Un método peligroso

David Cronenberg was my main reason for seeing 'A Dangerous Method'. While not one of my all time favourite directors, he is a very unique and truly admirable one and find a good deal to like about all his films, even the ones that don't do a lot for me overall. The cast was also a selling point, with Viggo Mortensen in particular being so excellent in his previous two films with Cronenberg, and love Howard Shore's music.

'A Dangerous Method' is certainly above average and intriguing enough, but for Cronenberg and considering that it was exploring yet another challenging subject with the intent to unsettle it was somewhat disappointing. Not one of his worst, it is better than 'Stereo', 'Crimes of the Future' and 'Cosmopolis'. It's no 'The Fly', 'Dead Ringers', 'Eastern Promises', 'A History of Violence' or 'Dead Zone' either. Would personally put it somewhere in the middle, along with 'Crash' and 'M Butterfly'. Didn't hate it, didn't love it, more like respected it while wanting much more out of it.

There are a lot of good things here. For one thing it looks fantastic, beautifully shot with handsomely evocative production and costume design. The landscapes are just gorgeous to watch and the editing is suitably slick. Shore's score is haunting and has an emotional edge as well, which is what is so great about Shore's collaborations with Cronenberg. Parts of the script are very thought-provoking and intelligently written and the story did mostly start off promisingly, with signs of subtle unsettlement.

Most of the performances are fine, with Michael Fassbender's quiet intensity dominating the film beautifully. An underused but very charismatic Viggo Mortensen more than matches him and steals all his scenes actually. Vincent Cassel is memorably serpentine.

Keira Knightley however is over-taxed in her role and over-compensates painfully. Cronenberg's direction is great on a technical level but is too restrained and surprisingly emotionally cold, something that is expected from first starting out but this is late Cronenberg where many times previously he proved that he could shock and move.

Found the story to be too often pedestrian in pace and jumpy structurally in the latter stages of the film, and what should have been the central relationship, which should have been the most interesting aspect, to be criminally underdeveloped. Much more depth to the characters would have been more welcome too, all of them are too sketchy. The worst aspect of 'A Dangerous Method' is the very superficial and too talky script that has too many ideas and undercooks all of them. This was a brave and challenging subject given too restrained and tame treatment.

In summation, above average but should have been much more. 6/10

I am a Cronenberg fan. I think a History of Violence is one of the greatest films ever made! I also think Eastern Promises showed what happens when a great Director pairs with an awesome muse. I anticipated this film eagerly but after watching it I was left with mixed feelings. Perhaps this is because the script was not as tight as that of the first two films I mentioned. It was never going to be easy capturing something as abstract as psychoanalysis on film, yet I can say that this film does ramble on at times and it is slow. A History of Violence was slow but the pay off was fantastic. Here there was no pay off. We were shown the lives of three great, complicated minds and that was it. After reading about the lives of the three central characters I can safely say that perhaps this was not the film Cronenberg should have made about Freud. He opted respectfully for the less dramatic and more factual and I think this sacrifice could have hurt what could have been another Cronenberg/Mortensen smash-hit. That said, I also think Keira Knightley was a mis-cast and Mortensen and Fassbender were as perfect as ever. Looking forward to the next Cronenberg flick. This wasn't awful but I expected more.

What was the source of conflict which caused a gulf to form between Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung? When we examine their personal and professional lives, what turning points shaped their theories? What were the storms which blew through the lives of Jung and Sabina Spielrein? These are some of the questions this film attempts to highlight, and in fact begins to touch upon.

Some of the most scintillating moments of "A Dangerous Method" are sexually bracing. But the audience is left feeling a bit orphaned. Do these carnal scenes truly address the significant thematic questions?

Here's my main beef with this film: I wanted to see more time spent on the rigorous conflict between Freud and Jung. I have a sincere interest in the life of Carl Jung, but in the end, I was not sufficiently satisfied. Having said that, the production design, scenery, and costuming were absolutely wonderful.

The somber, instinctual undercurrents of "A Dangerous Method" can be a bit hypnotic. But because the script suffers, I cannot fully come under its spell. As the rolling credits came up, I personally felt a bit deflated, as if a sweet was torn from my curious grasp. Although I think most films would do well with a tighter edit, this movie could have used an additional 30 minutes of character and plot development.

I appreciated the qualities which Fassbender brought to Carl Jung. Vincent Cassel was right on the mark as the impulsive Otto Gross. Jung's insecure wife Emma was tenderly portrayed by Sarah Gadon.

Although Keira Knightley tried her best to portray Sabina Spielrein, there were certain scenes where her delivery seemed pushed. I have long respected Viggo Mortensen, but I was not fully convinced by his affected portrayal of Freud.

So, who would I cast as Sabina? Emily Mortimer, Helena Bonham Carter, or Rachel Weisz come to mind. And how about the part of Freud? Ben Kingsley, Dustin Hoffman, or Geoffrey Rush could have added a riveting twist to this role.

Is there a doctor in the house? I will leave that for you to decide.

While I understand that the movie was not received as well as Cronenberg would have wanted, it is a very difficult movie to sell. Not because of the actors! Actually my first thought was: three of the best guys of their generation and Keira Knightley -> Awesome! But Mr. Cassel himself a smaller part, so it's only Fassbender and Mortensen left. But they both do a great job depicting ... let's call them "persons of interest". People most of us have some idea of.

So this movie goes very philosophical on us and is very "talky". But still as other reviewers have pointed out. Nothing much is happening. I guess that was the point of it all to begin with though. It is about talking life, instead of living/experiencing. Or against to be more exact. Latter being sort of represented by Keiras character. A more subtle approach than most would wish for, but still a good movie

A movie about Carl Jung and Sigmund Freud directed by David Cronenberg? That sounds surprising and interesting, to say the very least but the movie as it turned out, was far from anything interesting to watch.

There are really multiple causes. The first and foremost problem is obviously with its story. And not just only the story in itself but also the things its emphasizes and puts its focus on. It makes some bad choices with this, which makes this movie feel like a very dry and distant one.

The movie is mostly focusing on the 'romance' between Jung and his mental patient, played greatly by Keira Knightley. Nothing wrong with that, if only the romance was anything really romantic or something to feel involved with. It instead just feels wrong and dirty and besides isn't made all that believable. Why, out of all of his patients and opportunities he must have had in his life, does Carl Jung suddenly decide to have an affair with this particular woman? What was so different or intriguing about her? This movie really doesn't give you the answers to any of this.

And if you think that this movie is being one that is sort of showing the rivalry between Freud and Jung and their opposing psychology methods, you are completely wrong. There is never any interesting dynamic between the two of them, which is granted also due to the fact that Viggo Mortensen as Sigmund Freud, is hardly in the movie at all.

And don't know what their methods were and why there are still being used in today's psychoanalysis and why the both of them are being regarded as the two founding fathers of psychoanalysis? Don't expect this movie to show or tell you anything! It really remains on the surface all, as if it was afraid for its own subject and that it might loose some of its viewers with it.

In other words, the movie really isn't telling you anything interesting and it's mostly being an unusual romantic movie, you'll get very little out off.

All a same really, since the movie itself remains well made and acted out. It's a pretty good looking movie, with all of its historical sets and costumes and the actor's play their roles convincingly. It at least still makes the movie watchable but it's barely enough to keep you interested in it.

6/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/