Toronto

I think Cronenberg missed the mark on this one. I felt as though I missing out on a hugh amount of detail - it was like the Coles Notes version of what could have been a very interesting biography of Freud/Jung. Keira Knightley was the only who actually did any effective acting (I don't usually like her in anything) The two lead males were so dull it was painful. Compared to Cronenberg's other films - there's nothing here to engage the audience - nor sink your teeth into.

Freud and Jung are so much more interesting than this film allows. Of course, it's only ONE point of view of what matters in their huge contribution to our culture - books, film, music, law etc. would not be the same without the influence of advances in psychoanalysis. The discovery of Sabina Spielrein and her breakthroughs into the effects of violence against women on psychology was very interesting but only touched upon superficially. Overall, the film is very superficial. As another reviewer said, this film is not for everyone. Spielrein's "experiments" into the psycho-sexual could be very disturbing to some, even though you know it's only acting on the screen.

Cronenberg manages to take two of the most radical thinkers of all time, the most controversial and experimental- and turn them into robots. BORING robots. Someone here wrote that if Keira Knightley overacted just a little bit more she could have swallowed her own face. True.

Keira Knightly is so bad, it's unbelievable. I do not know how the director spent so much of his life making this movie - why? What is it supposed to be about? Jung and Freud do not even have one interesting discussion about their theories, and the sex isn't even interesting. One of the worst movies ever.

Brief window into birth of psychoanalysis dramatizing the diverging theories and practices of Jung and Freud. Feels a bit too brief. Still, a nice morsel of film. Well crafted. Would have liked a bit more flesh on the bone. Vincent Cassel pretty much steals the show from under the tightly wound leads.

To be honest if I wasn't such a big Mortensen/Cronenberg fan I'm not sure I would have liked this movie at all. I found Mortenson to be more of a supporting character in this film. Fassbender delivers a great performance but this was not Keira Knightly's best work and I feel she pulled down this movie.

Great movie with great actors and the fact that is based on a true story, you have to see it... very interesting. !

Totally absorbing - Fassbender and Knightly were excellent.

Enjoyable, and interesting, but likely not everyone's cup of tea. This is a cerebral film. Yes, there are several erotic scenes, but this is mostly a dialogue-driven movie: even the sex is intellectualized. This is, after all, a movie about pyschoanalysis, and sex is, in this model, a pathway to the unconscious. I longed for something more: this movie was arousal without climax. We get some Jung vs. Freud material, some relationship tensions, some insight into the awakening field of psychology, but... none of these lines ever comes into full flower. Instead we get a lot of Jung, as he angsts about infidelity and grows upset with Freud. Worth seeing? I think so, but only if you're interested in intellectual history, psychology, and the historical figures in the movie. I'd guess that non-intellectual movie-goers would find this film uninteresting. We creatures of theory and non-fiction get something out of it, but ultimately find ourselves wishing for more.

This movie was compelling and thought-provoking. Keira Knightley was completely convincing as a woman conflicted with mental illness. She was so good in the role that it was difficult to watch her at times. Michael Fassbender and Viggo Mortenson did an excellent job at demonstrating the complexities of the relationship between Freud and Jung. The movie was so good, a definite must see!

Seems like a movie you should read the reviews before you go... some people seem to find it slow, some find it strange and some didn't like Keira Knightley in it. Can't say I had any of those problems with it. Go knowing it's a Cronenberg movie about Jung and Freud, insanity and sex and you get what you would expect... interesting story, characters and film making.

A good story and great mind games between the good actors...

To truly appreciate this movie, one must be familiar with psychoanalysis and the conflict between Freud and Jung. It was an accurate representation of those years. Jung was a brilliant man and one only needs to read his books to see the depth of his knowledge. Keira Knightly did a good job acting like a woman suffering from hysteria, a very common diagnosis during that era of sexual repression; she did not overact; people with mental illnesses can behave like that. As for the comment of one viewer who thought things were too clean, that cleanliness was and is typical of countries like Austria and Switzerland.

I really enjoyed this movie, I'm surprised by its other lower ratings. The acting was superb, Keira Knightly was disturbingly brilliant in her role as Sabina.

I must admit that this film intrigued me from the moment I saw the trailer. I was anticipating its release after I failed to see it during TIFF. I had high expectations given the talented cast and interesting subject matter, but left the theatre disappointed. The performances by Fassbender and Mortensen were great, as expected, but Knightley was way too showy and over-the-top. I wanted to love this film but it was weighted down with heavy dialogue and a slow-moving plot. The story was lacking and I left unsure of what it was trying to accomplish. The relationship and conflict between Freud and Jung could have been explored in greater depth. Ultimately the film was lacking any dramatic momentum and therefore fell a bit flat.

Although I have no problem with watching and enjoying many of the 'thinking persons movies' - I found myself falling asleep a few times here - iterally dozing off in the theatre. The pace was a little too slow, the script could have been better - the story far more developed - and heaven's - Keira Knightly? I usually like her and think she is a decent actress for certain types of movies - but she was completely and totally miscast. She delivered a stilted and VERY over-acted performance - I did not find her believable in any sense of the word - especially the russian accent. I don't think she has the depth of character to play this role convincingly - it seemed as though she was - well - playacting... what can I say - rent it on video - it does not need the big screen. Interesting, but very mediocre. I was disappointed in this movie. Certainly - Keira Knightly did not have an Oscar winning performance in the least - despite what other people may think. There are far, far better actors out there who take roles like this far more seriously.

Keira Knightley delivered an Oscar-worthy perfomance, there is no doubt about it. However, the movie itself was a little too strange for me. Still, it's a so-so movie.

