Just saw A Dangerous Method and I liked it for the most part. It showcases the early years of psychoanalysis and the rise and fall of Freud and Jung's friendship. Cronenberg's straight-forward direction makes this film unfortunately bland, but adds subtle nuance to the solid story and all the characters. With that said, the film was very reliant on its precise script, and the actor's success at playing complex characters. What Cronenberg really did well, was to draw out strong performances, particularly from Keira Knightly, who was my favorite part of this movie. I cringed at first by her overly-dramatic performance in the beginning, but I liked it, and I like her performance more as she progressed and developed. She deserves some award recognition for this psycho-sexual performance, for sure. The pale direction didn't allow for much great technical attributes, but it did have some precise production designs. Overall; solid, good movie.… Expand

Probably better named 'A Dangerous Jawline', the film itself I found to be rather hampered by Keira Knightly and her performance which I just could not buy into at all. In the first instance I felt she was trying too hard, and later down the line I found myself wondering what accent she was trying to adopt. During the opening scenes I did feel in actual physical danger from the aforementioned Jaw - had it been in 3D I would have been scared witless. These points aside the film itself I felt actually lacked a little in explaining the psychological theories to any great extent, it just brushed over the theories rather than going into any detail. But that is a personal dissapointment rather than a lacking in the film itself. Fassbender was fantastic as usual, as was Mortensen, and Cassel was typically stand out - but I found the film did not hold my attention like I was expecting it to. It is not a terrible film - it looks nice and it has fantastic actors in it - but I found Kiera's performance to be illusion shattering and the story to be just not that interesting. I would have prefered some more in depth explanation of the approaches to analysis by the two very different practitioners for a more educational film, the stories of scientific rivalry or becoming too involved with patients have been done many times before, and better. Worth a watch, but I don't suppose I will be watching it again :)… Expand

With such good prospects : Freud at the beginning of his clash with a conservative society and David Cronenberg who has been on ice for some time one would think that we would get some good food for thought and some good jolts of eeriness. But apart from some old school S&M and some odd sexual remarks of sorts nothing really happens that could interest or shock anybody (well maybe a diehard Jane Austen fan)… Expand

Movie had some incredibly memorable lines and great dialogue between Jung and Freud, and a downright brilliant 20 minutes with Vincent Cassel as Otto Gross. Unfortunately, Jung just wasn't a particularly interesting main character. The only time he's engaging is when he's debating with Freud or having sex with Keira Knightly. Unfortunately those segments only really last 2/3rds of the movie, the last 3rd that details a minor mental breakdown or has him living with his personality devoid wife feel boring and pointless, I was just waiting for the credits to roll.… Expand

Be warned: any film that puts Karl Jung (Michael Fassbender) and Sigmund Freud (Viggo Mortensen) in the same room is going to be talky and loaded with psycho-babble. Toss in a sexually disturbed woman (Keira Knightley) and you've got kink, anguish and strife. Based on real events, this story looks at the relationship of the three and it's effects on the early days of psychiatry (also known as "the talking cure," this film is the talking curse!) Not enough happens and when it does, the detached direction (Cronenberg) keeps it from being emotionally involving. It's beautiful to look at and the performances are strong, but the slow pacing makes it a painful session.… Expand

Not the best movie of the year, but the most indiscreetly "sexes" I've seen, I loved the assembly and costume design, outstanding actors. good movie...

Michael Fassbender, Viggo Mortensen, and Keira Knightley all bring their A-game, but the direction and script are underwhelming. The movie has a lot to say without really knowing how to deliver. After waiting four years from the time the excellent Eastern Promises came out this is pretty bland stuff. David Cronenberg is one of the best directors out there, hopefully Cosmoplis turns out better than this.… Expand

I enjoyed the casts' portrayal. Viggo was great as Dr. Freud. Kiera's accent was a bit irritating but you can look past it after a few minutes. The actor that played Carl Jung was good, you could pity him for the conflicts he gets himself into. The sets and locations were beautiful. It's set in 1907 and it looks great. I wish hospitals looked like that! I am unsure what exactly was the story of the movie. Was it a love story, or some father/son see things differently.… Expand

A little boring with all the talk but then there's some brief nudity and sexual "unusualness" as there should be when Freud is mentioned. Nicely chronicles the relationship and impact all 3 characters had on each other and how it ultimately shaped their lives and what it carried to the future of psychoanalysis. Strong performance by Ms Knighltley and proper subdued performance by Mr Fassbinder. Mr Cassel's role is wasted and Mr Mortensen's portrayal of Freud makes him seem weak and dis-spirited (save for one scene). The jumps forward did not give me enough insight on how "The Talking Cure" so quickly and overtly helped her. And one thing about accents-I know it was not in English so stop having the characters try to "sound" foreign. Either do it it its native tongue with subtitles or let them speak English, even the Kings English is better then floating in and out of different accents. Overall it probably made a better stage play but still worth seeing. (B-).… Expand

just terrible, terrible,terrible,terrible,terrible,terrible,terrible,terrible,terrible,terrible,terrible,terrible,terrible,just terrible, terrible,terrible,terrible,terrible,terrible,terrible,terrible,terrible,terrible,terrible,terrible.

A nice introduction for everybody to the early years of psychoanalysis, Freud and Jung, and a "calm" presentation of the ideas the two follow ! The movie is about contrasts ... teacher & student, marriage & adultery, conservative & progressive and so on !

