User reviews

I must admit, going into this film, I was rather excited; I've enjoyed both of David Cronenberg and Viggo Mortensen's previous collaborations and my interest in both Freudian psychology/psychoanalysis and Michael Fassbender practically guaranteed that I would be seeing this film. I fear now, however, that my expectations may have been a bit too high.

I must admit, however, that I thought that Michael Fassbender and Viggo Mortensen played their roles very well, although Mortensen definitely didn't receive as much screen time as he deserved. Vincent Cassel definitely shone in his extended cameo as Otto Gross. I did have some issues with Keira Knightly's acting, however. I feel like she may have over exaggerated her actions, particularly in the beginning scenes where she is in the midst of hysteria.

However, my real problem with this film is that, for lack of a better term, it all seems a little too shallow. Events that should be important are skimmed over and not explained; to be honest, it doesn't particularly seem like anything of real importance happens in the film. The characters have little depth; despite the fact that they are all playing rather well known persons, there simply isn't anything to them other than a name. On top of this, despite what the taglines of the film and trailer seem to suggest, the relationship between Freud and Jung is hardly explored. For the most part, their scenes involve reading letters from the other. This is hardly compelling viewing.

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.

Here's hoping that any future collaborations between Cronenberg and Mortensen pack a bit more of a punch.

David Cronenberg was my main reason for seeing 'A Dangerous Method'. While not one of my all time favourite directors, he is a very unique and truly admirable one and find a good deal to like about all his films, even the ones that don't do a lot for me overall. The cast was also a selling point, with Viggo Mortensen in particular being so excellent in his previous two films with Cronenberg, and love Howard Shore's music.

'A Dangerous Method' is certainly above average and intriguing enough, but for Cronenberg and considering that it was exploring yet another challenging subject with the intent to unsettle it was somewhat disappointing. Not one of his worst, it is better than 'Stereo', 'Crimes of the Future' and 'Cosmopolis'. It's no 'The Fly', 'Dead Ringers', 'Eastern Promises', 'A History of Violence' or 'Dead Zone' either. Would personally put it somewhere in the middle, along with 'Crash' and 'M Butterfly'. Didn't hate it, didn't love it, more like respected it while wanting much more out of it.

There are a lot of good things here. For one thing it looks fantastic, beautifully shot with handsomely evocative production and costume design. The landscapes are just gorgeous to watch and the editing is suitably slick. Shore's score is haunting and has an emotional edge as well, which is what is so great about Shore's collaborations with Cronenberg. Parts of the script are very thought-provoking and intelligently written and the story did mostly start off promisingly, with signs of subtle unsettlement.

Most of the performances are fine, with Michael Fassbender's quiet intensity dominating the film beautifully. An underused but very charismatic Viggo Mortensen more than matches him and steals all his scenes actually. Vincent Cassel is memorably serpentine.

Keira Knightley however is over-taxed in her role and over-compensates painfully. Cronenberg's direction is great on a technical level but is too restrained and surprisingly emotionally cold, something that is expected from first starting out but this is late Cronenberg where many times previously he proved that he could shock and move.

Found the story to be too often pedestrian in pace and jumpy structurally in the latter stages of the film, and what should have been the central relationship, which should have been the most interesting aspect, to be criminally underdeveloped. Much more depth to the characters would have been more welcome too, all of them are too sketchy. The worst aspect of 'A Dangerous Method' is the very superficial and too talky script that has too many ideas and undercooks all of them. This was a brave and challenging subject given too restrained and tame treatment.

In summation, above average but should have been much more. 6/10

This started very well, great cast, landscapes, scenography, characters etc. I loved the idea of to greatest psychology minds working together on improving therapy methods and changing the approach to curing people of their traumas and problems. Where i find the movie failed a bit is the story where the connections in the scenes are bit off. I got the feeling that it was jumping trough periods without any connection which i could put together. It seemed like there were years in gaps between couple of scenes where there wasn't any. Even if this followed only true life events of Jung and Freud it still leaves us with wanting more then just few dialogs and scratch on the surface of psychology treatments. Kinsey (2004) is a movie which is a good parallel example how a movie about similar subject can be and can be done brilliantly. Maybe movies about lives of both Jung and Freud are in order. So, all in all, i enjoyed watching it, everyone did a great job and gives you a good feeling after, it has minor gaps in the story which doesn't make you stick to the chair but definitely recommend it to everyone.

