Avaliações de usuários

As a fan of Lewis' work (though far from being an expert on the guy) I was very interested in seeing this film. Even though the target audience is probably 30 years my senior, I still enjoyed it quite a bit. Hopkins's and Goode's performances really carry the film. Normally, I struggle with movies that use a lot of flashbacks to tell the story but it was done here in such a way as was helpful and not distracting or disorienting.

I do wish the script had been a bit stronger. There were a couple scenes that seemed to fizzle out rather than having a much needed emphatic response, mostly on Lewis's end.

Overall I liked the film and would see it again.

It's a contrast-intellectual-perspectives-on-God drama set on September 3, 1939, in London, England at the home of 83-year-old Sigmund Freud (Anthony Hopkins), and his daughter, Anna (Liv Lisa Fries). The Freuds had fled Vienna, Austria in 1938 after Anna had been briefly detained. Freud was severely suffering from oral cancer and taking a lot of morphine at the date in question. Freud did not believe in God, despite early training in both Catholicism and Judaism.

Freud's last intellectual visitor in this fictional account is C. S. Lewis (Matthew Goode), a 45-year-old Oxford don, and Christian apologist after rediscovering faith in the early 1930s.

The film follows the conversation between Freud and Lewis, with various flashbacks at key including Freud's youth and Lewis's experiences in World War I. The film also touches on Anna's relationship to her father and to Dorothy Burlingham (Jodi Balfour), a former patient of Sigmund's and close friend of Anna. The film also notes Lewis's conversion and his unusual relationship with Janie Moore (Orla Brady), the mother of Lewis's wartime comrade, Paddy Moore (George Andrew-Clarke).

"Freud's Last Session" has Freud and Lewis punch holes in their opponent's perspectives on God, with neither landing a knock-out. The flashbacks and inserts related to Anna provide some breaks. Hopkins and Goode are excellent while burdened with what felt like a pretty flat script. It was a kind of gamesmanship without much direction.

Strictly evaluated as an opening-to-closing credits endeavor, Freud's Last Session isn't a terrific film (probably more like 6-stars). But director/writer Matt Brown's effort features enough interesting philosophical nuggets-bolstered by one terrific acting performance-to be enjoyable for those who may sit down to watch it.

For a very basic overview, Freud's Last Session imagines a fictional encounter-which may or may not have actually occurred-between the titular psychoanalyst (Anthony Hopkins) and Christian apologist C. S. Lewis (Matthew Goode). As the two trade philosophical worldviews in Freud's home, the doctor's daughter Anna (Liv Lisa Fries) struggles with her own relationship with her famous father alongside a closeted relationship with colleague Dorothy Burlingham (Jodi Balfour).

I'm not entirely sure if Freud's Last Session has ever been produced as a stage play, but if so that might actually be the better format for it. With the core of the film being an intellectual sparring match between two academics, it's a bit of an odd fit for a big-screen format or presentation. Brown tries to flesh things out with the Freud daughter plotline and various flashbacks, but those avenues feel a bit forced and ultimately serve to take the focus off the "main event".

Fortunately, the movie has two things squarely in its corner: First, the back-and-forth repartee truly does raise some food for thought (if treading somewhat familiar religion vs atheism ground). A few lines really stuck with me. Secondly, Hopkins continues to provide transformative performances. Fans of his won't regret the admission just based on his turn alone here.

Overall, I settled on 7/10 stars for Freud's Last Session. Technically it isn't even "that good" of a flick, but the Hopkins performance and general setup are enough that those even nominally interested in the premise can find enough to enjoy.

It's 1939 on the very eve of declaration of War in London. Oxford don C. S. Lewis (Matthew Goode) calls upon Sigmund Freud (Anthony Hopkins) at his invitation. He passes Anna Freud (Liv Lisa Fries) as she goes out to lecture and ponder whether she will reveal her lesbian affair to her father. Meanwhile, the two men attack each other's philosophical beliefs.

And that's what the movie is, two men talking, interrupted occasionally by flashbacks to their younger days and air raid to lend this stage play some cinematic credibility. In this made-up scenario -- although the story is that an Oxford don visited Freud shortly before his death, the claim, as here, that it was Lewis, is a fabrication of the play and movie -- they argue around each other, and finally agree only that people are afraid of death.

