So much average

Save your money for something good and enjoyable

I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

its virtue - the status of inspired introduction to the early history of psychoanalysis. sure, in a soft manner as a story of love, competition, selfishness, innocence, fascination of theories and force of a name, speculations, directions and different perspectives. and good performances. this is all. a seductive story about love and hate and about a duel. a beautiful introduction to an universe who remains fascinating for the large public. to define historical accuracy in this case is not the inspired choice. because it is not a documentary . it is only a sort of fairy tale , dramatic, as mix of passions, as puzzle or a window to a large garden between high towers, walls and castles.

Personnaly, i'm rather Jungian than Freudian because Jung dazzles me with his collective unconscious, mythical knowledge while Freud links all problems to sex. This enlarged scope versus this limited scope is indeed talked in the movie. So far i didn't know that the two worked together and their meting was really interesting to follow. So it was rather a disappointment to learn that their break-up was due essentially about a woman whom Jungs likes to whip ass! It's not the first time (and surely not the last) when a great mind fails stature and private life reveals a much darker person. Anyway this movie has an incredible fantastic four cast: Fassbender is always this deep inside treacherous man, Mortensen shows his natural authority and his ability with cigars, Cassel, despite his beard, looks very much like his late father and his french appetite is true and for sure, Keira has one of her best part ever: always sweet with past fashion, she shows one more time her determination as well her inner weakness as she punches herself into madness! Cronenberg is inspired with his camera and offers us one of his best movies since a lot of years! NB: Jung's study of UFO was amazing to help me grasp that my love for space is a crutch to support me against my fear of death as the two are similar ... As Captain Kirk says Space (death) is the final frontier ... where no man has gone before.

Well, I'm an assiduous psychoanalysis' patient since early 2013, so it's evident that I'm much interested in the subject. I know, besides, the discussions that psychoanalysis and psychology have been facing throughout the years, but I'm not taking any side. I just happen to enjoy analysis and that's all. This movie involved me from the get go, mainly due to the consistent acting from Keira Knightley, whose performance has really stolen the show. I just didn't enjoy it more because Freud's life wasn't as explored as I thought it would be-- and as I HOPED it'd. However, it feels indeed interesting to understand the issues that such science has faced until it got to the point it's in now: as the questioner of the mind. Moreover, the brilliance of "A Dangerous Method" gets visible when it exposes that psychoanalysis isn't going to save the world like a Messias, but that it's going to try to understand life, just as it is: good, tough, difficult and filled with neverending questions. After all, what is life if not an unreachable desire?

Having watched this film, which is beautifully dressed, acted with some competence, and with sets and scenes bright with seeming authenticity, and with my life spent in psychology and with some of that time spent around psychotherapy and analysis, I am loath to spend this time without writing something here.I knew, of course, that Freud and Jung broke their relationship, but the existence of Frau Spielrein was news to me; I understand the root inspiration of this film is a book by John Kerr, A Most Dangerous Method, published in 1994, where recently discovered papers by that lady were used to unpack the conflict between the 2 psychotherapists. I now understand, from some background reading, that her ideas of the Eros/Thanatos link were seminal to Freud's theories. Somewhere, presumably, in Kerr's book is the explanation for the title's use of 'dangerous'. I didn't hear the word mentioned in the film, and don't understand the reason for its use.After all, as Spielrein herself admits, Jung (using Freud's technique) cured her of her hysteria, and helped put her on the road to qualifying as a doctor. As Jung admits, she was the love of his life. The method then wasn't dangerous to either of them, though it may have been tumultuous.Freud doesn't say anything about psychoanalysis being dangerous, merely that it is about truth. So why 'dangerous'? New, unexpected, reviled, idealized - all those, yes. Dangerous, no. Perhaps it just helped sell the book and the film too.The film, on this site, is hugely praised and hugely panned by different reviewers, but I belong with those who feel rather apathetic, uninspired and mostly uninformed by the script. Rather bemused, really, though I think it may grow on me with a second viewing. Viggo Mortensen was the surprise, who looked rather a lot like the young Freud did look, and who played his part in a very downbeat fashion. He was marvellous as usual. As for the rest, I can only say, at this point, meh!