I've only read very few of Jung's and Freud's abstracts of work but i've always been interested in knowing a bit more. A Dangerous Method cleared some of my questions and was pleasant for me to watch and learn a thing or two about their contributions and contradictions in psycho-analysis.

What is emphasized in this film is their well known "disagreement" on sexual activity (libido) and apparently religion. Something that's been brought here by a female patient of Jung, Sabina Spielrein -played by Keira Knightley, who's been diagnosed with hysteria and was admitted to Burghölzli Clinic in Zürich in 1906. Michael Fassbender (Jung) and Viggo Mortensen (Freud) both performed seriously and insightful and Knightley captured pretty well the behavior of a hysteric person and then, her transition through therapy.

The German locations where the filming took place were picturesque and the atmosphere was warm, theatrical, peaceful enough but rather slow at some points. The intense relationship between the Austrian neurologist and the Swiss psychiatrist was very interesting to watch nevertheless.

The reason i enjoyed this film is simple: It was exactly what i was expecting it to be. Educational. And the fact that a talented cast did their best to bring out on the screen such facts, has left me a satisfied watcher full of interest and food for thoughts.

What was the source of conflict which caused a gulf to form between Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung? When we examine their personal and professional lives, what turning points shaped their theories? What were the storms which blew through the lives of Jung and Sabina Spielrein? These are some of the questions this film attempts to highlight, and in fact begins to touch upon.

Some of the most scintillating moments of "A Dangerous Method" are sexually bracing. But the audience is left feeling a bit orphaned. Do these carnal scenes truly address the significant thematic questions?

Here's my main beef with this film: I wanted to see more time spent on the rigorous conflict between Freud and Jung. I have a sincere interest in the life of Carl Jung, but in the end, I was not sufficiently satisfied. Having said that, the production design, scenery, and costuming were absolutely wonderful.

The somber, instinctual undercurrents of "A Dangerous Method" can be a bit hypnotic. But because the script suffers, I cannot fully come under its spell. As the rolling credits came up, I personally felt a bit deflated, as if a sweet was torn from my curious grasp. Although I think most films would do well with a tighter edit, this movie could have used an additional 30 minutes of character and plot development.

I appreciated the qualities which Fassbender brought to Carl Jung. Vincent Cassel was right on the mark as the impulsive Otto Gross. Jung's insecure wife Emma was tenderly portrayed by Sarah Gadon.

Although Keira Knightley tried her best to portray Sabina Spielrein, there were certain scenes where her delivery seemed pushed. I have long respected Viggo Mortensen, but I was not fully convinced by his affected portrayal of Freud.

So, who would I cast as Sabina? Emily Mortimer, Helena Bonham Carter, or Rachel Weisz come to mind. And how about the part of Freud? Ben Kingsley, Dustin Hoffman, or Geoffrey Rush could have added a riveting twist to this role.

Is there a doctor in the house? I will leave that for you to decide.

Given his entire filmography is concerned with themes linked to man's identity and the complexities of human sexuality, David Cronenberg is, on paper at least, the ideal director for A Dangerous Method, a movie dealing with the birth of psychoanalysis. Then again, the film is also a bit of an odd fit for him, since the script by Christopher Hampton (Dangerous Liaisons) doesn't really lend itself to the outbursts of graphic violence that permeate the Canadian auteur's body of work. The result, first witnessed at the Venice Film Festival (after the film had allegedly been rejected by Cronenberg's fest of choice, Cannes), is an interesting but somewhat hollow entry in the director's admirable career.

Ostensibly about the professional relationship between Sigmund Freud (Viggo Mortensen) and Carl Jung (Michael Fassbender), A Dangerous Method is in reality more concerned with the bond between Jung and Sabina Spielrein (Keira Knightley), a young woman sent to his clinic in Zurich since her mental condition is an ideal subject for his research. Sabina, it turns out, is incredibly well-read, and soon progresses from patient to assistant, much to the amusement of Freud, who corresponds regularly with Jung about their mutual scientific interests and also meets the young woman on a few occasions. The relationship between the three evolves in even stranger ways as time passes, with Sabina taking an unexpected place in Jung's heart...