The rest of it.... well, Freud's beliefs are at the end of his life (he died three weeks after the supposed events of this film), while there are plenty of things that Lewis did say until twenty years after. As for the basic disagreement about religion versus science, that's a non-conflict; as smarter people than I have declared, science is about how, not why. If G*d created the universe we live in, thanks a lot.

Both men are fine actors and easily translate the script into natural-sounding words. I have no idea if Hopkins' accent is a good representation of the Viennese one; Kohli Calhoun is listed as the dialect coach.

I saw this movie this afternoon - Saturday afternoon - and there were only three people in the hall. I was not surprised.

Freud's Last Session is part of a cottage movie genre, almost always taken from a Broadway play, where two-man shows are relatively common. The author puts two historical figures together in a room and lets them debate various important issues for close to two hours. Nixon/Frost is the one I remember offhand, but there have been others as well. In the theater - a small theater - I can see this working well. I'm not sure how it works as a movie, or more to the point: for whom it works. Movies, even modest ones like this, cost a LOT more to produce than plays. Can something like this recoup the investment?

Yes, the two actors give very fine performances. People go to see Shakespeare plays not to see what will happen to Hamlet or Romeo and Juliet. They already know before they enter the theater. They go to see how the actors will deliver the lines.

But here, unlike in Shakespeare, the lines are not particularly striking. Hopkins in particular did a great job of creating the character Freud, but he didn't have Shakespeare's words - or even, say, those of the playwright who wrote The Lion in Winter - to work with.

So I'm left with my initial question: how many people are going to pay to see Hopkins and Goode deliver their uninspired lines? And will that make enough ticket sales to at least break even on this movie?

I enjoyed it, yes, but I found that it was too much of the same thing for too long, and would have been happier if it had been shorter.

I respect S Freud as an early but pioneering psychologist, and I very much admire C. S. Lewis as a humanist and fiction writer. Whether this meeting between Freud and Lewis really happened doesn't matter so much, I think. What matters is that it's a fascinating concept to imagine the two men debating science vs religion, and this film does a very decent job of portraying this discussion.

While I wouldn't go so far as to call this the most moving film I've ever seen - I think Shadowlands for example was far more moving and The Soul Keeper ( a film about Jung and his female patient ) was more intriguing - I did genuinely find Freud's Last Session to be philosophically poignant. The discussions between Freud and Lewis are intellectually sound and do ask those age old questions, such as if God is good, why is there suffering? A question I guess we all grapple with in one way or another.

This film did remind me a bit of In Lambeth the other play about a fictional meeting between Thomas Paine and William Blake which, while quite different, approached the two sides of a philosophical debate in a similarly genuine and interesting manner.

Ultimately, there is quite a good amount of wisdom and intellectual content in Freud's Last Session and for that I found it fun, mildly moving and worthwhile. The cinematography and acting are decent. If you like psychology, philosophy and films that are really just play's on screen, then I hope you'll enjoy this.

Anyone interested in the works of Freud and Lewis, or theology, philosophy, and psychoanalysis will likely find this interesting. Having no grounding in the work of one of both could be a barrier. Freud's health issues and the evil of war add a floor for the good vs. Bad, lovintheological arguments Echoing others, not a stellar script, but solid performances like Hopkins make it quite watchable. Anna's character's and the war's beginning add some plot points, but work fine as a ways to break up the dialogue and aid the flow. While I do not profess to be an intellectual, it's nerdy enough to be thought provoking, which may be it's best feature.

"Freud's Last Session" comes as a huge disappointment for me. This fictionalized encounter between groundbreaking pyschoanalyst Sigmund Freud (Anthony Hopkins) and writer C. S. Lewis (Matthew Goode), on the early days of World War II with the first German bombers coming to England, doesn't challenge viewers in asking themselves about what they're trying to figure out while challenging themselves about the nature of man and if God exists or not (Freud is an atheist; Lewis is a Christian believer).

