This was a surprisingly bad thing involving a good director and actors, Knighley's "crazyness" felt totally cliché and exaggerated. In the movie's defense, I couldn't get past the first half, so maybe it did get better at the end?

Like many psychology stories, A Dangerous Method is filled with intellectual intrigue and complex characters. However, like most psychology movies, this one suffers from a slow pace that began to wear on me as a viewer. I would definitely watch this again if there were nothing better to choose from.

First of all, I never liked Kiera Knightley. Her facial expressions are cringe worthy. The content of this flick looked promising, so I thought I'd give it a try. It was just awful. Kiera who plays Sabina, who is a patient of Carl Jung overacted the role so much that it was nauseating. I've worked in psychiatric before and let me tell ya, Kiera looked more like someone suffering from Tourettes Syndrome then someone who was abused as a child. When I initally met "Sabina" on screen, I couldn't believe how ridiculous she appeared. To me, the whole movie was so fragmented that I couldn't, try as I did, put together a smooth flow. It was just all over the place with so many unanswered questions. You just got fed bits of this and bits of that leaving you hungry for more background to put t it together. Not worth your time, trust me.

i wanted to like this movie so much though Keira can't act , she irritated me so much i just wanted this movie to be over , worst performance by an actress , she can't act

Great approach to a triple biography of 3 famous figures in the history of psychology. The fair depiction of all three was enabled by excellent acting. My friend isn't into psychology at all & enjoyed it.

A movie that really makes you think about the subject matter of psychology that is being discussed by the pioneers of that field.

I honestly couldn't even finish it. Cronenberg has a style and I will admit it's just probably not for me, but this movie was so painfully boring to me that no amount of great acting or interesting ideas (of which this has both) can save it from its monotony.

Anyone who has ever taken an interest in psychology or signed up for the ubiquitous Psychology 101 course as an elective in their first year of university will probably get a kick out of David Cronenberg's A Dangerous Method. In Cronenberg's least Cronenberg-like film, Carl Jung (Michael Fassbender) takes on the seriously unhinged Sabina Spielrein (Keira Knightley) as a patient, eventually promoting her to both a colleague and a mistress. No film about psychoanalysis would be complete, however, without an appearance by Sigmund Freud (Viggo Mortensen), Jung's colleague and rival. Before you know it, id, ego, super-ego and libido are all spinning wildly out of control. While the production values are excellent and the performances of Mortensen and Fassbender are excellent, the movie loses some steam as the result of Knightley's over-the-top acting, a bunch of bizarre accents, and the fact that nobody ever, even for a minute, stops talking, to the point where the chatter begins to feel like white noise.

I'm relieved that the makers of this cruelly untranscendent ethnography left something for Jung after re-attributing many of his signature ideas (anima/animus) including the cornerstone of Analytical Psychology (oppositionality) to former patient and mistress Sabina Speilrein. At least we still know synchronicity (meaningful coincidences) and individuation still belong to him, as well as the role of the spirit in the human psyche. And a spiritual dimension is precisely what was missing from this film, which never even attempted to rouse in its audience any measure of the numen (awe / dread) Jung reported while experiencing the dreams that turned out to be either premonitions or the architects of ideas that changed him or the field he would lead as a result of them (collective unconscious). Why Cronenberg passed on the opportunity to reconstruct these dreams -- the legendary apocalyptic dream and the dream of unearthing skeletal remains in his basement -- is perhaps the most scalp-shredding question about this production. No one other than Jung truly articulated the role of symbols in the economy of the human psyche -- in the transfer of value and energy among attachments and criteria for perception. And he used these principles to explain how individuals evolved over the course of the lifespan and how they might also be manipulated by a Group Mind (collective behavior) and subverted by splinter personalities and rejected attitudes / ideologies within their own unconscious. To date a film addressing the significance of archetypal possession, compensation, individuation, and the attitudes and functions on which Myers and Briggs would base their MBTI tool has never been made. A DANGEROUS MIND resembles a patient stunted in midlife by his or her own incompleteness, and had there been an intermission, this viewer would have left the room for the production next door. Cronenberg represses his natural instincts as a filmmaker much in the same way Otto Gross accuses Jung of repressing his desire to ravage a patient in the throes of transference. We as lovers of both the medium and the subject want to get in bed with Cronenberg, but he had no interest in reciprocating.

