A Dangerous Method is good based off its fine acting (Michael Fassbender shining the most) and the beautiful look of the film. However, the story has some weaknesses and parts where the film could of truly shined. The beginning scenes between Jung and Spielrein are very strong and effective, at times quite frightening. However, when the romance angle comes in the film loses some of that strong grip it had. Also, Freud is in this a lot less than I thought he would be. The conflicts that arise between Freud and Jung later on could of had more of an impact if more time was focused on their interactions. The film still brings up a lot of interesting aspects of psychology and the eventual effect it would have on society. **1/2

Review: http://www.worldofkj.com/article.php?i=545

I'm not sure how to say this, but...I almost feel as if I haven't seen this movie. It's a weird feeling. I still can't believe it was so incredibly minor and low-key and restrained and small. I'm sure Cronenberg was going for a "so unambitious it's ambitious" vibe and thought he was getting to the heart of an issue by not putting it together in his usual Cronenbergian way, but, outside of a couple nice performances and handsome cinematography, it ended up being so mediocre. The minute you leave the theatre, it's just, poof, gone. No impact.

I've seen a few critics drop "It may seem quiet and small, but this movie is a truly courageous exploration of sexuality! It's the most ferocious, provocative movie he's made!" bombs, but I can't see it.

Man. What a disappointment.

Yeah, it's disappointing, but only because it's Cronenberg and we know what he's capable of. On its own terms, it's fine, if oddly structured and paced. Plus Keira Knightley is terrible in this. She's all caricature and over-acting and a dodgy Russian accent and none of it works.

I suppose there's an argument to be made that Cronenberg's restrained aesthetic represents the repressed sexuality of its main characters, but I didn't buy it.

Disagree, the movie is fascinating. And Keira Knightley would get the vote on my Best Actress ballot.

I have very mixed feelings on her performance. I admire her attempt, and it's obvious she was very dedicated and willing to push herself or even embarrass herself to achieve what Cronenberg wanted, but the performance was SO distracting. Lunging, twisting, the jaw (oh, the jaw). It was hard to plug into the movie when I was constantly being reminded of, "This is Keira Knightley giving a bizarre performance." I didn't mind the accent at all, though.

I was -not- a fan of how her character's transformation from full hysteric to practicing analyst was left on the proverbial cutting room floor. I had trouble getting into the movie again for a while after the big "4/5 years later" cut.

Her histrionics were grounded in a way that most actresses wouldn't pull off in such an over-the-top role. All that twisting and moaning that bothered you is gone by the end of the first act anyway. Plus, she has to be the movie's heart. She tears it up. Great performance.

She's the last person I would have picked for a role like this. The best decision Cronenberg made here was hiring her.

Oh, come on. Fassbender was good here. The role was maybe a bit dull compared to his co-stars, but he played it well.

I almost felt Cassel energized the movie too much, considering the brief nature of the role. Almost felt unfair to throw him in and then just as quickly toss him aside.

It makes sense yoshue would like this, the least Cronenbergian film Cronenberg has made since Fast Company.

I'm frankly a little surprised by the disdain and calls that this is boring, or 'anti-Cronenberg'. A Dangerous Method is pure Cronenberg: its about sexual perversity, corruption of the soul, and the balance between instinct and rationality, here portrayed in the competitive love-triangle of three brilliant perverts. Hell, you could practically say the drama unfolds through multiple mind/body invasions! Sure, the closest it gets to body horror is a verbal description of a creeping mollusk, but when the dialogue is this smart and sharply delivered, the 'talkiness' of the movie turns out to be one of its greatest attributes. Kudos to Christopher Hampton's smart script (based on his own play,) and to Cronenberg for perfectly casting the film so almost every line contains the oozing subtext so characteristically hidden behind his prosthetic gore.

Seriously though, I can see how the restrained, Merchant-Ivory tone would strike folks the wrong way, but its the perfect mask for the dark thoughts and desires floating underneath. The bulk of the narrative takes place in conversations, many of them communicated through letters (for whatever it's worth I think the montage between the two that displays the growing antagonism between the two is masterfully synched). The cinematography and micro-editing are characteristically flawless, but it's the intellectual jousting that makes this the sort of film where you lean forward so as not to miss a clever beat.

I'm sure Cronenberg must be a bit frustrated by the complaints that the film isn't Cronenbergy enough, but consider the alternative. If the movie had gone off the rails and turned into Jung ass raping Freud, the director would've been fairly chastised for devolving the story to fit his stereotypical antics. Instead, A Dangerous Method is an essentially historically accurate interpretation of Jung and Freud's relationship, and worthy if only for highlighting the real woman who became caught between their feud.

Speaking of foiled expectations, a lot of people complain about Knightley's histrionics, but her initial hysteria haunts the rest of the film. Her transformation into an articulate, astute psychoanalyst is a perfect foil to Jung's corruption. Where her transformation can be detected by physicality alone, Jung's unraveling is only subtly detectable in public. Echoing the Victorian repression of the time, he appears trapped in the final image, his anguish only visible should one look into his haunted eyes. This ending, in its own unsentimental way, shows how shrewdly Cronenberg has used A Dangerous Method to explore his favorite themes: obsession, perversity, and rebirth. And the post-text crystallises the class, religious, and gender differences that created the cold, chilly chasm between the film's three fascinating figures.

I agree that the idea was to make a repressed movie about a repressed man. As these psychoanalysts are obsessed with what's buried and rotting in the deepest parts of the psychi, it would make sense to have Jung's descent be buried under layers upon layers of stoicness. Overall I quite liked it, the dialog is some of the best and crispest this year, it's shot beautifully, and all 3 characters and actors do a great job and are fascinating. I thought Viggo was the most impressive, though Fassbender obviously has the most difficult role

It's not a blow you away movie, but I don't think it's meant to be.

Its nothing special but its about two men who are still the most well known individuals in their fields.

I wished they explored the differences between Freud and Jung more.
It did show some differences. Freud basing everything off sex and only wanting to diagnosis rather then curing.


Freud is largely discredited even though he laid the base but Jung ideas have endured. Nonetheless, everyone uses their ideas in our analysis of ourselves and other people these days.


Its an okay films and Knightly is okay.

B