Adapted from Matt Brown's play, the material is poorly translated to the screen which doesn't allow a solid 15 minutes with both of those characters alone in their session without coming back and forth between some background moments from each character, or either some present situations with the threats of bombing or Freud's poor health that needs constant care from his daughter, of which we have some tense revelations about her relationship with her dominating father. And they tried so hard to make it a plot twist when it comes about that character and her secretary that it was annoying - specially if you know that while Freud didn't condemn homosexuality as a moral issue, he didn't want them near him (read Paul Roazen's works on him).

One sort of expects this being a psychoanalysis session rather than a weird chatting between famous authors with opposite views. For the life of me, as it wasn't a session in fact, I still don't have a clue on what Lewis was doing there. The verbal duels are the moments we wait for, there are so many interesting bits and exchanges between them but as a whole it all falls flat because either the dialogue is not that brilliant; the editing makes it all look like a tennis match - there's not a single moment for some monologue or some plan sequence; and the constant sidetrack of past moments that tries to build some character, or show some background but it's all disengaging and tedious.

A film that works with such ideals and challenges about mankind, God, faith and human relations while opposed or favorable to all that must have some coherence between action and dialogues, to create something that we in the audience might have question ourselves or haven't thought about. It must create some excitment even if those issues aren't all that thrilling (to some) and stay in the "boring" play format without distractions. If there's a play and film adaptation that translated such sentiment in a brilliant way was "The Sunset Limited", with Samuel L. Jackson and Tommy Lee Jones. Simple through actions as it stays in a small apartment room and the brilliance from the complex dialogues becomes a fascinating and mindblowing experience. Hopkins and Goode don't share the same dynamic despite being good performers. The excessive use of humor and the many interruptions in their digressions didn't help, and we perceive them as bitter figures that don't reach any enlightning conclusion.

Here's a film that crushed any previous and possible good expectations that I could have about presenting a challenging duel of opposed views from great minds of the 20th century, starring two favorite actors of mine. Its flawed and distractive presentation left me emptied out and waiting for more. Sadly, it delivered so little that either Freud and Lewis still became mysteries to me, and only their works or books about them will solve a little such mystery. I'd rather see Freud's first session, instead. 5/10.

The script is thought provoking as you follow a neurologist who discovered psychoanalysis conversing with a Christian author who wrote The Chronicles of Narnia. ALSO, the events take place on the day before WWII and both gentlemen are equally brilliant as they are stubborn, as seen with each of the many discussions-turned-arguments that take place. Transitions and flashbacks are heavily utilized to portray character depth, but whether it's a particular style of acting or the timing of each scene paired together, this format ultimately doesn't work. Anthony Hopkins and Matthew Goode showcase their individual acting talent with long monologues and fluctuating emotions, but in the pivotal moments of occupying a scene together, the chemistry never quite flourishes. However, director Matt Brown keeps the viewer engaged by allowing us to be an unbiased fly on the wall rather than purposely tilting the conversation in one direction. The story feels restrained, most likely due to the subject matter, but that won't affect the enjoyable experience that many will have.

There is a recent outbreak of films made for people past puberty and this film is one of them. Serious issues are discussed. Thoughts are provoked. Both actors (and the actresses who get less flamboyant screen time) play intelligent philosophers grappling with something we all have to face - is there an eternity? Or oblivion? What prompts a genocide by humans to eliminate theirnown species? No flying cars or superheros, just intelligent adults grappling with serious questions.

Anthony Hopkins fills his unpleasant character with a minimum of scenery chewing, and Matthew Goode was a pleasant surprise, keeping his more quiet character in the mental battle. But the little known story of Anna Freud is tragic and brings real emotion to the story. A grown up film (sorry, Barbie).

Beyond the place of anger and tears Only the horror of the shadow looms, But still the threat of long years Finds and will find me fearless...

• a fragment of a poem by William Ernest Henley, which he wrote shortly before the amputation of his leg.

These sad but strong lines are uttered by Freud's daughter, subjecting the subjective characterization to opposition. The picture is full of meanings, classically shot, with a brilliant performance by Anthony Hopkins. The film will be of interest to a certain audience interested in philosophy and human behavior. If you don't have such aspirations, then it seems to me that even Hopkins' unsurpassed acting will not be able to hold your attention.