This film is seriously marred by Keira Knightley's dreadful acting. In contrast, Mortensen and Fassbender act well. The film is dull because it does not make us care about the differences of opinion between Freud and Jung, the central theme of the film. That is because their ideas are now obsolete and of little relevance to the modern treatment of mental ill health.

A lovely reconstruction of Europe at the beginning of the XXth century. The characters are beautiful also. Everything is so clean, it’s almost unreal. One could say too beautiful to be true. The impeccable cleanliness of the sets, the whitest teeth in the close ups are not the impressions I have of that era. The action is very theatrical with lots of stiff dialogue. Finally, there is little setting up for this story. In my opinion, those who aren’t very familiar with the history of psychoanalysis might have a difficult time following the story. I would wait for the video release.

This is a stunning movie with an Oscar-worthy performance by Keira Knightley and wonderfully understated acting by Michael Fassbender. Why this is not for anyone is because your average theater goer has no idea about Western culture, much less know who Jung was. Sure, they recognize Freud because of the sex references, but few know that Jung was the greater thinker and more interesting theorist. What is fascinating is how Cronenberg weaves in the inception of Jung's theories (the animus/anima, archetypes, the Shadow, etc.) This film demands a lot, but it is not just an intellectual history of psychoanalysis. It is also about the greater theme of our divided selves, our sexuality, taboos, and, above all PASSION. See it before it leaves the theaters because of its limited box office (read cash making potential) appeal!

It held my interest, but I felt listening to the dialogue which often was too complicated that it was very much like a play. Then I read the credits and found out it was a play. The costumes, the settings were very well done. Keira Knightley definitely did over act and it was at times distracting. The relationship between Freud and Jung could've been better developed. Not much about Freud here, this concentrates more on Jung and yet even after watching the movie, I felt there is so much more, that I need to understand to really understand him and his impact on psychoanalysis. It was slow, but I wasn't bored.

I don't get it why people didn't like this movie. It was well made and the acting was amazing, especially Keira Knightley. They say she is over the top, but let's be frank, she has to play someone who is extremely instable and I loved the way she did acted. Only her russian accent was a bit off... but her performance was one of the best I ever seen from her and it's quite courageous. I didn't feel that the paste was slow at all. I was so into the movie the whole time. It's such an intriguing subject. You have to see it.

A very compelling and beautiful film. A thought-provoking romance. Surprising romance by Cronenberg. Great performances. Great politics of class and religion that reminded me of White Ribbon and the time before the holocaust. Beautiful directing and strong writing.

Very disappointing, slow and boring, though the cinematography, historical settings and acting are of a quality. However, if you have some familiarity with Freud and Jung, let alone psychoanalysis, you will find the content annoyingly superficial, likely the main reason the film does not generate the anticipated drama.

I did not like this movie. I thought it was disturbing; I really don't want to see people's insane fetish's derived from an abusive childhood being played out on screen. Very slow moving and boring. Don't waste your time or money. Not a rental either.

Keira Knightley seemed to be overacting. I did not feel empathetic for her character when I should have had considering Spielrein's life story. Michael Fassbender was good, but overall wait for it to come out on DVD unless you are very very interested in psychoanalysis, in which case you won't really learn anything new.

A movie made about 100years later than the actual situation existed. No wonder that everything in this film seems a bit artificial or over-exaggerated. Surely enough it's not easy to play Sabina Spielrein's role. Basically the movie gave very little on insights in the actual situation between Freud and Jung.

Disappointed. My expectations were too high and were not met. Great cast and NOT for all to see.

The director Cronenberg challenges an intriguingly deep and risky conception artfully in the form of its inspiringly true time. Taking place in the early 1900's, A Dangerous Method was real and faithfully uniquely portrayed in its cinematically dramatic short period of film runtime. But the power through words and filmmaking originality brings a level of magnificence with acting, costume design, set decoration, art direction, music and most of all directing that lives and breathes a classy sensual taste of film. Although A Dangerous Method lacks a full package of entertainment from over-execution, the extreme depth in this film cannot be ignored, especially given the outstanding performances by Keira Knightely, Michael Fassbender, and Viggo Mortensen. Most certainly one of the most ferocious and enteragatingly fearless films of the year that is too hard to resist; an instant classic.

This movie is phenomenal. While I will agree with other reviewers regarding the (sometimes) slow pace of the film, it is very intriguing. I was gripped the whole time. Michael Fassbender does a wonderful job, but Keira Knightly is the real stand out here. Her work in this film is astounding.

I found the film to be dull and ultimately it bored me to tears. Wait for the video if you're a fan of psychology, otherwise pass altogether!

Although cerebral it was quite slow and failed to engage the viewer. The concept was promising and significant in the historical context of psychoanalysis but the writers fell short in delivering an entertaining and stimulating movie. Also, Keira Knightly's 'overacting' got a bit irritating. Wait for the video if you're a fan of psychology, otherwise pass altogether!

Unfortunately Keira Knightley was miscast. Similar to Drive, I wish the production opted for an unknown actress rather than a popular Hollywood pick. Odd to say about Cronenberg, but I expected a creepier, more uncomfortable experience. Perhaps it would've been better if it focused on the relationship between Jung and Freud.

I loved this movie, it pushed the boundaries and Keira Knightley did such a wonderful job with her character!

I loved seeing a movie portraying such historically significant people in the field of psychology. I have not read the book, therefore, cannot compare it but usually the books are always better. I loved the movie and thought the acting was wonderful. A must see!

Acting alone, both Michael Fassbender and Keira Knightley were terrific. First time where I didn't really care for Viggo performance as Freud, maybe it was the accent that wasn't believable. As for the story itself, kind of weak.