I’ve always had a soft spot for those cramped, claustrophobic interiors. The script isn't flawless—for instance, there was no need for the kid to explicitly say he "wanted to be caught," and having him actually verbalize it felt a bit heavy-handed. We've already touched on those clichés here, but when a moment hits true, like when the boy calls out "Dad" on the bus, a movie like this stops feeling naive. It reminds me of that scene in Nobody Knows where the brother takes his sister to the airport just to watch the planes; it's a heavy moment, but even then, that film lacks the layers found in this one.
Gerald Jackson48 said:I'm gonna skip this one. Look, I respect von Trier, but I've honestly had enough of that heavy-handed misanthropy he puts in every single movie he makes.
Dennis Martin6 said:I haven't seen Diary of a Country Priest, nor am I particularly interested in it. However, it bothers me that people feel the need to debate "Christian principles" right now, as if that were even a productive conversation. It would be more logical to simply agree that those principles have been distorted from the very beginning. Schrader forces this entire discussion through his rigid formalism—the verticality, the flatness, those heavy close-ups—which is why I say his approach is truly serious.
It’s a serious perspective. I agree with the points made. By opting for an open ending, Schrader essentially forces the debate wide open. Then again, there is the other side to consider—the idea of a Travis Bickle figure who tries to carve out his own sense of purpose within a broken society.
I only brought up Love Exposure to stir the pot. I truly believe that the only way to make Christian metaphysics feel relevant today is through an aesthetic of perversion. 😁
I haven't seen that one yet, but maybe Schrader—not the Calvinist version mentioned in the opening post—might be worth checking out. Put together. It takes time. 😁
Dennis Martin6 said:So, you think Schrader is being ironic when he directly mimics the styles of Dreyer and Bergman? I don't see it that way. From that very first shot with the heavy vertical composition, he seems completely earnest from the start.
Exactly. It's like comparing Bresson's priest in the diary to this. Toller's journey is almost a perversion of Christian principles; they aren't even remotely similar, yet both find salvation in the end. How does that work? To me, it feels like Schrader is dealing with existentialist thought, which carries a certain level of cynicism.
Dennis Martin6 said:Merging spiritual anxiety with ecology feels original—a step in the right direction—but it’s unfortunately delivered through the outdated symbolic language of Christian metaphysics.
But isn't that exactly the point? Isn't that outdated form just a mask for a spiritual void? There's no actual metaphysics here, no Dreyer, no Bresson...
hiddenhound3 said:I find myself agreeing with a certain portion of this analysis, yet I feel the final segment of the film—where the narrative pivot occurs—has been somewhat overlooked. To my mind, that turning point represents a true equalization of power, achieved specifically through her act of violence against him via the poison.
To be perfectly honest, I must admit this film continues to haunt me; I still struggle to fully grasp the nature of his relationship with his sister. What I did find particularly compelling about this review, however, was the observation regarding that insatiable hunger that seems to permeate the entire story.
In fact, has anyone else noticed the sheer abundance of the meals he orders at the very tavern where Alma works, considering how thin he actually is? 🤷 So much of the action unfolds within the confines of the kitchen and dining room. I am convinced this is far from accidental, and I am currently attempting to decipher why food and the dining table are granted such profound significance throughout the film.
Nurturing is maternal. That massive meal at the diner is, if I recall correctly, the only truly abundant feast we see in the whole movie. He noticed her when he was playing the part of the simple country boy during his ritual getaway—that time when he lets his guard down and treats himself to sausages for breakfast instead of the usual oatmeal. She fell for that version of him, not the uptight, control freak who has no appetite. His breakdown comes later because he lacks those moments of release in the countryside; he needs it because he is completely obsessed.
I have one grievance with the film: the soundtrack during that alcoholic woman's wedding scenes. It’s some kind of nervous, plucking string music that feels forced. It works for tense scenes, sure, but because that uninspired plucking just drones on through the entire segment, it became exhausting and distracting for me. Strange. Otherwise, a fantastic soundtrack.
If I were in the lead character's shoes, I’d probably have more fight left in me; it’s hard to sleep when the adrenaline is still surging through your veins. But when someone is fighting a losing battle against depression while also being crushed by society and the system, it’s easy for everyone else to just sit back and pity them...