With its combination of psychoanalysis and sex, the story - perhaps familiar to European film buffs thanks to Roberto Faenza's Italian-language take on the same subject - has all the right characteristics to be vintage Cronenberg (hints of which are offered in the opening and closing credits via Howard Shore's music). And yet there's something missing: whereas the reconstruction of Vienna in the early 20th century is impeccable, the director appears to be less interested in the actual development of story and character, with a rather detached approach that suggests he's almost working on autopilot. That having said, part of the blame can be laid on Hampton, whose screenplay only glosses over key details of the story, leaving us with a quite simplified, "safe" version of events (the sex is unusually tame and unchallenging for a Cronenberg film).

The performances are a mixed bag as well: Knightley, stuck with the showy role, is unbearably OTT in the first 30 minutes, shouting and shaking endlessly before she eventually tones down the mania and focuses on finding the character, complete with a solid Russian accent. At the other end of the spectrum is Mortensen, pitch-perfect from the start but criminally underused, especially considering his past associations with Cronenberg. And then there's Fassbender, quietly intense and generally up to the task, were it not for his decision to speak RP English when he and Mortensen, who adopts a German accent, are supposed to be from the same country (this is even more perplexing if one thinks of Fassbender's flawless mastery of German).

A Dangerous Method is thus a textbook case of a film that, while not disappointing in the strict sense of the word, comes off as a minor effort in a generally spotless filmography. But even on an off-day, Cronenberg deserves to be seen at least once. Just don't expect another History of Violence...

6,5/10

While I understand that the movie was not received as well as Cronenberg would have wanted, it is a very difficult movie to sell. Not because of the actors! Actually my first thought was: three of the best guys of their generation and Keira Knightley -> Awesome! But Mr. Cassel himself a smaller part, so it's only Fassbender and Mortensen left. But they both do a great job depicting ... let's call them "persons of interest". People most of us have some idea of.

So this movie goes very philosophical on us and is very "talky". But still as other reviewers have pointed out. Nothing much is happening. I guess that was the point of it all to begin with though. It is about talking life, instead of living/experiencing. Or against to be more exact. Latter being sort of represented by Keiras character. A more subtle approach than most would wish for, but still a good movie

As a long admirer of David Cronenberg, I eagerly await each of his new films as if I am a young child on Christmas Eve. When announced that his new film, A Dangerous Method, had him working with Michael Fassbender and (for a third time) Viggo Mortensen, two of my favorite actors, as well as Keira Knightley and Vincent Cassel, I thought I must have been dreaming. Adding on that the film was going to be an exploration into the relationship between Carl Jung (portrayed by Fassbender) and Sigmund Freud (Mortensen), the gods of psychoanalysis, and this had the makings for Cronenberg's masterpiece. So one can only begin to imagine my dismay when, after a promising first act, A Dangerous Method turned out to be the most inordinately tame and pedestrian Cronenberg film in over thirty years.

David Cronenberg made a name for himself in the film community thanks to his studies into dark, controversial topics of sexual obsessions and fetishes, so a story depicting the works of Jung and Freud seemed like a perfect fit for him, and I was hardly able to process how lazily he approached the minds of these men. The first act felt like punch after punch (in a good way), with very stern, rapid dialogues detailing the sexual desires of Sabina Spielrein (Knightley), a new patient of Jung's. Despite Knightley's hilariously hammy performance, which had me close to fits of laughter every time she unhinged her jaw or thrashed about the room hysterically, each scene sizzled with sexual tension and was nailed with precision by Fassbender's stoic portrayal.

Anyone who knows the history of the story (or has seen the trailer) knows that Jung and Spielrein eventually engage in a sexual relationship of their own and I believe the release of this tension between the two of them is where the film starts to fall of it's axis. After the incredibly intense and erotic first act, featuring a scene where Jung runs a test on his wife (Sarah Gadon) that is as gripping as anything in cinema this past year, the whole thing begins to fizzle out when that tension is released and it only becomes more and more flat as it goes on.

