BootDigest Such a frustrating disappointment

SpunkySelfTwitter It’s an especially fun movie from a director and cast who are clearly having a good time allowing themselves to let loose.

Janae Milner Easily the biggest piece of Right wing non sense propaganda I ever saw.

Derrick Gibbons An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

Anssi Vartiainen A biographical drama movie about Dr. Carl Jung, founder of analytical psychology, Professor Sigmund Freud, founder of psychoanalysis, and Sabina Spielrein, a patient of Jung and eventually one of the first female psychoanalysts. It starts when Spielrein arrives to the become of Jung's patients and follows their lives from thereon out.Like a good biographical dram should, this movie taught me quite a lot about the subject matter. Naturally, as a movie under two hours, it takes certain liberties with the source material, but the essentials are still there and they're there to spark your interest. I've gone to Wikipedia after many of these movies to learn more. Likewise in this case. For example, I was quite aware who Freud and Jung were and I was familiar with the gist of their theories and studies. I was even aware that Jung was considered to be something of a successor to Freud's work. But I had never quite realized that they had been peers in the same field living at the same time. Jung is younger, certainly, but they had frequent correspondence and regarded each other as equals. Or at least very close to equals. I also had never realized that Freud's Jewish origins painted his discipline in a certain light in those early days of the 20th century.Though, to be fair, the movie has some flaws. The acting is for the most part great. Viggo Mortensen as Sigmund Freud is especially inspired casting and his tired musings are some of the best content the film has to offer. Keira Knightley as Sabina Spielrein is the one that's going to divide opinions. Her later scenes are for the most part fine, but some of her early scenes, when she's still suffering from severe hysteria, are almost laughably over the top. She juts her jaw out like a cavewoman, speaks with odd pauses and behaves quite like the stereotypical cartoon mental patient. It's of course possible that the real Spielrein had such symptoms, but I doubt it.The movie also suffers from the bane of biographical movies, which is to say that the story doesn't have enough cohesion. The initial setup in certainly interesting, as are the characters, but the film falters towards the end because there's really no great place to stop. There are still things in the future worth mentioning, but the overall themes and ideas have already been exhausted, yet the characters continue to live their lives. Like real people do. Very few biographical movies can escape this trap, and I don't blame this movie for being unable to do so, but it's still something of a problem.Still, definitely a film worth watching for the fans of the genre.

Finfrosk86 Yeah, so the movie is OK. A little weird, maybe. Kind of challenges the whole plot-thing, as it doesn't really have it.. plot. But you know, most of the stuff here is OK.Fassbender is quite good, so is Viggo Mortensen and Sara Gadon. The movie looks pretty good, it's not directly boring, overall it's an all right movie. Sets looked good, I like the mood of it. Got a craving for cigars, too, although I know they taste like crap.Anyway.Here is the problem. Keira Knightly. Oh. My. God. She is supposed to play this "crazy" (let's just use the word crazy for convenience) person, and she plays it so bad. So very, very bad. Bad and wrong. It takes a whole lot for me to get embarrassed because of bad acting, but here actually I was. She overplays to an extreme degree. The crazy-scenes are just crazy bad. Is David Cronenberg blind and deaf? How could he ever be happy with her performance in those scenes? I mean come on, she is absolutely horrible! Oh it is SO bad. She tosses and turns and presses her hands to her genitals, and coughs and makes faces and pushed out her chin (the worst part) and she stutters and cries and her mouth is crazy and please don't ever make me watch it again! It's worst in the beginning tho, thankfully she tones it down longer into the movie, but still. Her acting is just bad. It's just, downright bad. She does the accent pretty good, but the rest is rubbish. And you know, that is all I have to say. Made me want to smoke cigars, and made feel sorry for Keira Knightly.

