A Dangerous Method

I would gladly play with Miss Spielrein and smoke a cigar with Freud, but I’d rather sit down by Lake Zurich than take a part in his long-winded dialogues with the malleable and indecisive Jung. Viggo Mortensen is great and the visual esthetics delicious, but there are no emotions. A film where mainstream stars recite phrases only a few viewers will understand. Compared to this, Polanski’s Bitter Moon was far more poetic and passionate in its testimony about the dark corners of human sexuality. (02/26/2012)

So, let’s sum it up. What we have here is a movie where the main parts are Carl Jung and Sigmund Freud. And on top of that we have this crazy girl, who had won a windfall in her life and is now making up for it with sexual deviation. The setting – both Zurich and Vienna – is more than nice. And last but not least, there is a cast of actors in which one is better than the other. Judge for yourselves: Viggo Mortensen, Michael Fassbender, Keira Knightley or Vincent Cassel. That’s quite a cast of actors, isn’t it? But David Cronenberg lays it on you in the first minute that you immediately have to stop and think about whether Keira is serious about acting or whether she should maybe call it quits after this film and disappear into another area of art. And then you also realize that even though Jung and Freud are quite interesting characters from history, you will be so bored with them that even your ninety-year-old grandma whose only hobby is to feed her chickens twice a day could not be more dull. I’d been looking forward to an interesting premise and what I got was utter disappointment in all respects. At first sight, it’s such an interesting movie, but at second sight you won’t believe it a corner of the street in Vienna, let alone Zurich. (01/30/2017)

Sinfully unexciting. Formally, A Dangerous Method is a film with very little to reproach, and it will probably delight film theorists, but I’d be lying to myself if I gave it a higher rating. I just didn’t like it, I didn’t find it interesting in the least and the idea of having to watch it again is pretty terrifying. Cronenberg’s old perversion and subversiveness have disappeared under a ton of academically precise make-up, and now just bubble peacefully deep beneath the surface. And looking for it is not fun. (01/29/2012)

That Cronenberg is in there. It lies concealed in Keira Knightley's nipple crawling out of her corset, Vincet Cassel's face, the subversive dialogue, and especially the character of Jung (who has a lot of points of contact with James Woods' character from Videodrome), but it's littered with tons of costumes and understated studio work, and somehow lacks a significant personal investment. Otherwise, Viggo Mortensen is incredible! PS: Keira Knightley is cast brilliantly and Cronenberg takes advantage of all her physical imperfections (breasts, British-sharp physiognomy, arched forehead, prominent chin, a figure that generally begs for professional help) and makes the actress accentuate them (01/30/2012)

I would expect some wild in the form of decapitated heads or at least explicit sexual creations from David Cronenberg, but there is nothing like that in this film. Well, there is a certain effort towards the latter, but it's more of an artistic walk around it rather than something happening. So, as viewers, we're left with nothing else but to rely on the superb performances, the sensitive film aesthetics, the excellent period setting, and exceptionally well-handled psychology, skillfully transferred onto the big screen. When philosophical debates don't come across as boring or complicated, but quite the opposite, and they even have some pretty excellent points. It's just that the whole thing feels a bit cold and too overly contrived. (12/15/2013)