A biographical drama movie about Dr. Carl Jung, founder of analytical psychology, Professor Sigmund Freud, founder of psychoanalysis, and Sabina Spielrein, a patient of Jung and eventually one of the first female psychoanalysts. It starts when Spielrein arrives to the become of Jung's patients and follows their lives from thereon out.Like a good biographical dram should, this movie taught me quite a lot about the subject matter. Naturally, as a movie under two hours, it takes certain liberties with the source material, but the essentials are still there and they're there to spark your interest. I've gone to Wikipedia after many of these movies to learn more. Likewise in this case. For example, I was quite aware who Freud and Jung were and I was familiar with the gist of their theories and studies. I was even aware that Jung was considered to be something of a successor to Freud's work. But I had never quite realized that they had been peers in the same field living at the same time. Jung is younger, certainly, but they had frequent correspondence and regarded each other as equals. Or at least very close to equals. I also had never realized that Freud's Jewish origins painted his discipline in a certain light in those early days of the 20th century.Though, to be fair, the movie has some flaws. The acting is for the most part great. Viggo Mortensen as Sigmund Freud is especially inspired casting and his tired musings are some of the best content the film has to offer. Keira Knightley as Sabina Spielrein is the one that's going to divide opinions. Her later scenes are for the most part fine, but some of her early scenes, when she's still suffering from severe hysteria, are almost laughably over the top. She juts her jaw out like a cavewoman, speaks with odd pauses and behaves quite like the stereotypical cartoon mental patient. It's of course possible that the real Spielrein had such symptoms, but I doubt it.The movie also suffers from the bane of biographical movies, which is to say that the story doesn't have enough cohesion. The initial setup in certainly interesting, as are the characters, but the film falters towards the end because there's really no great place to stop. There are still things in the future worth mentioning, but the overall themes and ideas have already been exhausted, yet the characters continue to live their lives. Like real people do. Very few biographical movies can escape this trap, and I don't blame this movie for being unable to do so, but it's still something of a problem.Still, definitely a film worth watching for the fans of the genre.

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.

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.

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!