysis. If you are a Hitchcokian, or a Bergman's fan, sure you can sit this through.

This is the last film that Bergman and Rossellini did together. Their marriage was on the rocks and perhaps this was like a throwaway movie because that's what I feel after watching this. The plot does no have subplot, depth or whatever. It's clear cut plot about a woman being blackmailed by the lover's wife, and she is being paranoid about it trying to hide it from her husband. And little did she know that...(I won't spoil it for you). But there is all about. Bergman was great as usual but that's the only good thing. I felt like the director falling asleep all the while directing this. And the ending was a bit rushed. I only recommend this for Bergman fans only (I know there are lots and lots of them out there) who wants to experience this whole Bergmania.

I heard and read so many reviews coming into watching this film. I am not familiar with European style of movie making, neorealism and all that, but as a huge Ingrid Bergman fan, I felt compelled to see every movie she was in.

I read many criticsm on how Bergman does not belong to neorealism. Bergman destroyed and betrayed the idea and legacy of Roberto Rossellini who had been hailed as one true auteur by Italian cinema just because she brought this Hollywood persona into the picture. In neorealism concept everyone is on par with everybody and nobody is allowed to outshine anybody because they were suppossed to be 'street' or real actors. So they made Bergman wore this frumpy, drab and oversized clothes so Bergman would look much less appealling. And they FAILED miserably and thus lies the main problem.

I actually like and appreciate this film very much. I love actors who have 'range'. Who are not afraid to venture something new, unchartered territory. Who doesnt afraid to experiment. Who have guts and gusto. That's why I love Ingrid Bergman. She for me represents courage, gusto, determination, strength, vulnerability and beauty all wrapped into one. There won't be anybody like her.

Sometimes I wonder what critics and movigoers think first whenever Ingrid Bergman comes up on screen. Is it we think about her beauty first then talent or is it vice versa. Watch the last 15 minutes of the film and you'll know what I am talking about. I dont think even those close ups of her Casablanca or Notorious can top that. Whenever the lights on that face we can help but lost in the image.

The movie itself wasn't so good. Very slow and I was almost dozed off myself. I found myself pity with the Asa character, she was caring, selfless, unselfish and good-hearted. The lead actor was quite handsome and charming. I dont like the ending. Abrupt and unrealistic. Would you run off with someone you know less than 24 hours? I dont know, this is Ingrid Bergman we're talking about.

This is my second viewing and I didn't really like it on my first. Actually it is good if you can skip the scenes that took place at Elena's fiance chateau. The main criticsms for this movie is its convoluting and muddling plot. There were so many unnecessary characters in the background chasing up and down running and making stupid faces and movements. At same time the generals were upstairs laying out plots of overthrowing the government that it gets so convoluted and viewers couldn't follow through and they lost ineterest. On the flip side, the colour was superb. I like the technicolor they used in films during this period. It was so rich, striking, and bold. Ingrid Bergman was so radiant and gorgeous filmed in color. She was a dramatic actress not a comedienne so it was interesting to see her pulling it off in the middle of those chasing, yelling, and screaming scenes. The film suffers anytime she was not on screen. I think most of viewers agree. They wanted or can I say it begged for her to be back on screen. Renoir wanted to film Ingrid Bergman smiles. And my God what a smile it was. The ending was masterpiece, it was magic. You have to experience it and feel it to appreciate it. When it comes to kissing you can count on French! Very recommended.

Second American film for Ingrid Bergman and she was already top billed over other seasoned performers. Her role was kind of bland, prim and proper young governess. Wait until young Susan Hayward came into the picture playing seductress and loose wife to one of the sons of Warner Baxter. Bergman faces off Hayward, what I wouldnt do to watch that. Both were beautiful and young. Only recommended for die-hard fans of legendary Ingrid Bergman.

I cant help but compare this with Murder on the Orient Express (MOOE). It got the same star power treatment, Peter Ustinov, Bette Davis, Angle Lansbury, Maggie Smith (my favorite), David Niven but somehow I find it less entertaining. It doesnt have the smoky, claustrophobic, mysterious atmosphere of MOOE. But nonetheless it still good murder mystery whodunit story compared to what we have today.

