A Dangerous Method Reviews
The only unconvincing part of the story was that Jung's penchant for mysticism didn't seem to colour his interactions or behaviour in the first half of the film, but then abruptly emerged in his conversations with Freud. Despite this minor quibble, I enjoyed this and it helped establish an atmosphere for my class readings.
Keira's acting is maybe slightly overdone at the beginning. I do like her, but not so much in this role.
Overall movie is a little dry and dull for my taste the.
An Ok Film! I really expected more by this movie, I expected more pathos, but unfortunately it proved scarcely involving and too rational. Nothing to say against the perfect technical execution, and the good acting, but what is disappointing is the screenplay, which should have been, in my opinion, the most significant element of the picture. Dialogues are flat, too rationally aimed at conveying an encyclopedic definition of psychoanalysis, but incapable of conveying empathy towards any of the three main characters, Jung, Freud and Sabine Spielrein. It's a movie that seems to promise plenty, seems to be always on the verge of revealing something, but never takes off, as if the director wanted to keep a distance from the handled subject, as if afraid of being swept away by the abyss of the human complex mind. Or maybe because the complexity is too great to be thoroughly revealed? Overall, I feel like this film would have been better if it had been longer. If the film had a running time of even two hours, compared to one and a half, more character development could have been inserted, particularly for Freud. In addition, more focus on Jung's relationship with Freud, rather than his relationship with Spielrein, would have been nice to see.
Suffering from hysteria, Sabina Spielrein is hospitalized under the care of Dr. Carl Jung who has begun using Dr. Sigmund Freud's talking cure with some of his patients. Spielrain's psychological problems are deeply rooted in her childhood and violent father. She is highly intelligent however and hopes to be a doctor, eventually becoming a psychiatrist in her own right. The married Jung and Spielrein eventually become lovers. Jung and Freud develop an almost father-son relationship with Freud seeing the young Jung as his likely successor as the standard-bearer of his beliefs. A deep rift develops between them when Jung diverges from Freud's belief that while psychoanalysis can reveal the cause of psychological problems it cannot cure the patient.
I was originally taken by the intellectual arguments between Jung and his hero/mentor Sigmund Freud, but by the end of the film it all seemed an overblown bit of psycho babble for me - all self important and really coming down to nothing special at all.
I blame the script and direction for this, as really the performances, especially that of Vigo Mortenson as Freud, were top notch; even if Kiera Knighly's Spielrein seemed too bi-polar for my tastes and her mad mannerisms didn't seem to fit her illness.
Taking into consideration that a fair part of the story involves Jung's dream of feeling trapped by his wife and children, this still didn't give Cronenberg license to rinse and repeat - 2 years later another child is born. Followed by a scene marked as "a year later in Vienna", followed by "a year later another.... You get the idea.
I'm truly vexed over what could have been here - and I really wanted this film to shine; but in spite of the fascinating subject matter concerning these two titans of psychoanalysis I'm left feeling that there was so much more to be had here than the story presented, and more so, the way it was presented.
I'm also not completely sold in Cronenberg's depiction of Jung as some kind of psychic channelor - able to reach into the great beyond for portents of upcoming events. To me this seemed like an easy way to explore the differences in Freud's practices and the theorums that Jung was to later expouse. Add that the great schism between the two minds held very little drama and the interplay between doctor and patient (who later became a doctor in her own right) lacked any sense of urgency or pathos and you get a film that, while interesting in part, overall suffered from too much navel contemplation.
Sometimes I really like getting something unexpected, since I figured this would go all out, but instead I'm left somewhat indifferent. In a way, this film is kinda boring, and I only learned somewhat more than I already knew aout the people and the subject matter, but the production values are top notch, the film looks great, and the performances are okay enough.
Well, Keira Knightley kinda overdoes it with the hysterical shrieking, but when she's not doing that, she's fine. Viggo Mortensen as Sigmund Freud and Michael Fassbender as Carl Jung however are awesome. Viggo wasn't initially who I wanted to see do the part, but he's good. I mean, he's never given a bad performance. Vincent Cassel has a couple of good moments, but I think he was misused or underused.
Overall, even though this wasn't a total letdown, it really isn't as compelling or exciting as it should have been.
Director: David Cronenberg
Summary: In this David Cronenberg-helmed biopic, Viggo Mortensen stars as Sigmund Freud, whose relationship with fellow psychology luminary Carl Jung (Michael Fassbender) is tested when Sabina Spielrein (Keira Knightley), one of the first female psychoanalysts, enters their lives. This World War I-set drama also stars Vincent Cassel as Otto Gross, a disciple of Freud, and Sarah Gadon, who plays Jung's psychoanalyst wife.
My Thoughts: "There is no denying that this film has a fantastic cast of brilliant actors who did some great acting. But the story just about put me to sleep. I ended up playing a game on my phone for most of it. I just couldn't find an inch of myself caring about the story or it's characters. Michael Fassender and Viggo Mortensen were great together on screen and made me take notice. But the rest was just blah. I guess it is one of those films that are for some and not for others."
"Based on the true story of Jung, Freud, and the patient who came between them."
A Dangerous Method had some interesting material, but I was never really absorbed into the movie like I should have been. In fact, I don't think I really even liked it at all. My rating comes purely because of the great performances from Knightley, Fassbender, and Mortenson. Also the film is just really well made, technically speaking. It looks good as a period piece and all the sets are well done. Still, underwhelmed is the perfect word for how I feel about A Dangerous Method.
This was unlike any Cronenberg film I have seen. Most of the movies I have seen from him had something to do with either the horror or sci-fi genres and many times both. This one is far, far away, story wise, from the films that started got him his start. So while this didn't really have anything in common with the other movies I've seen from him, I still managed to feel the same way I did after a great majority of his films. Most of the time I'm at least a little disappointed, with the one notable exception begin Videodrome. Now to be fair, I haven't seen some of his most praised films like Eastern Promises, A History of Violence, or Scanners; but the ones I have seen haven't really impressed me.
Cronenberg obviously has a large amount of talent as a director. He always picks extremely interesting projects, and he always makes them in a very professional way. I'm just waiting to see one of his movies that will really blow me away, and A Dangerous Method unfortunately wasn't that. Still a good effort from Cronenberg and everyone involved though.