Whenever Jung and Freud are in the same room together the film begins to light back up, as Fassbender and Mortensen engage in a tete-a-tete for the ages, both men succumbed by their intelligence and arrogance to the point where they refuse to see the other as their equal despite their claims to be doing just that. Watching these two marvelously talented actors bounce of each other, it's devastating that the rest of the film couldn't measure up to their skill, and that half of their scenes interacting together are done through them opening notes from one another. The story spreads it's time (quite distractingly) between the Jung/Freud dynamic and the Jung/Spielrein one, and it's in the latter that it completely misses the mark.

Once that sexual tension is released, the chemistry between these two practically ceases to exist and each scene feels like a dull exercise in the standard infidelity plot line. When the film reaches it's final act and there are scenes of forced attempts at emotional payoffs, it's impossible to feel anything because I wasn't able to feel anything from the relationship the entire time leading up to it. There's no real progression in their relationship on anything but a surface level and as a result the payoff falls completely flat.

It certainly doesn't help that, for all of the controversial eroticism in his career past, Cronenberg takes on the carnal moments of this story with the lazy banality of someone much inferior to himself. Several of the dialogue-driven scenes sizzle with a sexual intensity, but when matters are actually taken to the bedroom they are hit with a dullness that would be impossible to believe came from Cronenberg if he didn't have his name stamped on it. In a year that gave us Pedro Almodovar's The Skin I Live In, the most Cronenbergian film I've seen that didn't come from the man himself, it's unbelievably disappointing that this one is so removed from the standard this genius deserves. It's unlike anything he's done before, and I mean that in the worst way possible.

A movie about Carl Jung and Sigmund Freud directed by David Cronenberg? That sounds surprising and interesting, to say the very least but the movie as it turned out, was far from anything interesting to watch.

There are really multiple causes. The first and foremost problem is obviously with its story. And not just only the story in itself but also the things its emphasizes and puts its focus on. It makes some bad choices with this, which makes this movie feel like a very dry and distant one.

The movie is mostly focusing on the 'romance' between Jung and his mental patient, played greatly by Keira Knightley. Nothing wrong with that, if only the romance was anything really romantic or something to feel involved with. It instead just feels wrong and dirty and besides isn't made all that believable. Why, out of all of his patients and opportunities he must have had in his life, does Carl Jung suddenly decide to have an affair with this particular woman? What was so different or intriguing about her? This movie really doesn't give you the answers to any of this.

And if you think that this movie is being one that is sort of showing the rivalry between Freud and Jung and their opposing psychology methods, you are completely wrong. There is never any interesting dynamic between the two of them, which is granted also due to the fact that Viggo Mortensen as Sigmund Freud, is hardly in the movie at all.

And don't know what their methods were and why there are still being used in today's psychoanalysis and why the both of them are being regarded as the two founding fathers of psychoanalysis? Don't expect this movie to show or tell you anything! It really remains on the surface all, as if it was afraid for its own subject and that it might loose some of its viewers with it.

In other words, the movie really isn't telling you anything interesting and it's mostly being an unusual romantic movie, you'll get very little out off.

All a same really, since the movie itself remains well made and acted out. It's a pretty good looking movie, with all of its historical sets and costumes and the actor's play their roles convincingly. It at least still makes the movie watchable but it's barely enough to keep you interested in it.

