The story starts with a great premise and ruins it. The actors seem bored from start to finish, and by the end you don't care what happens to Jack Nicholson--you only hope the movie will end as soon as possible. I cannot believe that so many people think so highly of this truly bad film.

One of the best film in cinematic narration

Somehow simultaneously overwhelming and subtle. Wonderful cinema.

I saw "The Passenger" in a film class at university years ago, and myself along with most others in the class found it to be one of the best things we saw during the whole 8 month class of two evenings a week, 5 hours a night. That's a lot of films, all of them classics, and "The Passenger" was among the top 3 for me.

Boring, boring, boring, like all Antonioni's film. Nothing happens and you wouldn't care if it did. I would call it pretentious but it doesn't even pretend to be about anything. Of course, the critics love it.

pretty antonioni travelogue has plot so uninteresting that i spent the whole film hoping maria schneider would take her clothes off.

I saw this movie because of the numerous favorable reviews of the professional critics. That's not the first time I've made this kind of mistake. I left the theater wondering what the critics saw in the movie that I didn't see. The acting seemed like ---- well, acting. I never got the impression that I was seeing real characters, only people reciting lines from a script. The story was boring and the tension level never really got elevated. The scenery was pretty and the movie was well shot. In fact, the best part of the movie (for me) was the last shot where the camera is inside a room shooting a scene through a gated window looking out. Then it slowly goes through the window and grate and is outside looking into the room. That kind of camera manipulation is common now days, but I wonder how they did it back in 1975. This movie shouldn't have been re-released. I'm reminded of the old saying: Let sleeping dogs lie.… Expand

Better than Blow-up

Surely Antonioni and Nicholson could not possibly have imagined how well this film would serve their respective reputations a generation later! Cherish Schneider’s exact work, and relish the early Nicholson, acting not leering. His character takes on a big chance, ultimately a losing chance, by impulsively assuming a dead man’s identity. Antonioni too takes big chances, using story elements that now turn out to be a little dated, repeating his usual tropes of few people inhabiting great languid slabs of time and territory. Yet the poetic result is winning, unlike the disorder of his previous English-language piece Zabriskie Point. An object lesson here is that even the greatest artist needs an unplanned slice of luck and serendipity in order to create a lasting, coherent work of art.… Expand

One of the finest films I have ever seen. The slow pace allows you to think. The original story prompts you to reflect on the unnecessary and bloated nature of your own material and personal obsessions. Locke, in the film, throws his ego away for something of equal inconsequence. A very modern film.

The crafting of this film is pure perfection. The pace is slow, but you surrender yourself to it, and your consciousness just sinks into the film. An immensely enjoyable experience. The shots and cinematography are absolutely stunning.

I was disappointed in this movie because of the many layers presented and it never explained why the protaganist changed identity with Locke. Jack Nicholson looked great 30 yrs. ago but that was not a sufficient reason to rerelease this movie. The story lacked substance, the photography was great.

Hmm. I saw this film cos of the rave reviews. I love cinema and parts of the film were beautiful but I would warn folks not to expect a gripping film unless you are a proper buff and are excited by watching 7 uncut minutes of filming (yup, that kind of thing). Actually make it sound quite interesting but you'll see.

Antonioni was a real landscape fetishist in this one. It's interesting to note the critical reaction 30 years where a film a dull and leaden as this one was hailed for its mainstream accessibility.

I love Blow-Up and L'Avventura. I know my Antonioni, and his tendency to take big plot points and never follow through with them. But Nicholson is just a little too wooden and this is just way too boring.

it is pretty funny that this film was considered mainstream for antonioni when it first came out, and even though it's often considered to be one of his weaker films, i still thoroughly enjoyed it. this film is much less harrowing and pretentious than l'avventura or notte or even zabriskie point. with this one, antionioni's taking us for a ride, and you just have to surrender to it and float along.… Expand

Enjoyed much more the second time around. I guess I am growing up.