dee.reid A number of reviewers and critics have already stated that the 2011 historical drama "A Dangerous Method" - about the birth of psychoanalysis in the beginning of the 20th century - was a film long in the making by its director, Canadian "body horror" master David Cronenberg.Reviewers and critics have noted that "A Dangerous Method" is admirably restrained - meaning there's no gratuitous sex or extreme violence (common characteristics of much of Cronenberg's past work up until this point). But sex does come up here a lot, though it's mostly through carefully written stretches of dialogue meant to explain the dynamics of human behavior and the human mind. In other words, it's the ideas that mean the most here, rather than their physical signifiers (though there is also some of that here, too).The film details the professional relationship and personal friendship of Swiss neurologist Sigmund Freud (Cronenberg's go-to veteran, Viggo Mortensen) and a young psychiatrist at the beginning of his career named Carl Jung (Michael Fassbender). Opening in 1904 only a few years before the outbreak of World War I, "A Dangerous Method" begins with the arrival of a young Russian woman named Sabina Speilrein (Keira Knightley) to a mental hospital in Zurich, where she becomes Jung's patient. (Suffering from hysterics and repressed sexual desire, Knightley's performance may grate some viewers, but it's one of the more truer depictions of mental illness. Her showy theatrics pretty much dominate the film's first half-hour before she settles down into relative coherence.)Jung begins his care of her simply by talking to her, in applying a newly founded psychoanalytical technique derived from Freud. Jung begins a correspondence with Freud in Vienna, and when the two meet for the first time they have a conversation that will last a whopping 13 hours. At this same time, Jung begins an extramarital affair with Sabina, who eventually recovers from her condition, and studies to become a psychologist herself after assisting Jung for a time in his work. (Jung is also challenged by the arrival of a neurotic young doctor who becomes a patient - Otto Gross, played by Vincent Cassel - who believes that sexual repression is dangerous for the individual and society as a whole; Jung obviously believes in the reverse.) Eventually, though, Sabina and the competing psychological theories of Freud and Jung drive both men apart."A Dangerous Method" was written by Christopher Hampton, which is adapted from his own stage play "The Talking Cure," as well as the 1993 non-fiction book "A Most Dangerous Method" by John Kerr. The film has been described as an "intellectual menage-a-trois" by some critics and indeed in the hands of Cronenberg, it is. The film is at its most engaging when the three characters challenge one another with their theories and observations of psychoanalysis. You may not be able to keep up with it all - especially if you're not familiar with the practice of psychology - but it does make for a compelling viewing experience in that regard."A Dangerous Method" is David Cronenberg's most transgressive movie yet - after the increasingly mainstream crime-thrillers "A History of Violence" (2005) and "Eastern Promises" (2007), both of which starred Viggo Mortensen. It's a movie about ideas, extremely subtle and restrained, yet deliberate. It is yet another solid entry in David Cronenberg's auteur style.7/10

thesunsmellstooloud This review is pretty hard to write, because there is so much in this film that I enjoyed, and so much that I nearly cringed at. Cronenberg has been a master of taking complex psychological themes and giving them terrifying conclusions, while making powerful statements on modern society. And he has set the bar very high. The marriage of the director and a film on the origins of psychoanalysis could've been a match made in Heaven, but the film tries to deal with too much, without focussing on one single storyline, and not being able to do justice to any one of them.The film starts off with Sabina Spielrein and Carl Jung's first conversations while she was suffering from hysteria, and their relationship develops into a sexual one. While Carl Jung helps her develop her career in psychology, he finds fulfilment in her company. This storyline starts with much potential, but meanders to a halt. The most enjoyable parts of the film were obviously the interactions between Jung and Freud. Michael Fassbender's performance was genuine and passionate. And what can I say about Viggo Mortensen - it felt as if Sigmund Freud himself had time travelled to act in this film. This film captures beautifully how these two men feel an emotional affinity to each other, but have different ideas about psychoanalysis, which makes them constantly size each other up, consequently creating a rift between them. I felt that they deserved more screen time together and their interactions should have occupied the foreground.The Jung-Spielrein storyline suffers from Jung mostly feeling guilty about cheating on his wife, and scenes with his wife in them seem quite unnecessary. I like Keira Knightley in a lot of her films, but she was miscast in this one. Her performance was shockingly bad and restricted me from getting immersed in the film and the characters. Instead, I was fully aware of watching someone act, and act badly. Vincent Cassel as Otto Gross makes a big impact in a small role. He has some controversial views on sexuality and eventually plays the serpent to Jung's Adam. While this film could've been a roller coaster ride of emotional, professional, sexual and psychological conflicts, it stays snuggled comfortably in between.