6/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

I can't remember the last time when I have been so much in disagreement with the general critical response for a movie… Everywhere I look I seem to hear and read high praises for Cronenberg's latest work, and yet I am willing to bet that few of those who claimed to like it so much would be ready to watch it again. As far as I am concerned I am struggling to find something positive to say (well, yes, nice costumes…) and the only reason why my vote isn't any lower is because I am willing to admit that I might have not been in the right mood for it. Even in his most flawed films, Cronenberg has always been an interesting director, or at least able to create not only an almost palpable atmosphere, but also a particularly defined style and vision which set him apart from the usual Hollywood crowd. And yet this one seems a film with no direction whatsoever. Not only each sequence felt random and inconsequential as if not necessarily edited in the right order, without any real feeling of natural progression from the previous one into the next, but also it was all so static and lifeless that sometimes I even wondered whether anyone was actually directing at all. At no point I felt any sympathy for any of the character: in fact, not only I did not like any of them, but I didn't even hate them either. I just didn't care. And this is is a rather strange thing to say, because on paper, a film about the relationship between Carl Jung and Sigmund Freud (and consequently the birth of psychoanalysis) sounded to me very intriguing indeed. Sadly, pretty earlier on into "A dangerous Method" I realised that this wasn't really the type of film I was hoping to see. I found myself uneasy right from the word "go", that is from the moment I saw Keira Knightley overacting like never before and stretching her chin to new unbelievable levels, as if screaming to the audience "I want that Oscar!!". Well, darling, not this time. Then, after the early screams, it all calmed down a bit and the dialogue started… and that's when it got worse! For a film which should rely on words more than action itself (especially given the static nature of it all), I found the script absolutely puerile. It all felt like it was written by a high school kid, who's just heard a few things about Freud and wants to impress his friend with his newly acquired knowledge. I mean, there are actually lines like "You Freud, have always sex in your mind. Why does everything always has to do with sex?"! Really? Mr Hampton, who are you writing this script for? Surely your target audience doesn't need things spell out so boldly and blatantly. It was like reading a checklist of all the possible clichés one could think about psychoanalysis (and Freud in particular). Who is this film for anyway? At times it felt like it was so ridiculously basic, as if it was written for people who have never even heard of Freud and Jung. Other times it was all so riddled with heavy handed quotes and so "up its own self" that it felt like watching some boring lecture given by an even more bored teacher, sitting on your old desk back in school. From such a renowned scriptwriter (he wrote Dangerous Liaisons and Atonement among the other things) I was expecting a lot more: maybe Mr Hampton should watch a few episodes of HBO's classy "In Treatment" to learn a thing of two about the subtlety of bringing psychoanalysis to the screen. As far as the two leading male actors (Fassbender and Mortensen, who by the way was so good in both Cronenberg "A History of Violence" and "Eastern Promises"), they were as good as they could possibly be, but in the end they both failed to impress, move, or even raise any sort of emotion beyond boredom. But then again, that's hardly surprising given both the script they were actually given and a clear lack of any direction, which forced them to talk at each other in the most contrived scenes and badly staged, where even the extras in the background seemed fake and moved slowly and gently like… erm…well, extras (particularly noticeable in the scene by the river). Sorry David, not this time for me

I am a Cronenberg fan. I think a History of Violence is one of the greatest films ever made! I also think Eastern Promises showed what happens when a great Director pairs with an awesome muse. I anticipated this film eagerly but after watching it I was left with mixed feelings. Perhaps this is because the script was not as tight as that of the first two films I mentioned. It was never going to be easy capturing something as abstract as psychoanalysis on film, yet I can say that this film does ramble on at times and it is slow. A History of Violence was slow but the pay off was fantastic. Here there was no pay off. We were shown the lives of three great, complicated minds and that was it. After reading about the lives of the three central characters I can safely say that perhaps this was not the film Cronenberg should have made about Freud. He opted respectfully for the less dramatic and more factual and I think this sacrifice could have hurt what could have been another Cronenberg/Mortensen smash-hit. That said, I also think Keira Knightley was a mis-cast and Mortensen and Fassbender were as perfect as ever. Looking forward to the next Cronenberg flick. This wasn't awful but I expected more.

Having just visited Freud's house in London only last week, it was lovely seeing his office and chair - I noticed the way Mortensen sat on it was correct - and as a graduate of psychology, this was a no-brainer to watch. I enjoyed it. It was less dark than I was expecting, more about the affair Jung had with his patient than actual psychoanalysis but it did highlight some interesting arguments in the field. It didn't really show Freudian and Jungian method in a great light, if all a novice had to go on was this film! Well acted by the principals Fassbender, Mortensen and Knightley although I do find Knightley's style of acting somewhat annoying generally. That said she had done her homework, and I found her depiction of the patient rather good - much has been made of her jutting jaw but I believe overt uncontrolled physical displays like that are common. Her accent didn't seem that bad to me - it wasn't overdone. I found this one of the best films I've seen her in and I felt that she was rather brave to take on such an emotionally laid bare role and she did with a great deal of commitment and success. Mortensen, I am more familiar in scenes running around with an elf, a dwarf and a hobbit, but he showed his prowess in this; I'm more familiar with Freud than Jung in terms of mannerisms, so felt he was pretty good he'd obviously studied the film archives and was made to look fairly similar. Fassbender was very measured and engaging as Jung and I really enjoyed his journey in the film and was divided on his choices. Cronenberg is a great director and this was a good example of his work; carefully researched and created scenes and vistas, script and score all worked well together. Other than one or two dubbing issues, and overly long time jumps, and a few gaps in narrative (for me) it was excellent. Excellent. Beautiful costumes. I liked the scenes in Freud's office with his couch (having seen it now in person) and I liked the reference to Egyptology that was thrown in, a pet subject of Freud.

