A Dangerous Method

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

Man, I have been dying for this movie since I first heard they were filming it, especially after seeing all the buzz from its premiere at the Venice Film Festival. I just absolutely love anything involving Viggo & Cronenberg. Anyway, does anyone actually know when this is hitting theaters here in the States? I don't get why it’s taking forever. I think it was already playing somewhere else back in November. Why are we always so far behind? It's so weird.
____________
xoxo Sienna
http://fashion-sienna.blogspot.com/

You can find it through some side routes ☕, and honestly, I was looking forward to it too, but I’m not feeling it. Keira Knightley is pretty irritating at the start, and there's a lack of context regarding the who, what, and where. I also realized I wasn't particularly well-versed in Jung / Freud, so I ended up doing some light reading online (Wikipedia FTW) just to wrap my head around things. Then again, that's on me, not a flaw in the movie itself. Personally, I didn't find anything to keep me glued to the screen; it's a bit of a slog despite the brilliant Michael Fassbender, and while Viggo Mortensen is fine, he acts like he barely wanted to show up to the set that day. I will say, though, I appreciated certain details, like how Jung's taste for luxury comes through in specific moments.

I think a lot of people are going to walk away disappointed by this one, especially compared to those who actually enjoy it.

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.

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.

I haven't read the autobiography, but if he truly believed in those prophecies, then they actually make sense within the context of the film.

electriccanyon26 said: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. 🙂

electriccanyon26, thank you so much for such a fantastic review! Even though some things make a lot more sense to me now and certain pieces of the puzzle have finally clicked into place, I still stand by my original take: this is definitely Cronenberg's weakest work, and honestly, it just felt like an unnecessary movie to me. I should probably mention again that it's totally on me—I don't know a whole lot about this specific subject matter, and it's never really been something I was super interested in anyway. 🙂

I finally sat down and watched it... and honestly, it lived up to the hype for me.
Visually, it’s absolutely stunning, but if you don't know anything about—or frankly, don't care about—how Carl Jung and Sigmund Freud gave birth to psychoanalysis, you might find all that imagery pretty hollow and boring. The movie keeps certain things tucked away or just barely hints at them, so it really asks a lot of its audience. You actually have to put in some mental heavy lifting, which means it definitely won't click with everyone.
Keira Knightley looks so incredibly thin here—I swear she's barely 90 pounds based on that synopsis!—and there were moments where her acting felt a bit forced. As for Viggo Mortensen, I found him a little unconvincing, which made him kind of off-putting to watch at times.
If you're fascinated by the whole doctor-patient dynamic or the teacher-student relationship, then I'd say go for it.
Otherwise, for the rest of us, this might just feel like a tedious, soul-crushing slog.

Finally caught this one in theaters today and honestly? I’m floored. It was absolutely perfect—so gripping and just... intense. The cast is top-tier (seriously, can we talk about how much I live for anything involving Viggo & Cronenberg?), and Keira Knightley and the rest of the crew were nothing short of phenomenal. It hit every single mark for me, just like I knew it would. When you've got a lineup of actors I adore, a director who is easily one of my favorites, and a theme that actually makes you stop and think, you know you're in for something special. Highly recommend. 🙂
___________________
xoxo Sienna
http://fashion-sienna.blogspot.com/

Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I think Keira Knightley is absolutely brilliant. Looking back at the movie now with a bit more perspective, it feels like she's actually the brightest part of the whole thing. She gave 100% in every single scene and her performance was anything but one-dimensional.

It seems like she gets cast in the wrong roles most of the time, but she handled this one like a total pro. 🤷

Paul Parker2 said:Finally caught this one in theaters today and honestly? I’m floored. It was absolutely perfect—so gripping and just... intense. The cast is top-tier (seriously, can we talk about how much I live for anything involving Viggo & Cronenberg?), and Keira Knightley and the rest of the crew were nothing short of phenomenal. It hit every single mark for me, just like I knew it would. When you've got a lineup of actors I adore, a director who is easily one of my favorites, and a theme that actually makes you stop and think, you know you're in for something special. Highly recommend. 🙂
___________________
xoxo Sienna
http://fashion-sienna.blogspot.com/

Funny enough, I was just scrolling through this forum earlier and saw someone calling the movie desperate and boring. Well, hey, to each their own, right? People clearly have such different tastes when it comes to cinema!

Really solid movie, finally got around to watching it. And honestly, Keira Knightley was fantastic—I seriously don't get the people acting all disgusted by her performance. Like, please, spare me your boring, "intellectual" takes. ☕electriccanyon26 nailed everything in their post, nothing more to add here. 👍