I've always been a fan of Charlize Theron. She is a wonderful actress. But the allure is missing here. Her star presence gone, got trapped by series of flashback and so forth. The plot not so engaging about a woman who seek the truth of what happenned 30 years ago. But I managed to sit through because I hope there would be some interesting things involving but lastly I was glad to see the end credits roll out.

I quite like it despite the story being so simple about a married man who falls in love with a woman (not just any woman, it's Ingrid Bergman, folks!), but already has a devoted and lovingly wife and 2 children. Sounds cliche, right? But that what the plot is all about but on screen it is all about Ingrid Bergman as Anita Hoffman, making her foray into American audience (and we cannot thank you David O. Selznick enough).

With a running time of only 70 minutes, the stars gave everything what they had been given. But Leslie Howard didn't have that much chemistry with Bergman. I think while she was good at it, Bergman was just happy to be there. And with this film, it is really a start of beautiful relationship with Bergman and American audience.

I'm maybe in minority regarding which version is better. I think I prefer this version just because I think the Hyde in 1931 version is more like a monster than a character. Tracy's Hyde is more evil, sadistic and sinister. It helps also it got a treasure named Ingrid Bergman. Let me say here straight. I an Ingrid Bergman fan. Am not gonna lie. I watched because of her.

Here she played her role to perfection. Things only got interesting when she was on screen. Even with Tracy her presence seemed to dwarfed him and everybody else ceased to background. That how strong her star power was. She was really a feast for the eyes.

My first Bergman Swedish film. I came for Bergman and I stayed for Bergman. As usual she carries the whole movie and that what great movie stars do although others were falling apart. The supporting cast tend to over react or was it how they do acting for those days? I love how Bergman put her fingers across her scarred face as if to hide the ugliness whenever one looks closer. If only we can all look like Ingrid Bergman after one successful surgery.

I just want to start with how on earth could someone avoid a beauty like Ingrid Bergman for ten years? Well.. It's tribute to star power of Bergman when she supposed to take the back seat and let the ingenue, doe-eyed, debutante take the charge. The film falls flat whenever Bergman wasnt on screen. But I enjoy Goldie Hawn too. I love her giddy, perky, lively face expressions and mannerisms. I always thought she was a good comedian and actor. Matthau just being Matthau. And love watching Senor Sanchez try to lay hands on Bergman to no success. All in all, very enjoyable movie. I watch movies to get good laugh and good times and boy did I get one!

I dont know why many said this is inferior compared to Death on the Nile (1978). I honestly enjoy this one. I love the breathtaking ocean scenery compared to the crampy setting of Death. I love the cast too especially Diana Rigg who plays Arlena whom everybody hates. But I think she is effortlessly hilarious, I love to hate her character. It is not a full-blown hate. I love the catty exhange between her and Daphne played by the always great Maggie Smith. The best scene is of course when Arlena singing You're the Top with piano playing in background. God knows how many times I replay the scene. Very recommended.

I read about some of the bad reviews here. I don't usually write a review of any film I have watched but this time around I felt like I need to jot down something nice about this movie. It wasn't as bad viewing as I initially thought.

I didn't expect it to be on par with other great love stories in calibre of Casablanca or Brief Encounter. But I think it is a decent film, amicable but has sad ending. The film has a beautiful scenery with the great Appalachians landscape during the spring season that makes my heart long to be in that place. It is good enough to fill my time as I didn't have any thing worthy to do. The film flows beautifully, slow at start but still engaging that keeps you glued to the screen.

The attraction between Libby and Will was a bit rushed and Quinn did not convince me enough as a mountain handyman. Something is missing here. The scene where Libby met with Will's son came out of nowhere. They should focus a bit more on relationship between Will and his son so we can fully understand their interaction or left hanging guessing ouselves. Did he love his son or not?

The great Ingrid Bergman as usual carries the whole movie on her shoulder. Put someone lesser in her part and the film would be unbearable to sit through. I enjoy looking at her matured beauty, she was 54 at the time but still has this luminosity and radiance coming out of her. Its hard to compete with her, when she was on screen everybody ceased to exist.