Don't let "Dreams" be your first Bergman: you will never watch a second, and that would be a pity. Bergman directed some of the best films ever, but "Dreams" is not among them.
This tedious film plods slowly along as one stereotyped character follows another. We have a pretty, air-headed model who just wants to have fun, an aging would-be lecher, a bitchy female boss making a fool of herself for love, an ungrateful selfish greedy daughter.... None of them develop or change during the film. "Dreams" commits the ultimate movie sin: it's boring!
I don't know why this film got such a high rating. I can only guess that viewers were so overawed at Bergman's reputation that they failed to notice that the emperor was naked. It's amazing to think that the same director and crew and actors who made the great masterpieces also made "Dreams".
The cinematography is by Hilding Bladh instead of Bergman's usual Sven Nykvist: could this be the reason the film's so bad?
This tedious film plods slowly along as one stereotyped character follows another. We have a pretty, air-headed model who just wants to have fun, an aging would-be lecher, a bitchy female boss making a fool of herself for love, an ungrateful selfish greedy daughter.... None of them develop or change during the film. "Dreams" commits the ultimate movie sin: it's boring!
I don't know why this film got such a high rating. I can only guess that viewers were so overawed at Bergman's reputation that they failed to notice that the emperor was naked. It's amazing to think that the same director and crew and actors who made the great masterpieces also made "Dreams".
The cinematography is by Hilding Bladh instead of Bergman's usual Sven Nykvist: could this be the reason the film's so bad?