The story describes an alleged meeting between writer Clive Staples Lewis, author of the fantasy novel series The Chronicles of Narnia, and psychiatrist Sigmund Freud. It is not known for certain whether such a meeting actually took place, there is only a mention that shortly before the suicide of the founder of psychoanalysis, he was visited by a certain famous man from Oxford.

The film is an intellectual discourse of an agnostic and a defender of Christianity, both characters are deeply traumatized: one prefers determination, the other seeks solace; one chooses courage, the other tries to drown out memories. There is no right decision, there are actions dictated by will and consciousness. This is a sad psychoanalysis of beliefs, in which important topics are voiced, but only one is revealed - the opportunity to change your mind, a sign of adequacy.

The authors contrast the conflict of thoughts and the conflict of actions: Freud compares religion to a worldwide kindergarten and calls on humanity to grow up, and the writer accuses humanity of suffering, which it itself has generated, arguing that only free will makes good possible, calling pleasure a whisper of God, and pain a loudspeaker.

The theme of war actually permeates the plot, emphasizing the parallels between the past and the present. Freud calls fascism evil and says: "I saw the light and saw the face of a beast, a monster. There is no escape from the beast, our moral conviction is the beast, we are the plague, we are hunger and death, we are the apocalypse. Thank God I won't live to see another "Hitler"".

The film is interesting for its deep content, metaphysical reflection, dramatic characters, and eternal philosophical reflections. The film does not leave a deep impression, but it encourages discussion about good and evil, about human weaknesses, about religion, about science. This is a good, emotional, philosophical drama with a talented and unsurpassed performance by Anthony Hopkins, however, I would like a brighter conflict and a bolder provocation, which is so lacking in this psychological duel between an unbelieving psychiatrist and a church-educated writer.

If you liked this movie, then I can recommend "The Dangerous Method", a film about the method of psychoanalysis by Carl Gustav Jung and Sigmund Freud in the form of a love drama. Jung and Freud were friends, but later their friendship broke down and these real events are reflected in the film.

I remembered an interesting real event related to Gustav Jung: At the time of Jung's death, a lightning bolt hit his favorite tree in a garden near Zurich, and his friend Lawrence had a dream in which Jung waved his hand, as if going somewhere and said that "I'll see you again." A few years later, standing under the same tree, Laurence van der Post was talking to a journalist and at the moment of his story about the death of a psychiatrist, lightning struck the tree again.

An amazing coincidence shrouded in mysticism, which Jung was passionately interested in.

Now, I was pleasantly surprised last week by the film 'La fille de nulle part' by French director Jean-Claude Brisseau. I was particularly struck by the depth of the dialogues and realized that I am not used to that at all anymore: a director who assumes that his audience has read a book before. It seems like films increasingly take the dumbest of the bunch as a starting point; everything has to be spoon-fed and explained.

Freud's Last Session could have been a fantastic opportunity to create a film that intellectually grabs you and keeps you intellectually engaged. Why is there not a deeper exploration of the father-daughter relationship? Why is there no real dialogue between Freud and the professor? Why is there no character development? Why don't we get real insight into the psychology of the three main characters? It's about Freud, for goodness' sake! He is the founder of psychoanalysis! The levity of the production completely hinders the subject. It's like making a cowboy film without cowboys.

A missed opportunity.

Hopkins playing Freud was bound to be hit or miss. Unfortunately, he delivers here one of his familiar, highly mannered performances. Whenever this "Freud" opens his mouth, he speaks in the same rapid, slightly eccentric rhythm Hopkins favors. Then he pauses, reflects a moment, flashes a sudden rueful grin, and utters a little chuckle or cackle. It's been Hopkins' default style throughout his career (at least when not playing Lecter), this time with a Viennese accent. I doubt Freud was ever so hammy.

My faith was also shaken early in the movie when, for no discernible reason, the order of two famous events was reversed. On September 3, 1939, Prime Minister Chamberlain announced over the radio that the nation was at war with Germany. A few minutes later, air raid sirens went off, terrifying London's populace. (It proved to be a false alarm.) For some reason, the movie has the false air raid preceding the declaration of war.

It also features, in connection with Chamberlain's broadcast, an old bête noire of mine: A large group of psychologists is listening to his historic speech on the radio, and when it's over, the BBC announcer says something like "That ends the Prime Minister's message" -- at which point someone (is it Anna Freud?) snaps off the radio. No one would do that in real life, with war just declared and with urgent government announcements yet to follow (and there were plenty of them).

One further complaint: the clumsy way flashbacks are shoehorned into the narrative, giving us the backstories of Freud, Lewis, and Anna, with a heavy emphasis on Anna's lesbianism.

Incidentally, considering that C. S. Lewis was one of the most brilliant speakers in Britain -- eloquent, persuasive, never at a loss for words -- he is uncharacteristically tight-lipped, timid, and hesitant in this movie, even for someone being courteous to a revered, dying old man. Armand Nicholi's fanciful book "The Question of God," one of the inspirations for this movie, lets the two iconic figures battle it out, with Lewis (and God) ultimately gaining the upper hand. But in this movie's version of that imaginary encounter, Lewis has little to say. It is all Freud's show.

At least the movie is handsomely mounted; it's nice to see what Freud's office must have looked like. That aside, I can't see the point of the movie. Is it just to give Hopkins the chance to do another bad impersonation of a historical figure?

(Note at the end regarding my 6000 IMDb reviews.)

I watched this at home on DVD from my public library, my wife wasn't interested.

Part of the core of the story here is factual. Freud, born Sigismund Schlomo Freud in what is now known as Austria, relocated to London in 1938 when Naziism began to threaten his wellbeing in Vienna. The story here is set in early September, 1939, just a few weeks before Freud would die at the age of 83.

Anthony Hopkins plays Sigmund Freud, he had a habit of using code words to log his sessions and the one purported here was an "Oxford don", not specifically C. S. Lewis. However the author's idea was, "Maybe it was C. S. Lewis, why not?" And maybe Freud and Lewis met to debate the existence of God, Lewis being a Christian and Freud being an Atheist.

Matthew Goode plays C. S. Lewis, he takes the train from Oxford to London to meet with Freud but is very late. He apologizes, he explains that the trains were loaded with children being relocated to the interior of the country to protect them, fearing a Nazi attack was imminent. This is factual.

Most of the movie takes place in the London home of Freud, they discuss a range of topics while Freud is suffering with the jaw cancer that eventually became unbearable. There is also an important side story about his daughter Anna who was shortly to establish Dorothy Burlingham as her partner.

I wasn't enraptured with this movie, Hopkins and Goode are very good in their roles and that kept it interesting. It is mostly a work of fiction as no one really knows if Freud and Lewis met and, if they did, no one knows what they discussed. Still, it is an interesting "What if?"

(Note: Regarding my 6000 IMDb reviews. It started just over 25 years ago, my first review was "The Big Green." I actually was an acquaintance of Milt Oberman who plays the referee. We both belonged to an internet-based motorcyclist club. The SabMag society for riders of Sabres and Magnas.

Anyway, 6000 reviews in 25 years works out to about 240 per year or about 4.6 per week on average. I started just about the time I had retired and was phasing out my part-time job as a traveling auditor. I really enjoy watching movies, and I wanted to put up a review for each just so I'd have a handy reference, to be able to search and remember IF I watched a certain movie and if so, what I got from it and if it would be re-watchable.

While most of my reviews are for movies I also have a number of TV series and documentaries, plus PBS Nova and others. I never set out to accumulate a specific number of reviews but here we are, all these years later and they are still going up. Cheers!)

My Review- Freud's Last Session My Rating. 7/10

I found this movie more interesting than entertaining based on a play by Mark St. Germain who wrote the screenplay with Matt Brown who also directed the movie.

It portrays an imagined meeting between the Sigmund Freud the great Austrian founder of psychoanalysis and C. S. Lewis the famous British writer of The Chronicles of of Narnia plus a literary scholar, and Anglican lay theologian.

I think this would come across to audiences more effectively on stage than as a movie however to have the privilege of seeing two fine actors like Anthony Hopkins and Matthew Goode who plays C. S. Lewis act out an imaginary meeting between two intellectual giants debating their spiritual philosophy and faith or lack of it is a fascinating concept.