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.

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

A Dangerous Method marks the third film that director David Cronenberg had collaborated with actor Viggo Mortensen, casting him as the famed Sigmund Freud in a tale that examines the relationship between three prominent scientists in the early days of psycho-analysis, with the other two being Carl Jung (Michael Fassbender) and Sabina Spielrein (Keira Knightley), set in the early 1900s, adapting from the play The Talking Cure by Christopher Hampton, which in turn was based on the non fiction book A Most Dangerous Method by John Kerr.

While one of Cronenberg's most accessible films as are his other Mortensen starrers in recent years, the story based on real people provides that compelling watch as it takes the viewer on a relatively scientific journey full of hypotheses and theories on psychosis, psychiatry and sexuality even, listening keenly on heavy discussions that even the layman can pick up, and stay engaged that I won't deny may be attributed to the charismatic cast who play their real life counterparts with aplomb. Events that unfold and with scenes set in are based on real incidents, so that provides a bit of historical accuracy, albeit there's always that dramatic license adopted to tell a tale especially involving more private moments amongst the characters.

Michael Fassbender, Hollywood's recent It guy, sets the stage as Carl Jung, who in his active practice in a Swiss hospital sees him introduced to Sabina the patient, brought in from Russia and having treatment by Jung using Freud's methods. A correspondence with Freud results in the two spending time with each other exchanging ideas and concepts, forming a professional friendship although Jung admits to Sabina that he's a little bit wary and apprehensive. Who wouldn't be, when one takes another's theory and sees the results obtained when utilized.

It's a tale about professional rivalry, and how sometimes one's perception of friendship becomes totally jaded when feelings aren't really reciprocated in expected terms, such as when Jung shares his most intimate dreams with Freud for interpretation and analysis, much to his slight disgust for Freud's penchant for dissecting and co-relating everything in fairly sexual terms, but for the reverse to never happen because of the big fear that in doing so renders one vulnerable to the other. And this professional relationship turned rivalry under the most natural and expected terms, with Mortenssen and Fassbender disappearing into their roles thanks to heavy makeup, is what makes this somewhat like a mirror to our own personal life when we reflect upon our own friendships kept.

But with Keira Knightley's Sabina Spielrein in the picture, it provided an additional complexity between the two men, especially when Jung breaks the doctor-patient relationship and enters into a more intimate, sexual one with Sabina, in a certain way also goaded and encouraged by Otto Gross (Vincent Cassel in a minor role), to whom some proponents of free love will credit him for that concept. This adulterous relationship behind the back of Jung's wife Emma (Sarah Gadon) adds a tinge of danger and destruction to the professional life of Jung as it threatens to boil over, with Sabina's emotional instability, and threats of blackmail, especially when rumours and anonymous letters start to fly, points to a difficult resolution in having to confess one's deeds to a mentor or peer. It's not an easy thing to do, and instead of physical violence as seen in the other recent Cronenberg films in A History of Violence and Eastern Promises, this one sees more of a psychological tussle and one-upmanship between the three historical characters involved.

Lush in production values to bring back the early 20th century with sets, costumes, and even an ocean liner thrown in for good measure, what will result in A Dangerous Method will be that spark of interest to read up more about the true life characters involved in this story, to dig a little bit deeper into the theories they created and the ideas they each support and differ from one another. Knightley, without a signature look to hide behind, is memorable as Sabina in the introduction, fighting against her inner demons, and then growing into a confident professional complete with Russian accented English to boot.

