Home > Drama >

A Dangerous Method

Watch Now

A Dangerous Method (2011)

September. 30,2011
|
6.4
|
R
| Drama Thriller
Watch Now

Seduced by the challenge of an impossible case, the driven Dr. Carl Jung takes the unbalanced yet beautiful Sabina Spielrein as his patient. Jung’s weapon is the method of his master, the renowned Sigmund Freud. Both men fall under Sabina’s spell.

...

Watch Trailer

Cast

Similar titles

Reviews

Stometer
2011/09/30

Save your money for something good and enjoyable

More
Curapedi
2011/10/01

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.

More
Dana
2011/10/02

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

More
Billy Ollie
2011/10/03

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

More
merelyaninnuendo
2011/10/04

A Dangerous Method3 Out Of 5A Dangerous Method is a plot driven dramatic tale featuring the most complex relationship possible in the most simple way possible; a swing and a miss since the concept had an enormous amount of potential. The taboo subjects that are explored in here barely scratches the surface, to a point, that it makes you feel cheated as for the rest of the feature the subject is left to rot out on the corner of the shelf. The conversations are wise and explicitly written but unfortunately isn't as layered and thought-provoking as it thinks it is. Cronenberg's world in here is all bourgeois as far as it is investing on setting the sub-plot of each character, and when the scrutiny finally hits, all it can draw out from its audience is a mere nod, no matter how genuine. It is rich on technical aspects like stunning costume design, mesmerizing visuals and perfect editing. The chemistry among the characters is one of its strength especially between Mortensen and Fassbender; a real delight to see them go head to head on screen. Cronenberg; the director, is on his A game in each frame of the feature as the soul and kind-hearted suave tone communicates fluently with the audience. Knightly's performance is laborious which may be appreciative but certainly not enchanting as it was aspired to be. Fassbender is vulnerable and struggles through itself in an apt portrayal of his but the real show-stealer is Mortensen in his poised and arrogant walks that speaks more than the words. The production design and background score could have been a lot better. Pragmatic conversations and fast paced adapted screenplay are the only high points of this feature. A Dangerous Method is actually a sheltered and secured pathos methodology that never visits its third dimension which had the correct answer.

More
petrelet
2011/10/05

This is a movie about intelligent people who are trying to elevate their guesses about human nature to the level of a new science. But the fact that they are intelligent doesn't turn their guesses into objective truth, or cause them to become wise, or make them into role models.Let me stop here and say that frankly this is a difficult movie to review partly because it really doesn't conform to expectations. Not that it should. On the one hand these (Jung, Freud, Spielrein, Otto Gross) are people dealing with their own desires for sexuality, power, freedom from social restraint, and so on. On the other hand they are trying to turn their personal insights or ideas into scientific dogmas. On a third hand they are trying to argue about these dogmas with each other while engaging in sex and in power games with each other, so you see people on the screen whose bodies are interacting on a physical level while at the same time carrying on a running intellectualized commentary and discussion on themselves. This is somewhat disconcerting to watch and could easily be developed into a comedic sketch.Another issue for the moviegoer is that the insights of the early psychoanalysts haven't exactly stood up to the inquiries of modern science the way Einstein's theories have. From the modern standpoint - well, mine anyway - the arguments between Spielrein and Freud and Jung about (say) whether the sex instinct is creative or whether it must incorporate the death instinct and embody destruction of the individual ego (more or less) seem to be really a lot like religious arguments in the early Christian church about whether the Spirit proceeds from the Father or not. There are no testable hypotheses, no material referents, just talk. Now, I'm not claiming that the seekers in question are made out to be hypocrites. They are at least somewhat sincere - even Gross, who claims that psychological health is to have as much sex and as little moral restraint as possible. And they aren't charlatans. Spielrein comes to Jung as his patient in a horrible mental state; through his "talking cure" she becomes a respected professional. Of course he also gets into a sexual affair with her. But to be fair psychiatric ethics didn't exist yet, and this is Vienna circa 1906, when professional men like Jung have wives and children and also mistresses apparently as a matter of course, so it's not reasonable to castigate Jung as some kind of exploitative monster towards his patient and towards his wife without mentioning that it was a monstrous time and a monstrous world. It's not as if the camera isn't critical of him.Still, it's fair to say that no matter how sincere they think they are, they are all rationalizing and fooling themselves to some degree, though not so much each other. Freud, for example, who at one point calmly declares that of course he bears no ill will to Jung, he merely can't support Jung's stupid primitive religious idiotic nonsense, or words to that effect. Things like that are interesting and worth seeing the movie for, and the performances are pretty seamless - I really have to put in a shout out to Sarah Gadon who plays Emma Jung with great delicacy. But if you want dramatic progression or a third-act climax (SPOILER) you really won't get any. They go their ways and ultimately you get biographical notes before the end credits. But on the plus side a few days later you may start thinking about issues raised in the film, like, were these people just successful neurotics, or were they intuitive helpers but failures at creating a science, or was their science more successful than that, or were they really sort of like founders of a religion after all? So I'm glad I saw it.

More
globewarmer
2011/10/06

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!

More
begob
2011/10/07

Mad woman and dishonest man work on their relationship.Rich historical drama that joins with important issues on how we see ourselves. It's more intellectual than visceral, and I think it struggles to combine the two approaches through the romance.And the romance is all down to the actors. The male lead is excellent, cool and contained. But the female lead failed to nail it in the opening sequence and took a long time to recover authority. Overall the intro was shaky, but the story revved up when Otto arrived.It's well made, interesting, and I did enjoy it. There was a scene between Jung's wife and his former lover that gave a perfect opportunity to cut across the grain and deliver a real insight, but it just served to set up the final scene for the lovers. In other words, I thought Jung's wife was the key to the mystery - and beautifully played by that actress too.Plenty of good lines, but not enough drama.

More