Posts by electriccanyon26

I hope this topic sparks some interest. It’s about two distinct yet overlapping art forms. Do you enjoy theater, and how much interest do you have in film adaptations of stage plays? How many of those films can you name, and which ones have you actually seen? Personally, I have a real soft spot for this genre. What draws me in is the different caliber of acting—it feels more articulated, with a slower, more sustained dynamic. Instead of constant scene cuts and changing settings, there's a sense of continuity that keeps me engaged in the unfolding action. It adds a certain layer of realism and a more intimate atmosphere. Honestly, if I see a set design that reminds me of a stage, it's an immediate plus for me. 🙂 Do you experience it the same way? What are your thoughts? I don't want to spend too much time on the introduction; if you need facts, Wikipedia is there. I just want us to discuss the movies themselves and share recommendations. Here are a few of my favorites:



Death and the Maiden, Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, bug, Marvin's Room



Closer, Rope, Tape, Lantana

There are plenty more, but I won't list them all here. 🙂 Please, give me your recommendations!

Ronald Morales51 said:I wasn't really talking about the action scenes; honestly, I'm not one to be impressed by flashy spectacles or high-octane thrills. Generally speaking, I tend to gravitate toward films that are more static or even quasi-minimalist. Because of that, I don't necessarily go looking for those kinds of tropes when I sit down to watch something.
There were definitely moments in the movie that I enjoyed—I’m not calling the quality into question, per se—but I just expected a bit more substance given that they were profiling two such massive personalities and the dynamic between them.
At certain points, it felt almost as if the actors were just chatting while the cameras were off, like they were still trying to figure out what to say. It lacked that certain punch, that raw core that makes a scene stick with you.
That said, I'm genuinely curious to hear what everyone else thinks, because as I mentioned, my tastes tend to be a little unconventional.

Fair enough. Me neither—I just wanted to point out that Cronenberg doesn't strike me as the right director for this kind of story, even though I know how much he loves that subject matter. Honestly, when I first heard he was making a movie about Carl Jung and Sigmund Freud giving birth to psychoanalysis, my first thought was: can you even make a movie about that? And more specifically, how would he handle it? But looking at your take, I suspect it might miss the mark, since his films often lack that core emotional punch... it's a shame, but I'll definitely give it a watch.

Ronald Morales51 said:I caught a screening at the film festival yesterday, and I have to admit, I walked away feeling a bit let down—probably because my expectations were through the roof.
The plot feels incredibly flat and one-dimensional, which is baffling when you consider the subject matter: Jung and Freud. These are titans who shaped modern psychology; they possess such rich, complex minds, so I naturally expected a story with that same level of depth. Instead, the exploration of how psychoanalysis began, along with their actual ideas and dialogues, felt frustratingly superficial. While the cinematography is gorgeous, the movie lacks a certain soul. It honestly felt more like watching a mid-tier limited series where the scenes and conversations seem to drift aimlessly without any real momentum.
Don't get me wrong, it isn't a "bad" movie by any stretch of the imagination. But personally? I wouldn't go out of my way to recommend it.

Rating: A film you'll likely forget by tomorrow.

Every Cronenberg attempt at psychological drama seems thin... and I'm not expecting an "action" movie, because between Jung and Freud, there wasn't much more than their correspondence—purely intellectual action. I doubt Cronenberg can tackle this in his *own* style since he usually relies on shock value and visceral thrills. I also wouldn't be surprised if they inject typical Hollywood tropes into the historical facts. I might be pleasantly surprised, though; I'll give the film a chance—maybe even two.🙂

Henry Lee84 said:I'm disappointed🤷

I was looking for something along the lines of Glengarry Glen Ross, but once the credits rolled, I forgot the whole thing within five minutes. It just doesn't stick with you.🤷

Yeah, there's just not enough substance here. You spend half the runtime waiting to find out what actually happened—some bond package is about to tank, likely involving the real estate market—and they could have just laid it out in plain English right away. The rest is just a handful of decent, but unexceptional, monologues and five minutes of moral hand-wringing. In the end, everyone just caves to the fire sale because "they need the cash." The acting is top-tier, but it feels like a massive missed opportunity. Michael Clayton has a similar vibe and pacing, but it's much more gripping. I'd give this a 7/10.🙂