It's 1904. Hysterical Sabina Spielrein (Keira Knightley) is sent to Dr. Carl Jung (Michael Fassbender) in Zurich for treatment. She has psychological sexual problems based on her violent father. He has a cold clinical relationship with his wife Emma (Sarah Gadon). The older Dr. Sigmund Freud (Viggo Mortensen) is the elder statesman to Jung but he's starting to chaff at the paternal relationship. Freud sends a new patient Otto Gross (Vincent Cassel) to Jung. Spielrein's treatment goes so well that she eventually becomes a psychiatrist herself. The close working relationship translates into a sexual relationship.

This has great director David Cronenberg, great actors, and a fascinating history. The acting is top notch. Keira Knightley is going over the top. There are lots to like but I find this too lifeless. I may be bias against psychoanalysis and discussing about emotions rather than just feeling the emotions. It's not cinematic. But this is Carl Jung and Sigmund Freud afterall. I don't think there is anyway to make it any more exciting. The clinical world just makes the passions feel very clinical.

It's always difficult to review a movie based on psychology because sometimes what's difficult to understand is too easily categorized as illogical or bad execution.I heard so much criticism towards the last movie by Cronenberg.I completely disagree with those bad reactions."A dangerous method"is a brilliant ,absorbing and thought provoking movie that boasts excellent performances by the three leading actors.The direction is great and Cronenberg once again shows his uncommon ability to tell a story in a very original way although the dialogs are sometimes hard to follow,probably due to its subject.But there are really breathtaking moments such as the scenes of the Spielrein therapy.This leads me to Knightley performance.It was a brave,shocking and terrific performance that it was criticized without a reason.I didn't catch all that hatred.She has always been so good("Pride e prejudice","Atonement" and "Never let me go")but here she left her comfort zone to bare herself and gives one of the most exiting performances of the year.Oscar worthy material.Fassbender was equally great in the role of Jung and it's a pleasure to watch this splendid rising A-list actor.Mortensen was good but I fear not as good as Fassbender and Knightley.Cassell is always Cassell.He's a good actor but he plays always the role of the daring man.I think that "A dangerous method" is one of the best movies of the year.It succeeds to transcend from his particular story to focus on the hidden instincts associated with the human nature.My vote is 8/10.

"Sometimes you have to do something unforgivable just to be able to go on living." A woman named Sabina Spielrein (Knightley) is not acting "normal" so she is dropped off at the home of Dr. Carl Jung (Fassbender). In order to help her he begins to use his new idea of a "talking cure". As she starts to get better he begins a different type of therapy, but his friend Sigmund Freud (Mortinsen) does not agree with his methods. This is a movie I was really not looking forward to watching. I like the actors but the premise about the "birth of psychoanalysis" is not something I was interested in. Halfway through I was hooked and it did keep me interested the entire time. Once again this is not a movie for everyone, but the acting and story made it a very interesting movie and by the end you have a connection with each character and the "updates" during the credits really seem to add to the movie. Overall, a movie that was much better then anticipated and I do recommend it. I give it a B.

¨Experiences like this, however painful, unnecessary and inevitable, without them, how can we know life? ¨ David Cronenberg's A Dangerous Method was one of my most anticipated films of 2011 for several reasons: First of all I loved Cronenberg and Viggo Mortensen's first two collaborations together in A History of Violence and Eastern Promises. Those two films were among my favorite when they were released. Mortensen has always worked really well with Cronenberg and I had high expectations for his role as Sigmund Freud in this film. Add Micheal Fassbender, who has turned everything he touches into gold this year; to the mix and you have yourself one of the most anticipated films of the year. I was really looking forward to what these three men could do together alongside the beautiful Keira Knightley. I'm not familiar with psychoanalysis, but I do tend to enjoy the subject matter somewhat so I was really looking forward to this movie. Perhaps those high expectations were my downfall because this was a completely different movie from the previous two that Cronenberg had directed. This was more focused on the dialogue and relationship between the characters. This isn't an action film with shocking scenes; it is more of a reflective film that analyzes the relationship between Freud, Jung, and Spielrein. I just felt the pace of the movie was too slow and that there wasn't enough time between the transitions to further develop each character and their relationship together. I felt like I had seen an incomplete film, or that several scenes were missing. The film focuses more on the relationship between Jung and his Russian patient Spielrein, and not so much on Freud, so that was something else I wish would've been different.

