kevinbearman-594-846991 Overall, I was very impressed with this film, and will certainly delve deeper into this new (to me) area as a result.However, as expressed by earlier reviewers, the scenario wherein a respected doctor is unable to record a complaint, or at least register an early warning, against a woman with a previous history of mental illness does not ring true.Most of all, I was fascinated by the parallels drawn with religion as the film drew to a close. The devotion, unwanted, of this woman to her chosen deity vs. the devotion, demanded, to God(s). I am personally an (ex Catholic) atheist, but recognise so many of us must worship.Please do not let any of my comments detract you from your enjoyment of this truly excellent film.

writers_reign ... should not unwatched go. Shakespeare came up with that line some 400 years ago yet he might have been referring to Isabelle Carre's tour de force in this movie. Carre IS without doubt a Great actress and seems to have made a speciality out of sickness; her portrait of a young woman stricken with Alzheimer's in Zabou Breitman's Se Souvenirs des belles choses was unforgettable and it would have been unthinkable had any other actress copped the Best Actress Cesar that year. In Anna M she does it again but this time without the self-awareness of her character in Se Souvenirs. Okay, we can't drag the story into a strong light less the flaws hit us in the face - for example a woman like Anna would never in a million years secure a job as a nanny to two young girls seemingly without a single reference and based on a five minute interview, nor would a locksmith be prepared to break into an apartment on the say so of a barely plausible young woman claiming to live there. We're prepared to overlook this sloppy writing solely because the performance of Carre IS so towering, so majestic.We know that Americans don't do irony but can we, I wonder, say as much for the French; in A la folle ... pas de tout Isabelle Carre played the wife of doctor Samuel L Bihan who was stalked by a deranged Audrey Tautou, convinced he was in love with her; in Anna M Carre plays the stalker and Anne Consigny has Carre's old role as doctor Gilbert Melki's innocent wife. The films even share a final moment when in each case the seemingly 'cured' leading lady shows the audience that this is far from the case. Tautou is, of course, a fine actress but Carre is a Great one who gives a ten out of ten performance here, only the sloppy plotting mentioned above drags the rating to nine out of ten.

missingtth ...then you have to back-up and start watching some Michael Haneke films. His work is brilliant, and makes Spinoza's film seem like a generic French thriller that pales in comparison. This film requires an immense degree of suspended disbelief which makes it unwatchable in my opinion. Am I supposed to believe the events that transpire in the film? Seriously? This film is really far fetched and the lead actress' performance is grating because of its one-dimensiality. Her obsession is just too much. And it cannot carry the film. No one is that obsessed in this world (okay, almost no one), certainly not over a Doctor??? Come on. Get serious.If they would have examined her relationship to her mother (like Haneke did in The Piano teacher) in a more thorough manner then it might have helped out in terms of the character development, but these characters just develop in such narrow terms.I take French Cinema very seriously, but I must admit that this is just average fare. Mediocre at best.

moimoichan6 Anna M (Isabelle Carré) is a poor and sick girl : she's lonely, depressive, she has no friends or sentimental life, she's got a boring job at the Fench National Library and she lives alone with her mother, who seems unable to fill the void of her life. So, she naturally tries to kill herself an evening, while taking the dog out. And when she wakes up at the hospital, she had to find a new meaning to her life, and it will take the shape of the doctor who cured her (Gilbert Melki), for whom she'll develop a crazy love fixation : even if it seems obvious that he only fells indifference for his patient for whom he only have professional concerns, she'll convince herself that he shares with her an absolute love. The movie develops wit realism and intelligence this fixation, that slowly become a dangerous mental sickness, and fallows its progression steps by steps, with the seriousness of a psychological study.To the crudity of this study, that sometimes really penetrates the intimacy of this troubled conscience, Michel Spinosa adds some horror/thriller's touch that wears a double face. Spinosa uses a fantastic tone and even some horror movies figures of style in order to describe the subjectivity of his character (nighmare sequences, deformed frame to underline the sickness of Anna, etc.), but he's also stage some horrific triller scenes, that lead to the most impressive and tense sequence of the movie, where the monstrous character is now in charge of children. The use of horror figures in a traditional dramatic movie is always interesting in the world of french "Cinema d'Auteur", even if it's more and more common (see the recent "Le dernier des fous", in which Laurent Achard imposed a fantastic tone to a classical family study, or "ILS", a french horror movie, supposedly based on real events). And it's nice to see that the mix is quite efficient and that, thanks to the the reflection of the psychological and the horror sides, you're able to clearly understand the madness of the main character.This description of madness, full of tension, is certainly the great achievement of the movie, but if you're deep in it when you're watching it, it's strange to see how its effects quickly disappear after the screening. Even if I was completely emerged in the movie while watching it, I didn't kept a strong memory of the movie, and it didn't get much impact on me. I think it's partly due to the clinical and cold impression that crosses the all movie, and to the fact that you never really fell anything for the characters. Anna is more like a figure of study, an experimental subject for whom you don't really get any emotion nor compassion, but only understanding, than a really human being. And the Dr. Zanevsky doesn't really exist, except in Anna's mind. Melki's character is just plain and mediocre, and you're never really able to see it through the crazy eyes of his mad lover. That's also why, at the end, despite the original efforts of the movie, I still got the feeling to have watched another classical french little drama.