Sameer Callahan It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

Geraldine The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

Logan By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Scarlet The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

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

Star Master I like David Cronenberg, I really do, but something doesn't feel right about this effort. It felt chopped up, like the most interesting aspects of the film ended up on a floor somewhere.Jung and Freud are real-life fathers of modern day psychoanalysis whose works I have always remained interested in. Yet from what I know about their lives and their theories (especially Jung), there must have been some other script or movie that could have been written that would work a lot better than this one did.From the moment Keira Knightley came on the screen playing a mental patient my interest lessened. The more I saw her on screen in what felt like extreme overacting mode, I started thinking of other movies. The more and more her character showed up I began to wonder why they advertised this as a film about Freud and Jung, because in the end it wasn't.I couldn't get into this movie. I enjoyed the scenes between Jung and Freud and a lot of the psychoanalysis that went on in the film, but as I said before, there must have been some other way to make a movie about these two that was more . . . creative. Something that really went into the minds of these two characters. Something truly reflective of their work, because watching two psychologists sending letters back and forth wasn't really that enthralling, and watching Keira Knightley act strange and make funny faces was a huge turnoff.

SnoopyStyle It's 1904. Hysterical Sabina Spielrein (Keira Knightley) is sent to Dr. Carl Jung (Michael Fassbender) in Zurich for treatment. She has psychological sexual problems based on her violent father. He has a cold clinical relationship with his wife Emma (Sarah Gadon). The older Dr. Sigmund Freud (Viggo Mortensen) is the elder statesman to Jung but he's starting to chaff at the paternal relationship. Freud sends a new patient Otto Gross (Vincent Cassel) to Jung. Spielrein's treatment goes so well that she eventually becomes a psychiatrist herself. The close working relationship translates into a sexual relationship.This has great director David Cronenberg, great actors, and a fascinating history. The acting is top notch. Keira Knightley is going over the top. There are lots to like but I find this too lifeless. I may be bias against psychoanalysis and discussing about emotions rather than just feeling the emotions. It's not cinematic. But this is Carl Jung and Sigmund Freud afterall. I don't think there is anyway to make it any more exciting. The clinical world just makes the passions feel very clinical.

jacqueestorozynski I was disappointed in this film. I thought I would find out more about the relationship between Freud and Jung and the cause of their split. The parts were played very well by Fassbender and Mortenson but too much was glossed over. Instead we had Keira Knightley pulling faces and sticking her chin out in a way that made the scenes difficult to watch. Even when she was not being hysterical she was awkward and out of her depth. She spoilt the film. When on screen you were always aware she was acting. Some scenes seemed to be added for no particular reason ie why was the wife doing a question answer session with her husband whilst Keira played with a metal instrument? All the information I wanted to get from this film I will have to go and find out from other sources.