Sony Pictures Classics | Release Date: November 23, 2011
6.4
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 149 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
78
Mixed:
53
Negative:
18
Watch Now
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
3
FelonNov 27, 2011
Summary: On the eve of World War I, Zurich and Vienna are the setting for a boring snooze-fest of epic proportions. Drawn from true-life events, "A Dangerous Method" manages to take the turbulent relationships between fledgling psychiatristSummary: On the eve of World War I, Zurich and Vienna are the setting for a boring snooze-fest of epic proportions. Drawn from true-life events, "A Dangerous Method" manages to take the turbulent relationships between fledgling psychiatrist Carl Jung, his mentor Sigmund Freud, and Sabina Spielrein, the troubled but beautiful (phew! at least she's beautiful!) young woman who comes between them, and reduce them to a stilted, dry-as-sawdust, repetitive, uninteresting, and unenlightening entry from a 1950s World Book encyclopaedia. Into the mix comes Otto Gross, a debauched patient who is determined to push the boundaries. One might hope that this would offer the filmmakers an opportunity to explore any of the myriad fascinating aspects of all of these characters, their relationships, their theories, and the times in which they lived. Sadly, however, the movie descends even further into turgid, pseudo-intellectual, phony claptrap, the only physiological stimulation for audience members being a catastrophically hammy and unrealistic performance by the usually excellent anorexic, Keira Knightley. In this supposed exploration of sensuality, pretentiousness and cluelessness set the scene for the cinematic equivalent of an elementary school production of "The Miracle Worker." Expand
2 of 4 users found this helpful22
All this user's reviews
1
JluisMar 6, 2012
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.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
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
0
poopdepoop3Dec 3, 2011
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.
0 of 5 users found this helpful05
All this user's reviews
0
jelonDec 17, 2011
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 andA 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
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
3
sabbaticalbillJan 16, 2012
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, particularlyVapid. 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
3
csw12Dec 22, 2013
A lifeless dull film, aside from Knightley's overacted and frankly bad performance, that doesn't thrill, doesn't touch, and it's not even a real love story. The movie is just a total bore.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
2
axelkochAug 30, 2012
I had so high expecations in this film from the trailer, which all got destroyed with seeing the movie. Fassbender, Mortensen and Knigthley play ineffectual and the Golden Globe nomination for Mortensen shows again how bad these awards are.I had so high expecations in this film from the trailer, which all got destroyed with seeing the movie. Fassbender, Mortensen and Knigthley play ineffectual and the Golden Globe nomination for Mortensen shows again how bad these awards are. Knightley plays her role over the top and ends out being noncredible. The story is only halfway there and mixes these two psychoanalysts and these unfitting sado-maso-story, which is probably only there to make the film more interesting. This is the case in the trailer but not in the movie, which actually is one of the most boring movies in the 21st century by now. Silly dialogues, leap in times from 1 year after only one minute of speaking and so on. It's not that worse but definitely not worth to watch. It doesn't thrill, it doesn't touch, it's not even a real love story. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews