merelyaninnuendo 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.

dee.reid A number of reviewers and critics have already stated that the 2011 historical drama "A Dangerous Method" - about the birth of psychoanalysis in the beginning of the 20th century - was a film long in the making by its director, Canadian "body horror" master David Cronenberg.Reviewers and critics have noted that "A Dangerous Method" is admirably restrained - meaning there's no gratuitous sex or extreme violence (common characteristics of much of Cronenberg's past work up until this point). But sex does come up here a lot, though it's mostly through carefully written stretches of dialogue meant to explain the dynamics of human behavior and the human mind. In other words, it's the ideas that mean the most here, rather than their physical signifiers (though there is also some of that here, too).The film details the professional relationship and personal friendship of Swiss neurologist Sigmund Freud (Cronenberg's go-to veteran, Viggo Mortensen) and a young psychiatrist at the beginning of his career named Carl Jung (Michael Fassbender). Opening in 1904 only a few years before the outbreak of World War I, "A Dangerous Method" begins with the arrival of a young Russian woman named Sabina Speilrein (Keira Knightley) to a mental hospital in Zurich, where she becomes Jung's patient. (Suffering from hysterics and repressed sexual desire, Knightley's performance may grate some viewers, but it's one of the more truer depictions of mental illness. Her showy theatrics pretty much dominate the film's first half-hour before she settles down into relative coherence.)Jung begins his care of her simply by talking to her, in applying a newly founded psychoanalytical technique derived from Freud. Jung begins a correspondence with Freud in Vienna, and when the two meet for the first time they have a conversation that will last a whopping 13 hours. At this same time, Jung begins an extramarital affair with Sabina, who eventually recovers from her condition, and studies to become a psychologist herself after assisting Jung for a time in his work. (Jung is also challenged by the arrival of a neurotic young doctor who becomes a patient - Otto Gross, played by Vincent Cassel - who believes that sexual repression is dangerous for the individual and society as a whole; Jung obviously believes in the reverse.) Eventually, though, Sabina and the competing psychological theories of Freud and Jung drive both men apart."A Dangerous Method" was written by Christopher Hampton, which is adapted from his own stage play "The Talking Cure," as well as the 1993 non-fiction book "A Most Dangerous Method" by John Kerr. The film has been described as an "intellectual menage-a-trois" by some critics and indeed in the hands of Cronenberg, it is. The film is at its most engaging when the three characters challenge one another with their theories and observations of psychoanalysis. You may not be able to keep up with it all - especially if you're not familiar with the practice of psychology - but it does make for a compelling viewing experience in that regard."A Dangerous Method" is David Cronenberg's most transgressive movie yet - after the increasingly mainstream crime-thrillers "A History of Violence" (2005) and "Eastern Promises" (2007), both of which starred Viggo Mortensen. It's a movie about ideas, extremely subtle and restrained, yet deliberate. It is yet another solid entry in David Cronenberg's auteur style.7/10

thesunsmellstooloud This review is pretty hard to write, because there is so much in this film that I enjoyed, and so much that I nearly cringed at. Cronenberg has been a master of taking complex psychological themes and giving them terrifying conclusions, while making powerful statements on modern society. And he has set the bar very high. The marriage of the director and a film on the origins of psychoanalysis could've been a match made in Heaven, but the film tries to deal with too much, without focussing on one single storyline, and not being able to do justice to any one of them.The film starts off with Sabina Spielrein and Carl Jung's first conversations while she was suffering from hysteria, and their relationship develops into a sexual one. While Carl Jung helps her develop her career in psychology, he finds fulfilment in her company. This storyline starts with much potential, but meanders to a halt. The most enjoyable parts of the film were obviously the interactions between Jung and Freud. Michael Fassbender's performance was genuine and passionate. And what can I say about Viggo Mortensen - it felt as if Sigmund Freud himself had time travelled to act in this film. This film captures beautifully how these two men feel an emotional affinity to each other, but have different ideas about psychoanalysis, which makes them constantly size each other up, consequently creating a rift between them. I felt that they deserved more screen time together and their interactions should have occupied the foreground.The Jung-Spielrein storyline suffers from Jung mostly feeling guilty about cheating on his wife, and scenes with his wife in them seem quite unnecessary. I like Keira Knightley in a lot of her films, but she was miscast in this one. Her performance was shockingly bad and restricted me from getting immersed in the film and the characters. Instead, I was fully aware of watching someone act, and act badly. Vincent Cassel as Otto Gross makes a big impact in a small role. He has some controversial views on sexuality and eventually plays the serpent to Jung's Adam. While this film could've been a roller coaster ride of emotional, professional, sexual and psychological conflicts, it stays snuggled comfortably in between.

Photoscots1 . As I sup my final can of the amber nectar I am better able to consider the positives and negatives of this movie by an old favourite Kronenberg. The first half hour was tortuous with Knightley's over the top acting, jutting out her chin and going on about how she enjoyed being sexually abused by her father. Then came the justification of casual sex by the Dr Gross character at which point Jung, played by Fassbender, becomes convinced that he should follow his instincts and have kinky sex with Knightley.What we see then is the relationship between Jung and Freud played by Mortensen, really badly in my opinion. Too many gruff hmmmms for my liking. I thought his portrayal of Freud was badly clichéd.The film is shot well enough but has a distinctly digital look about it, something I'll never get used to. The set design is clinical but not offensive.The film reminds me of what a female film critic said years ago about Cubrick's Eyes Wide Shut. She said that EWS was just a dirty old man's fantasy. Well, now that Cubrick has gone to the great studio in the sky I think Kronenberg is taking over the mantle of dirty old man because all his films from Crash onwards have just been full of pervy nonsense. Crash was at least a good movie to watch.No this offering from old Krony just lumbers on and while it's nowhere near as bad as Cosmopolis, I'm beginning to think that the sun is setting on the old guy. I had just watched The Fly the day before and I'm left scratching my head and thinking how it has come to this.I know that creatives don't want to stand still, they want to move on and grow creatively, but at the same time, it needs to be understood by said creatives that they are there to create entertaining material and by checking the box office receipts for this very average flick, it would appear most agree with me, this movie ain't very creative.I think another problem is that old Krony is working with the same people all the time. Same actors, same DP, same musicican. That's why his movies are jaded. How can you grow creatively when you standardize the creative process? No what this is, is a case of money for old rope!