Set on the eve of WWII after the invasion of Poland Sigmund Freud is suffering from incurable cancer and approaching the end of his life . He invites author C. S. Lewis for a discussion about the existence of God.

The famous saying advising never to discuss religion or politics or sex doesn't apply to these 2 men one who is an atheist the other who has an unshakable faith in his God.

C. S. Lewis has faced death in the trenches and asks Freud why his scientific faith can't allow the possibility of a belief in a spiritual faith?

The interaction of these two men in Frued's study are cordial at they recall moments in each others earlier lives however Frued 's anger begins to show when the subject of his daughter Anna's and her friendship with Dorothy Birmingham enters the conversation.

Anna lived with Dorothy for many years after her father's death and together with Melanie Klein established the Hampstead Child Therapy Course and Clinic in 1952, now renamed the Anna Freud National Centre for Children and Families.

Sigmund Freud believed that homosexuality was a sexual dysfunction so this subject obviously was a prickly one for an old man totally dependent on his daughter's care to discuss.

Anna Freud is played in the movie by Liv Lisa Fries and she is very impressive in this supporting role .

Personally this aspect of the movie I thought detracted from the main topic of spiritual faith versus scientific denial and the possibility of a link or bridge between each philosophy?

At the end of the movie I decided I liked C. S. Lewis as a character much more than Sigmund Freud who Lewis describes as a very selfish man.

Frued's Last Session as I said is interesting a bit dull but showcases 2 great actors performances. I would love to see the play.

Thru cerebral drama "Freud's Last Session" co-writer (with Mark St Germain whose play it's based on) / director Matt Brown imagines Dr Sigmund Freud (Anthony Hopkins - as robust as ever) meeting author CS Lewis (Matthew Goode - understatedly fine) at the London home the former shares with gay daughter Anna (Liv Lisa Fries) in enforced exile from their native Vienna (under Nazi rule). As WWII breaks out, and the men struggle with their ailments (Freud's oral cancer & Lewis' WWI PTSD), they frankly debate christianity, faith, sexuality & each other's psychological rootings. It's one for intellectuals to enjoy, although 'earthier' audiences may find it rather perplexing.

If they are going to the trouble of making a movie with this subject and this quality of cast - it deserves a solid conclusion! Christianity, as with all other religions, is myth and nonsense. Freud may not be the ideal defender of atheism, but if this is imaginary - take it all the way! Punch holes all the way through the magical thinking called faith. That thinking is for children - to build a strong and creative imagination. It was never intended for adults to hang on to ignorance and remain child like into adult hood. CS Lewis had a brilliant mind and terrific imagination. But it doesn't mean he was right! Unfortunately, his intellect - as amazing as it was - was still informed by the ignorance of the time he lived in. Instead of putting it to use with critical thinking, he fell into the same comfortable trap that all religious followers do. Using his amazing abilities build magical thinking to support Christian nonsense instead of strengthening critical thought to support truth and tear religion down.

As WWII begins, the film speculates about a meeting Freud may have had with C. S. Lewis shortly before he committed suicide due to the pain he was suffering as a result of his inoperable cancer. The two meet to discuss the existence of God, with Freud a committed atheist and Lewis a devout Christian. Whilst they discuss a wide variety of subjects which relate directly and indirectly to their views, they are both reluctant to discuss with each other their own bizarre personal relationships - Freud with his daughter and Lewis with the mother of a friend killed in the trenches.

Certainly the performances by Goode and Hopkins are as good as you'd expect with Hopkins loud and confident as ever, yet scared of dying and Goode gentle and softly spoken. This though is a rather odd experience being that it is an imagined snapshot in time where 2 famed scholars eloquently highlight for the best part of an hour and a half the flaws in each other arguments without digging into those strange eccentricities that affect them both so much. Whether that represents enough for a full piece of cinematic entertainment without all the answers we yearn for, is questionable and in fact the whole thing seems more like a short play backed up by dreams and memories. Worth seeing for the 2 leads and the sharp script, it remains though something of an oddity, albeit quite a pleasant one.

