What does this movie show us? Thats the question here we are to ask ourselves.In my opinion we see here two mentally unstable psychoanalysts. Which seems to be a contradiction. But as mentioned in the movie "how can we be a good Doctor without being a bit ill". Which seems absolute right. Though the work of Sigmund Freud is the utmost interesting the way he behaves in this movie he gets blocked in his work because of his inflexibility in his thinking. He seems not insane enough to go on with his work.In the beginning it's certain that Sabina has gone mad. Though the first surprise is directly why she had gone mad. Until i all becomes clear it seems like she had been sexually abused by her father and that that caused a trauma. Though a second later the whole story makes a u- turn. Not a trauma was caused but a longing to pleasure an addiction to the abuse.Then she seems to get better and the Doctor and her get closer as friends. Then when a patient makes the Doctor change his mind and Sabina and him get really close, first there seems nothing wrong. Until you can see that longing for pleasure has turned to him.She wasn't cured yet(what seemed the case) she just found another person that could satisfy her needs. Then when she gets more stable she seems finally possible of living a normal live but the relationship has still left a scar on her further live. He on the other hand seems to get worse with every decision he makes and becomes Les stable though he gets more focused on his work and Les influenced by others.

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!

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.

Well,what can you expect when even the title is provocative and populist's. For a movie that reflects a critically important period in the science history, it could've offered way closer and more systematic look at the freiudism or at least at its certain aspects. You don't have to be a genius to suppose this mass-oriented picture would most possibly evolve around sex and never show a viewer other sides of Freud's innovative work. But who knew it would end up being about aping Keira Knightley and soapy relationships. The narrow way of analyzing Jung and Freud's polemic is another disappointment. I usually enjoy Cronenberg's works,but imo he's chosen the wrong issue this time. If you dare to visualize such complicated substance(and adopt it for a wide audience), you do it carefully and respectfully, instead of converting it into a medium-quality drama.