Comments (52)Add a Comment
This movie was ok. My favourite scene in this movie was Scene 8. This movie was based on a true story which I actually like about movies like this. This movie was also an Indie type movie. I'm surprised Keira did a Russian character for a moment there I thought at a couple of points she had an Irish accent. Sarah Gadon was also in this movie playing Michael Fassbender's wife. Keira's goal in this movie was to become a psychiatrist however it was to become a child's psychiatrist instead of the kind Fassbender's character was in this movie though. I saw behind the scenes that the person who directed this movie said none of the actors weren't American in this movie they were all from other countries which is a good thing to see these actors from other countries come together.
2.5 on my scale is average. It did not leave a lasting impression but I enjoyed it well enough. I was certainly sucked in by the cast. Knightley, Mortensen, Fassbender as well as Vincent Cassel.
Not a very good movie considering the interesting subjects ( Freud & Jung ).
Historically suspect and with a melodramatic sheen not quite shaken off by its star cast and painstaking attention to period detail, Cronenberg’s film—based on a novel and subsequent play—is still a literate and engrossing work especially when it reverts to its stage roots and treats us to a meeting of minds as Jung and Freud belt out ideas and argue the finer points of what makes men tick. As the film’s weakest link Knightley’s frenzied faces and shifting accent become distracting especially since her character appears to be little more than a personification of Jung’s own troubled libido—Sarah Gadon is far more convincing as the prim and demure Frau Jung who quietly overlooks her husband’s indiscretions while still holding on to him with a lacy fist. And veteran actor Vincent Cassel brings an earthy contrast to the role of Otto Gross, a disgraced therapist whose libertine philosophy of free will and unbridled pleasure may just be the only honest voice around.
David Cronenberg, often the director of strange films, directs this rather straight-forward story of the birth of psychoanalysis via Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung. What we see is a story of the theories of sexual repression, its relationship to insanity, sexual freedom, and marital infidelity. Previously there was an older American film on the life of Freud, but that film could not even come close to reality because of censorship. Well, in this much newer film there is just enough censorship to avoid an NC-17 rating.
the greatest minds; still subjects of base emotions. < that's what I liked about the interplay between the characters. It did lead me to read a 1/2 dozen Articles. I'm wondering why Adler would have been neglected from the historical context.
Provocative look at Jung and the relationship between Jung & Freud.
Not what I expected from David Cronenberg on the birth of psycho-therapy, especially in regard to human sexuality, by Freud & Jung. A little bit light in the story telling and the attempts by Knightly to make up for it were not entertaining.
Really disappointed in this movie. Keira Knightley is beyond annoying in this movie for me, her Russian accent is awful. Speaking of accents, why didn't Mortensen and Fassbender try a German accent instead of a British? They are supposed to be actors aren't they? Also the subject matter was fine but a little to in-depth for someone without a psychology degree.
A delight both in the terms of acting and in story. This is a terrific, well done and meaning film. I liked Viggo Mortensen as the famed psychologist Sigmund Freud, and also Keira Knightley as the patient in his care. Michael Fessbender steals the show as the young doctor who is assigned to treat Knightley.
I am Michael Fassbender's fan. He is the only reason I watched this film. He did a good job in the movie, so are other actors except Keira Knightly. She ruined the movie. She can be good, but this is a wrong part for her. She tried too hard and her acting is way too over the top, not believable. The script is also weak. I won't recommend this movie.
This is a very revolutionary film about mental illness, relationship and female power arising ... I doubt general public would receive it well as shown in the box office revenue. Only those who live and talk with an open mind will be able to watch this film in appreciation.
The rest of the general public who find this story awkward is just that - general public.
An elegant, detailed, and restrained film, but I was expecting a bit more from David Cronenberg with regard to the story. The actors did a good enough job with what they were given.
I apologize to Keira Knightley fans: she can act real well, at least in this movie. It also reminds us how much mental health problems stem from sexual health issues.
This film focuses on one of the key relationships that went to establish the cultural foundation of the "modern" world: the true study, and objectification, of the mind -- by three people directly caught up personally in the very powerful forces they were attempting to understand (for the first time in history). The film, despite its necessary slow pace, and despite its inability to do more than scratch the surfaces of the depths of its basic situation, is fascinating and remarkably successful. What these people did and thought and felt contributed significantly to who we are and how we live in the worlds of our culture.
Still more proof -- as if any were needed -- that Cronenberg can't direct. And furthermore, he never could. It was the actors, and the actors alone, who redeemed The Dead Zone, the director's one halfway-watchable movie. In this awful bomb, even deprived of his trademark, over-the-top violence, DC still manages to revel in the ugliest worldview possible. Also, Keira Knightley is a horrible actress!!! Possibly worse than Natalie Portman, tho' perhaps not nearly as self-aggrandizing.
Highly disappointing for me. I was quite excited and expected a lot from Cronenberg, but this film didn't show his potential very well. Personally, I liked Keira's performance, but a lot of people didn't, so that's one deterrent for most audiences. Mortensen played his role (or rather downplayed it) with such immense subtlety that I couldn't appreciate it. It just was all hype and no substance, I found. I don't know the actual story, so perhaps it was trying to stick to the source material, but regardless, it was incredibly dull and didn't redeem itself, not even at the end. I wouldn't recommend it.
This is a drama about a complex relationship between a physician and his patient, and a husband and his mistress. The film is very talky, and heavy on philosophy and mental conditions. So the dialogues may not be interesting to most audience. For this reason this is not a great film. Fortunately, the shortcoming is partially offset by the beautiful setting in Europe and a cast of good actors, making it watchable.
Unwatchable, largely because of very bad performance by Keira Knightley.
An unbelievable performance from Kierra. I was super shocked how in character she was for this entire role. Both Fassbender as well as Mortensen were pretty fantastic as well. The slower scenes with powerful dialogue really captured me, much like a Tarrintino film. I suggest it if your at all curious about these 3 actors abilities, psychology, sex, or human purpose.