Imagine the hubris of these film makers who invented an imaginary meeting and imaginary dialogue to do a film about Freud, whose life was so interesting imaginary nonsense is not needed. Think "Freud" with Montgomery Cliff or "A Dangerous Method."

Put aside the nonsense, how good is the film? Not very. Editing and continuity are pedestrian and music is not helpful. Direction is poor, at best. What's most disturbing is that the acting is awful. Everyone is doing a poor job! "Oh no," you think. "I heard Anthony Hopkins was wonderful." You heard wrong. Well, not wrong, but misguided. Hopkins plays a jolly old fat German man who speaks excellent English and is plastered on liquor and morphine. Freud was neither fat nor jolly. Hopkins performance is wonderful if you forget that he is playing Freud. As Freud he is awful.

If that's not enough to convince you this film is trash, think of who Freud was in 1939. His eros and libido theories had been wacked over the head by WW 1 and thanatos (death drive) was more on his mind, so that with the impending WW 2 all the dialogue in this film is woefully outdated.

I had anticipated more of a debate or extreme focus on the two men's opposing views, instead the "discussion" is couched amidst other story lines, all relatively true.

Anthony Hopkins is at his best.

This is an intellectual movie, rather than action packed. The filming is beautiful, seems very European and almost old fashioned. Not the camera jumping around so much.

It's a great moment in time, to consider who & what is God, taking place 1939 in London with air raids and flashbacks to WWI-- (albeit a fictional meeting) .

And quite frankly, with all that is going on in the world, it is as relevant now as then.

Sigmund Freud (Anthony Hopkins) is in exile in London with his daughter Anna Freud (Liv Lisa Fries) who is in a lesbian relationship with Dorothy Burlingham (Jodi Balfour). WWII breaks out. Oxford don C. S. Lewis (Matthew Goode) has come for a visit and challenge his atheism. Lewis would publish The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe in 1950.

This has two great actors doing some interesting work. The story goes in scattered directions. The most compelling direction is the suicide pill. The closing text basically erases the pill, the meeting, and the movie in general. I guess that it's honorable to state the fictional nature of the film, but it is deflating.

Many a time, in pursuit of a more dramatic or artistic result, filmmakers take license with the truth, add stuff, change the order of things, make things up. And what's very mysterious to me is that they tend to overdo this especially when celebrities are involved. Look at the latest biographies that gained a screen adaption: they are drastically veering from factual events. More often the defense for such practices is that art is a form of expression, not of reality, but of the vision of the author. Surely, though, that vision must be predicated upon some amount of fact.

So here we are, watching a film about Freud debating God with C. S. Lewis for one hour and a half, but that seems to say more about Mark St. Germain - who wrote the play, based on a suggestion by someone else who died in the interim, then managed to turn it into a movie where he is the screenwriter - than either Freud, C. S. Lewis or the invented cameos/name drops of Tolkien and Einstein. It might even be more about Anthony Hopkins than anybody else, because all I saw was him being him and not the person of Sigmund Freud. Especially revealing is the small font paragraph at the end of the movie that says Freud met with a young professor right before his death, who might have or might not have been C. S. Lewis. Other than that, so the entire film, is pure conjecture.

How presumptuous and self indulgent, but also unintentionally ironic, to invent something that involves actual famous people who lived, and that thing being talking about the verisimilitude of religion and how people changed the story of a real life carpenter from Nazareth. Then not actually focus on Freud's work, Lewis' work or even Anna Freud's work, but on Freud's fear of death, the Christian reconversion of Lewis and Anna's lesbianism all on the background of the German invasion of Poland and England declaring war. For the entirety of the film, Anna Freud's character runs around London to get medicine to her father, only to arrive with female lover in tow and do a silent scene of determination and acceptance, all while her father was in terrible pain and she had the morphine on her. And there are so many scenes just like this.

Bottom line: haven't seen something so lazy and self indulgent except in movies about actors, meta constructions that feed back into themselves, with no beginning, end, or connection to reality. It's a movie in which Hopkins orates most of the time and everybody else is an extra and that has, as far as I can see, little relation to the actual people depicted in the film.