Think about that scene where she walks into her bedroom and collapses onto the floor instead of the bed. That’s the essence of this movie right there...
nimblemason3 said:Man, what a letdown. Honestly, I don't even blame Shyamalan here—it’s more on Smith. The acting felt totally hollow, and the plot? Just didn't make any sense at all. 🤷Sure, it looks great visually, but then again, it's kind of hard for a modern sci-fi flick *not* to look pretty. 4/10
More thoughts on the movie over here: http://passpopcorn.wordpress.com/201...er-earth-2013/
How was Wahlberg in Happening, though? I wouldn't go as far as blaming the director. (Smith isn't exactly an A-lister, but there isn't much to work with in a script like this. It’s almost funny seeing people claim Cruise was brilliant in Oblivion.) Has anyone actually sat through Happening? Just thinking about that disaster kills any interest I have in watching a new Shyamalan flick. Don't get your hopes up; maybe just listen to the critics this time. ☕
If this were aiming for a deep psychological study, it would be an entirely different movie. This is just your run-of-the-mill thriller, much more predictable than I anticipated. You can tell from the opening scenes which way it's heading... it reminds me of The Perfect Host (2010), though that one was bloodier, and honestly, I didn't care much for either. The premise itself was intriguing, but I'm not a fan of how they executed the formula. It feels like a rather uninspired series of naive, silly events directed by someone lacking vision, featuring characters that just don't grab you. Some plot points feel forced, like that whole complication with the neighbor across the street. Toss in that tacky ending, and my overall impression is that we're looking at a third-rate flick. Still, considering how little effort went into it, the result isn't a total disaster. 6/10
Patrick Martin said:I get where you're coming from, but let's just let everyone pick their own favorites. Why should one director's persona carry more weight than someone else's creativity when they're aiming for different ideals? A movie is a blend of visuals, sound, and story. It’s at its best when there's a balanced ratio between those elements. In my view, visual style should drive the core idea in science fiction movies.
I feel compelled to express my own frustration with this genre in general. It isn't that I dislike it, but rather that I struggle to see genuine creative potential beyond what's commercially viable—and I won't even get into how films are tailored for audiences, simply giving them exactly what they expect...
So, you're suggesting that for you, the balance you mentioned is perfectly struck in the work of Scott or Cameron. With most films, I can't even begin to discuss a ratio where the concept holds as much weight as the special effects. Even for those two, it's far from perfect, except for perhaps a couple of hits—like terminator, which I never really viewed as science fiction. As someone already noted, a sci-fi film needs to be anchored by one strong idea from start to finish, rather than just using a few concepts as window dressing.
Take event Horizon, for example. The only part of that film I consider true science fiction is when Sam Neill explains that their ship traveled through an unknown dimension... specifically that moment when he folds the poster to explain it in layman's terms. That was interesting, but that was it—just a light motif. The rest is just dull horror-action following a tired template. That seems to be the case with most films.
I really enjoyed that movie. I can't recall every single detail, but to me, Vanilla Sky is just as good. Even if it feels a bit "scattered," it has its perks—for instance, it skips > that murder at the end spoiler>>, which felt unnecessary in the original version. Plus, there's that scene in Times Square.
There is one specific detail from the original that I noticed, and I think it’s vital: > the fact that Sophia never actually fell for Caesar. Their romance only truly blossoms within that "dream." He also keeps a friend he lost in the real world, and all the chaos happening in his dream seems like his own conscience punishing him for his past actions—like how Nora keeps haunting him... and so on. spoiler>>
William Lee34 said:The film is decent, though it feels slightly exhausting at times. The acting holds up, even if Keira Knightley lacks conviction in certain scenes.
Furthermore, I find the dream sequences somewhat neglected, considering Carl Jung was a pioneer in the field. While dreams are mentioned occasionally, they serve the plot rather than offering any meaningful analysis.
I also found the depiction of Jung's ability to foresee events—such as the cracking books or predicting World War I via apocalyptic dreams—to be somewhat unsubstantiated.
6.5/10
How so? I thought there were two dreams told in the film and both were analyzed, weren't they?
Quote:
>
Also, I find Jung's predictions of events (like the books cracking or predicting World War I based on an apocalyptic dream) to be pretty hard to buy.
this is probably a spoiler 🙂
Everything actually happened just like that. For instance, the cracking could have been a coincidence (in a realistic sense), but Jung linked it to his own emotions at the time and general tension; he pushed back against everything Sigmund Freud said, but he couldn't openly defy him because of such massive respect... he was so worked up his stomach actually hurt, and he felt certain his internal experience had "materialized" in those two cracks (that's how Jung described them, rather than just sounds); that was his belief and the idea he obsessed over, which later evolved into his theory of synchronicity (he also mentions several times that he doesn't believe in coincidences...)