The film is based on John Kerr's book of the same name, and from Hampton's play ¨The Talking Cure.¨ Hampton himself adapted the screenplay for this movie. The story takes place during the early 1900's in Europe. Carl Jung (Michael Fassbender) is a psychiatrist and firm believer in Freud's recent theories. When a young Russian patient named Sabina Spielrein (Keira Knightley) is sent to him at his office in Switzerland, he finds the opportunity to apply Freud's methods on her. Jung has amazing results and ends up helping Spielrein and bringing her back to normal society life. Spielrein suffered from some sort of dementia, but thanks to Jung she is able to return to her medical studies. Despite her rehabilitation, Jung continues to treat her, and he writes to Freud (Viggo Mortensen) telling him about his amazing results. Jung is invited to Vienna by Freud and together they have an interesting thirteen hour conversation about their discoveries and theories. They begin an interesting friendship and write to each other over the years about their new findings. They do have their discrepancies in some areas since Freud only is willing to point out the problem, but Jung wants to go further and try to help the patients recover and not just single out their problems. The movie also focuses on Jung's relationship with Spielrein as she becomes his lover presenting him with an internal conflict since she is his patient, and there is also the fact that he is married to Emma (Sarah Gadon).

The main problem I had with this movie was the pacing the film had. Despite being only 100 minutes long, the movie does feel much longer and it seems to be missing something. I felt like I was seeing an incomplete picture. After a while the dialogues and conversations got boring, despite the fact that the performances were all incredible. Michael Fassbender and Viggo Mortensen are both terrific actors and they shone in the scenes in which they were together, but the problem was that they didn't share too much screen time together. They spent most of the time corresponding through letters. The main protagonists were Fassbender and Knightley and unfortunately her character wasn't very fascinating. She did give a good performance, but I just felt at first her dementia was really distracting and exaggerated. It was weird to see her rehabilitated so quickly. I wanted to see more of Viggo Mortensen and less of the others. Vincent Cassel had a small but great supporting role and it was he who mostly influenced Jung into wanting to have an affair with his patient. My expectations were set way to high for this movie and by the end I was disappointed. I hope Mortensen and Cronenberg return to their previous work and continue to collaborate together in a similar project. One that will be more climactic than this film which at moments felt like nothing really interesting was happening.

http://estebueno10.blogspot.com

At the beginning of the 20th Century modern-day psychoanalysis was coming to the forefront mainly through the work of penis-obsessed Sigmund Freud (Viggo Mortensen) and the more individualistic teachings of Carl Jung (Michael Fassbender). Caught up in the battle for primacy of science is neurotic sex-obsessed Sabina Spielrein (Keira Knightley), who as a patient / understudy to Carl Jung develops a deep relation with her mentor, which transcends into erotic extremities. As interactions between the elder scientist Freud and his youthful protégée Jung are enhanced, they finally end with a dramatic split of chosen paths, where Jung decides to foregoe any previous admiration towards his peer. Through emotional undercurrents of relations between the three characters we are introduced to tidbits of history of psychoanalysis and the differences in vision of the men who revolutionised the world. Events are strongly based on real life incidents, mostly historically accurate with only a necessary dramatic licence put in place to forward the story.

Thematically a very Cronenberg film and a mildly successful endeavor, which invites re-watching to fully understand the interactions between all three main characters and their undeniable, but only subtly presented, consequences. Cronenberg, always a master at getting the ugliness as well as the acting out of the most incompetent manages a rare feat: successfully proves that Keira Knightley does have some acting credentials, even if her crazed performance full of nervous ticks was at times unbearable to watch. Nothing as accomplished as the opposing forces of Mortensen and Fassbender who masterfully confronted each other both as actors as well as characters. In a tale of rivalry between concepts and ideals personal animosities do not go unnoticed with an absolutely key scene, where Jung reveals intimate dreams to Freud, who in turn reacts with contempt at Jung's readiness to be dissected, pointing out strongly that he would never lower himself to such a level.

"A Dangerous Method" is also as emotionally sterile and disturbing as Cronenberg can be (despite having almost no brutality and little sexual content). However fitting it seems to the subject matter it can leave viewers alienated, although I myself was enthralled for the most part, put off in between, but I fully understand the feeling of being underwhelmed, as the rationale behind the story isn't focused.