"A woman under the influence" is about a woman (Gena Rowlands) constantly on the edge (and sometimes over the edge) of a nervous breakdown. We immediately realise that something is wrong with her when, at the beginning of the film, she shouts to her mother not to shout.

At first the plan was to make "A woman under the influence" a play, but Gena Rowlands realised that she would not have the energy to play this role every evening. After seeing the film we can only agree with her.

Many reviews observe that the man (Peter Falk) is psychologically just unstable as the woman is. I don't agree with that. As well as after watching "Prejudice" (2015, Antoine Cuypers) i realised how demanding it must be to live with such a patient. Even a sane person can, in such circumstances , not always keep is composure.

Yes, the man does stupid things (such as organising a big party when his wife returns from a stay in a mental institution), but that does not mean that he is a patient himself.

This movie is a breakthrough - courageous and uncompromising view at the family and at the marriage where both spouses love each other deeply but they are both not well, they don't know how communicate when somebody else present, even their own children. They could be happy on the deserted island but not surrounded by friends and families. I was fascinated by both, Peter Falk's and Gena Rowlands' performances. She looked like a little girl, trapped in a woman's body - confused, insecure, listening to what is inside of her. When she said to her children, "I hope that you will never grow up", she meant it because she never felt comfortable as a grown up. I could not take my yes off Rowlands. Her performance is on par with the best study of nervous breakdown I've seen, and this is Liv Ullmann in Bergman's "Face to Face".

Peter Falks was also a revelation - I love him as Lt. Columbo in the TV series but he is a completely different character here; in a way, he is as mentally unbalanced as his wife is. The fact that he loves her but never hesitates to abuse her makes him terrifying - you never know how he will act in the next moment, and he does not know himself. Directing and writing are absolutely first class, and I am very exited to see more films by John Cassavetes, the Godfather of American Independent film-making and a father of American "New Wave" 9.5/10

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.