Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

Just intense enough to provide a much-needed diversion, just lightweight enough to make you forget about it soon after it’s over. It’s not exactly “good,” per se, but it does what it sets out to do in terms of putting us on edge, which makes it … successful?

There is definitely an excellent idea hidden in the background of the film. Unfortunately, it's difficult to find it.

Critics can analyze and defend this film all they want but I challenge any normal person to get through this thing with a straight face. The proper response to all this deadly serious nonsense is to howl at the moon. It gives "art" a bad name. All those two-person conversations where no one looks at each other! The only movement being from one sofa to another! The expressionless faces! The endless talk about work vs. love and whether the twain shall ever meet! Who talks like that? The same theme has been done better (and faster) elsewhere (i.e. "The Red Shoes"). Whatever good intentions went into this film are negated by the mannered execution, so stagy it takes several minutes just for each character to drift in and out of the room. It must be seen to be believed! I'm giving it a couple of stars just for the utter gall of foisting this ponderous yackety-yak on an unsuspecting public.

I had very little beforehand experience, expectations or knowledge of Dreyer's swan song, but what an overwhelming and devastating experience it was! I was however very familiar with his other works like La passion de Jeanne d'Arc, Ordet and Vampyr which I have ranked among the best movies ever made - Jeanne d'Arc being the absolute early zenith of Dreyer's career as an incomparable artistic genius. After Gertrud I didn't feel so much of sadness or grief but more like emotionally paralyzed, ground to my bare bones. The emptiness of soul that follows almost every great film of this caliber and theme; catharsis if you will.Many critics have seen this film – that is by the way based on Swedish playwright's Hjalmar Söderberg's play – more like an ibsenian or strindbergian social commentary or a story about the difficulty of common understanding between the sexes. I'm not saying this is wrong per se, but I also like to see that the film deals with subjects common to whole human condition.Amor omnia, says Gertrud near the end of the film. That is also the lifeblood and essence of the film, even though life and love seldom seem to go the way we expect they would turn out. The whole mise en scène and the spacing of the movie, dialogue and actors themselves are crafted around upholding this central idea. Some people here have probably misunderstood this as stiff and pretentious filmmaking, while missing the whole point of Dreyer's razor sharp vision that is painful but captivating to follow at the same time. It's all about the unbearable emotional distance of a married couple, distance that in life is sometimes irreconcilable – isn't the true tragedy of life becoming emotionally estranged from the ones we used to love and hold dear?In a way the character of Gertrud mirrors the whole spectrum of human condition. We are thrown naked into the world and most of our lives we keep chasing the mirages of our desires and wants, never seeing the things we already have or the motives behind our desires. I generally dislike to quote popular life wisdoms but maybe happiness truly is having what you want & wanting what you have? Probably not, but still we all have the same qualities as Gertrud in the film – chasing her desires blindly and being constantly unhappy with our lot in life – a truly universal character I would dare to say!Cinematography is downplayed on purpose but mastered with sharp contrasts and is generally excellent. It's not that much of a beautiful film than well crafted; like a good piece of artisanship. Pacing in film is well done and dialogue represents true human characters, if not in form then even more in essence. The composition of images and scenes are like a textbook example of artistic control.There is also something little bit bergmanian in the whole story and film, which is also the reason I would like to recommend this film to people – were they young or old – who are in custom to hold on to these maybe little bit naïve (mis)conceptions of love and life. I'm not saying it's wrong, but you might want to reconsider your views about eternally lasting love and marriage – for your own sake.

In the elegant world of artists and musicians, Gertrud ends her marriage to Gustav and takes a lover, the composer Erland Jansson.What we have here is a world of light and shadows and an ever-lingering camera. Apparently the film was not a huge success with audiences (which seems to be running theme for Dretyer) and even alienated the critics because the long camera shots.Do we need to see one long take of a couple talking on a couch? Of course not. But Dreyer knows what he is doing, and when we re-examine the film now, decades later, we see the subtle genius and brilliance of constructing it in this way -- turning what was a stage production into a masterful film.

If you really enjoy long drawn out films with a husband and wife and a constant blank stare by Gertrud, this would be the film for you. Gertrud is a rather attractive young woman who was a famous Opera Singer and a lady of refinement and culture. However, she is seeking love and is simply unable to seem to find it, when she does, it just does not seem to work out. Some of her former lovers still remain in love with her, but Gertrud still remains unfulfilled. There is a point in Gertrud's life where she is married and is still looking for that certain spark she just can't seem to find from certain men. After viewing this film, I wondered if Gertrud still had a blank expression even during love making.