As for the apocalyptic dream, he claimed he had it himself and described it exactly that way in his autobiography; it wasn't until the war broke out that he realized the dream had been a premonition...
Nicole Thomas3 said:I’ve never been much of a Cronenberg fanatic. Speaking of his recent stuff, I honestly don't get the hype surrounding History of Violence and Eastern Promises. With the first one, the whole preachy lecture on the nature of violence felt incredibly forced, especially when paired with that ending involving William Hurt—it almost felt like a parody. As for the second, there's one genuinely fascinating scene (the Turkish bath), but after that, I pretty much forgot how "interesting" the rest was.
Generally speaking, watching a lot of his movies feels like they were directed by HAL 9000. I'll throw Videodrome into that mix too, though I will say that remains his most intriguing and best work.
A Dangerous Method... total disappointment.
I feel the exact same way. Word for word. 'Eastern Promises' was just okay, if that's all I can remember—I forgot it immediately. But this other one was unbearable at times; otherwise, just a very shallow film...
Generally, I get the feeling with many of his movies as if they were directed by HAL 9000.
Something always feels missing in his films; he constantly wants to say something, but he's never concrete enough. And then, when he finally grabs onto a solid idea, he produces something like 'History of Violence'... 🤷Maybe I just don't get him. His style never quite clicked for me, even though I’ve always enjoyed watching his films—mostly because he loves playing around with psychology—and I've revisited some more than once. A Dangerous Method was actually a pleasant surprise.
A film exploring the six-year friendship between Carl Jung and Sigmund Freud, focusing on how that bond shaped Jung’s trajectory as he began his career in psychiatry. It sheds significant light on his romantic connection with the American woman Sabina Spielrein, one of the early female pioneers in psychoanalysis. The story kicks off when she is admitted to Jung’s clinic due to a neurotic disorder, two years before he even meets Freud.
Keira Knightley delivers a fascinating performance; Sabina is perhaps the most compelling figure here, especially given her role in the overarching narrative. Her fractured psyche is particularly gripping at the start, though the specific details of her illness aren't laid bare. It’s clear her struggles stem from sexual frustration, yet we never learn which pivotal discovery led to her recovery—what the core of her issue actually was. She remains shrouded in mystery, leaving a lingering sense of dissatisfaction because certain pressing questions go unanswered. Ultimately, it seems to be the director's choice to avoid over-explaining the mechanics of psychoanalysis, preferring instead to focus on other elements.
Sabina was naturally a highly sexual person, and whether she was truly "cured" remains ambiguous—at least within the context of this film. This supports Jung's theory that people don't benefit from merely being confronted with their frustrations, especially if viewed through the narrow lens of sexuality alone; this fundamental disagreement between Jung and Freud is handled brilliantly here. The dialogue between the two men is the film's strongest asset. In almost every line spoken, you can catch glimpses of the profound ideas held by these two giants.
There is certainly a heavy intellectual component, but Cronenberg manages to approach the subject matter with such meticulous detail that the result never feels dry, despite the fact that this true story isn't inherently cinematic. I was personally quite skeptical about how this would work—I didn't realize there was a stage play involved—especially since the most critical moments of their relationship hinge on Jung recounting his dreams to Freud and a passing mention of some sort of "murky tide of occultism."
Viggo Mortensen plays Sigmund Freud as an unusual man of few words—extremely restrained, arrogant, with a gaze that conveys coldness, confidence, and a deadly resolve, but also deep-seated vanity, envy, and bitterness. His interpretation has incredible depth; it was a huge surprise to me.
Freud was fearless in defending his theories. He handled the lack of respect from the scientific community at the time with dignity while building a following. He sought a reputation as a pragmatic scientist who had established a legitimate method for uncovering the soul, discarding any moral or religious "deceptions" associated with it. However, that hunger for authority eventually obstructed his pursuit of the truth. Jung, on the other hand, wasn't afraid of being cast out; he was a much more persistent and courageous fighter, willing to sacrifice far more than just his status. Michael Fassbender is, as expected, excellent in his role.
I'm not sure how much of this lands without some background knowledge of the actual history, so I've looked into the details to somewhat justify the film for those unfamiliar with the era. There are moments where characters leave thoughts unfinished when they should have completed them. The non-linear structure might also be a drawback for some. It goes without saying that this is the most unconventional Cronenberg film to date—and I found it exceptional. Perhaps I'm being unrealistic, but for me, this is a 9/10. 🙂
p.s. I'll admit I'd find it hard to recommend this to my casual friends, but I'd definitely suggest it to the Jung enthusiasts. 🙂