This film was satisfying like buying two gems for the price of one - one a dramatised introduction to a crucial phase in the history of psychoanalysis, and the second a cinematic tour de force. Whether you're well studied in analysis or not, you'll find yourself alternately choosing sides with the two protagonists Freud and Jung, unsure of who's the master and who's the student. You'lll be drawn into their triangular tussle with Sabina Speirlein firmly at the apex. It is a movie that left me wishing for more - knowing well that more is not merrier given the historical unfolding of events in Europe and the immense pain suffered esp. by the Jewish Freud and Speirlein. The movie achieves a near-optimal balance between the historic tensions, analytic discoveries and borderline mystic revalations that the story is rife with.

Apprezzabile sicuramente il coraggioso tentativo di portare sullo schermo la vita e i pensieri dei padri fondatori della psicanalisi. Il risultato è mediamente buono, alcuni dialoghi e scambi di pensieri scorrono naturali ed assolutamente interessanti. Tutto gira intorno però alla protagonista ed ottima Keira Knightley che, a dispetto di una sentita performance, forse fa girare nella sua orbita le parti meno stuzzicanti del film. Infine, l'autocensura delle scene più hot, è uno scoglio che visti gli argomenti trattati, si torce contro al risultato finale. Un buon prodotto che però, manca di coraggio.

Masterpiece. Brilliant actors and acting by all the 3 of them. Although the others stand in the background their subtle dampened emotions, such as the wife of Jung, fit well with being the spouse of such brilliant thinker.

A Dangerous Method features competent filmmaking, great performances by all 3 leads, and an interesting subject matter. Unfortunately it doesn't amount to as much I thought it could have, the runtime felt a little short and although the first half was quite intriguing the pace starts to slow throughout the second half. The end doesn't feel like much of a resolution and feels rather abrupt. I didn't expect a traditional endpoint considering this is a slice of several historical figures' lives- so it's not like it would be trying to conclude their stories with a bow on top. But it still felt unresolved, like it brought up some interesting concepts & ideas but wasn't sure how to bring it together in a satisfying way. Perhaps an additional 20-30 minutes of runtime could have helped as it is barely over 90 minutes, and feels almost like an extremely well made 온라인카지노추천 special. It did get me interested to read more Freud and Jung, and while I was watching I found it interesting.

Overall a dangerous method is a well-made film it’s just the film is incredibly boring. Set designs and performances are fine but the movie moves at a slugs pace with no tension. It’s a very Indie made film in a while are usually enjoy in the films not a huge fan of the Director. The ending also could’ve been bettera

This is a historical movie about Carl Jung's relations with Sabina Spielrein, and Freud. There is not big story but one gets a good feeling of development of psychoanalysis at that time Excellent performance of Jung (Michael Fassbender), and Freud (Viggo Mortensen) characters charming. Also Viennese Cafe scene, Imperial Magnificence, Belvedere, scene takes one to that period.

Well acted! I never learned about this story during my Psych degree! Worth watching, it kept my attention the whole time. Not sure why the rating isn't better. A true story worth watching.

all performances overdone for a script entirely lacking. exciting source material that flops to a quizzical endstop. boring and mindless. extra halfstar for beloved cast.

The film makes it difficult to become emotionally invested in the characters, and Jung himself could do with being far more layered (his relationship with his wife, for example, is undeniably underdeveloped), while the conflict inherent in the story feels meek.

A look into the first vibrator.

While watching this movie, I felt as if I was reading a good poem.