Another incredibly polarizing film that I don't have a very strong opinion on. The critics seem to love it. The public seems to hate it. Me? I thought it was alright.

I don't know what to make of it; I mean, the film is a whopping 3.5 hours long. Was I bored? No, not even that, although the monotony gradually drove me crazy. Especially the constant flickering of lights on and off, or the endless opening and closing of doors (which is surely the point). On the other hand, this repetitive sequence evoked a certain sense of comfort and calm in me; that's life, pure, often tedious routine just to exist. At least until something disrupts this routine and everything starts to unravel. I kind of liked the film, I can't say why. In any case, it must be doing something right, considering how long it is in which absolutely nothing happens. But I can't exactly recommend it; watch it, or don't.

Experiential cinema. It's not enough to describe or depict the drudgery, Akerman makes sure we feel it. Does that make for a good viewing experience? Not for me, but I respect the commitment to the art. The last hour was shockingly thrilling, though, I'll give it that.

By many this is considered the best movie of all time. I knew this before watching this movie. This is dangerous knowledge. This often guarantees disappointment. Am I disappointed? Maybe. Not even sure. I can see the artistic and historic appeal. Kudos to Akerman. Kudos to the actors. Kudos to whoever greenlighted production. I'm sure nobody in Hollywood would have dared to finance this. I see its relevance. I appreciate the feminine (or feminist) angle. I appreciate cinematography and pacing. I appreciate the minimalism. I understand why the movie looks like that. I appreciate the monotonous routines and small deviations from the normal routine. The movie succeeds in telling a story that everybody will understand. It's good someone made this movie and it's great that I spent 3(!) hours watching this movie. All that said, I feel a good movie should create a certain desire to watch it again. I don't want to rewatch this movie. It's just unpleasant to watch. And the movie is simple. It's not like you want to watch it again in order to battle the feeling that you have missed something important. I'm sorry to say that but there's worse movies that I like better and would rewatch anytime. *Jeanne Dielman* is a very good movie that I personally don't find very appealing. This is perhaps an unfair assessment but it is what it is.

The film challenges conventional narrative by focusing on what is usually omitted: the everyday. Ellipses, which commonly exclude trivial details, become the semantic pillar here. Through the meticulous portrayal of Jeanne's daily routines, the film penetrates her inner world, making emotions appear almost palpable. Although not in a material sense, something pulses with an intensity that evokes the sensation of authentic life. This meticulous attention to everyday details, with its almost documentary character, not only facilitates a deeper and more genuine connection with Jeanne Dielman, a widow whose seemingly monotonous and orderly life gradually reveals cracks in her mental facade, but it also avoids becoming redundant. However, contrary to what many media outlets assert, it is far from being the best film, as its innovation is more stylistic than practical. Its extremely detailed approach and slow pace are not comparable in impact, practical utility, or legacy of influence to the revolutionary innovations of other cinematic masterpieces.