This is an interesting film for Cronenberg in that it never gets as weird or intense as most folks would expect from him. Rather, what we're given is essentially a very mannered comedy that, at first blush, looks like a Merchant Ivory drama... though the humor is SO dry that most folks in the theater I was in simply mistook it for drama anyway. If you're intimately familiar with Cronenberg's work, though, you realize that underlying a lot of his films, even his most serious pieces, there is a hyper-intelligent, active sense of humor at play. Here it takes center stage, though he operates with such nuance and wit that a good portion of the audience will inevitably miss the joke entirely. It's also worth mentioning that each of the lead cast members are fantastic, in particular Keira Knightley. I wouldn't recommend this film to just anyone, but as a fan of Cronenberg's entire career, I greatly enjoyed the film.… Expand

A real Cronenberg dud. Lifeles and talky, the film makes Jung and Freud dull and flat and adds nothing to our knowledge of both. At first we are detached and soon we don't really care. Follow your impulse and leave -- it only gets worse and you certainly have better things to do than sit through this. Knightley's perfomance as Jung's patient and assistant is an exhibitionist act without a shred of authenticity. It will make you cringe and wish somebody take her out of the film. Nothing in that film rings true - we would be better off if it had never been mad… Expand

A Dangerous Method is overall a great and interesting film, but Viggo Mortensen's acting in it is outstanding! This film is worth seeing just to see his perfect acting.

a dangerous method, by david cronenberg, is a good movie.though its tempo is a little slow(this is not an unexpected thing for a movie like this), it is thought-provoking. it will make you think again and again about the difficult psychological subjects that the movie is dealing with. also i loved mortensen's acting but i was not so fond of keira's, as it seems to me she was exaggerating a little. but, generally, the money you'll pay for the ticket will be well-spent.nice effort!… Expand

www.unsungfilms.com by Georgia Xanthopoulou Based on a stage play which was based, in its turn, on a book by John Kerr, A Dangerous Method is about the relationship a young Carl Jung develops with a troubled patient as well as the beginning and break-up of his friendship with Sigmund Freud. Most importantly, the film concerns itself with the events that probably caused the breakdown he suffered during World War I and the battle within himself as his values as a responsible physician clashed with his carnal desires. The film starts off quite rough. For those who may be frightened by the beginning of the film, I assure you it gets better. Keira Knightley doesn’t spend the entire time talking and dislocating her jaw like this. Even though she keeps the weird accent -she’s supposedly Russian in the film- and irritating way of acting. Knightley’s character, Sabina, is admitted in the hospital where Jung, portrayed by Michael Fassbender, is working. He starts treating her, in the beginning without her cooperation, but soon she starts to get much better. His approach to her treatment is ‘the talking cure’, a method Sigmund -Viggo Mortensen- Freud has come up whom, the audience soon finds out, Jung greatly admires. The two men first meet in order to discuss matters of their field as well as Sabina’s case and they grow very fond of each other. Jung goes to become Freud’s protégé, whom he trusts with the treatment of another doctor, Otto Gross, a sex and drug addict. So far so good. This first part of the film establishes Jung as a serious and trustworthy professional, as Sabina is transformed, with his help, from a wild animal to calm, eloquent woman. The admiration between the two great psychiatrists also helps render Jung as a man who takes his profession seriously and who has a lot to offer the field. And then the tables are turned and the film starts getting interesting. As Sabina starts getting better, it becomes clear that Jung has some soul searching to do as well. In the same way that Sabina gets better not by changing her ways but, simply, by accepting them, Jung must accept some difficult truths about himself as well. In fact, the whole film seems to imply that only by bringing our suppressed urges and desires to the surface we can live happy lives. The two characters who seem to serve as catalysts for Jung’s painful discoveries are Sabina and Otto, Vincent Cassel’s character. On the one hand, Cassel’s character is portrayed as kind of mad, but also as absolutely free from any notion that society engraves on people about what is right and what is wrong. On the other hand, the more Sabina becomes self-assured and, the more Jung discovers his darker side. Sabina becomes a highly respected academic and psychiatrist and is ultimately respected by both the men of the story. While Jung is afraid of what her tales can cause him, she reacts boldly but respectably, never losing face. Paralleling Sabina’s progress is the downfall, in one way or another, of Freud and Jung. While Freud is seen by everyone as outdated and too old to be able to bring something new to the table of psychoanalysis, Jung has to face his own suppressed desires and accept that they are a part of him. While Freud fades away, becomes more closed-minded about the direction psychoanalysis should go towards, Jung discovers he is closer to Otto than he thought, as his initial views on monogamy and the need to suppress sexual desires in order to be considered morally sound are overturned. The breakdown of Jung, as well as the notion that Freud’s sex-obsessed theories derived from his own rigid views when it came to sex is, probably, the most compelling aspect of the film. When these character arcs are combined with Sabina’s course-the patient who, by the end, has surpassed both the men in terms of peace of mind and, perhaps, career, what you get is a call for men and women to move forward, express themselves freely, with no prejudice. Most importantly, it‘s about the lesson all characters learn that one needs to truly know themselves and, however difficult, free themselves of unnecessary social constraints in order to have a chance at a meaningful life.… Expand

Vapid. Inert. Lifeless. And other synonyms for this beautiful period piece. It is nicely filmed and doubtless faithful to its sources. But it is so austere that there is little to which to relate. The male leads are strong, particularly Freud, but the female lead's opening scenes are over-acted. Gorgeous buildings.

I liked it for the most part but just wasn't impressed by the overall movie, this really wasn't a good character study of a well known historic figure or a human being in general. Cronenberg played very safe and the movie felt too much of a Holding Back case to me and to me this is one of the weaker Cronenberg movies. A big fan of Fassbender, he was nice in the movie but the best thing about it was Mortenson who stole the show while Keira Knightely was too childish and amateur in the movie. Good art direction and stuff but not a very good movie still a nice watch.… Expand