A Dangerous Method (Cronenberg)

[Morris Schæffer]

http://adangerousmethod-themovie.com/

Trailer

Mortensen, Fassbender, Knightley, Cassel

[Irish]

Hollllllllllllllly shit.

I usually find Cronenberg to be really hit or miss, but that looks f'n fantastic.

[number8]

Well, this just shot to the top of my most anticipated.

[[ETM]]

Uh... wow.

[B-side]

Very cool.

[Raiders]

Neat. For some reason, I had thought this film was delayed until after Cosmopolis. Glad to see that's not the case as it is the one I am far more interested in.

[[ETM]]

I was wondering where Knightley was, she almost went AWOL there for a year or two.

[number8]

;354653']I was wondering where Knightley was, she almost went AWOL there for a year or two.

Nah, Never Let Me Go was only last year.

[[ETM]]

I know it was, but she went from headlining films to smaller roles, voice acting and shorts for a while there... also, stuff like "Last Night" and "London Boulevard".

[DavidSeven]

Looks pretty damn good.

[Watashi]

The dialogue in that trailer seems kinda iffy, but it's Cronenberg and Fassbender.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Keira Knightley as a deranged Eastern european demon woman (think Adjani in Possession) who gets off to being hit is what I want more of, but I still don't fully trust non-body horror Cronenberg. The scenery looks beautiful, but I hope this isn't another HoV or Eastern Promises (ie: an unexceptional genre pic/straight drama)

Also, this trailer is pretty old. I definitely saw it 2 weeks ago (at least) before Certified Copy. Is this really the first time everyone's seeing it?

[Ezee E]

Some people were afraid of this premise, but I knew Cronenberg would put in his mark, and this trailer is no surprise. Looks good.

[Irish]

I hope this isn't another HoV or Eastern Promises (ie: an unexceptional genre pic/straight drama)

History of Violence would have been one of the best movies of the decade if the source material had been stronger (honestly, the comic is just bad).

I'm not sure I've seen Eastern Promises. Is that the one with the Russians or Ukrainians or whatever and the prison tattoos that tell a story? If so, it's another highly polished turd. Good structure, nice photography, weak characters and a weaker story. Still, I'd take it over most of the slush that's peddled around these days.

I kinda got a bit of Dead Ringers vibe from the trailer (or, at least that's me hoping this movie operates on that level of quality): Cronenberg combining high brow considerations (Freud/Jung/the birth of psychoanalysis) while titillating the audience with a promise of Keira Knightly BDSM.

[dmk]

The trailer should have said 'From the Director of Crash', because more confused philistines will go see it.

[MadMan]

Certainly the psychological elements from Cronenberg's earlier works appear to be at play here. A History of Violence was great because Cronenberg worked in the whole "Body Horror" theme as being in the mind, and not really being shown on screen. The cast for this one is excellent, and I would love to see one of his movies on the big screen.

[transmogrifier]

Looks boring.

[number8]

History of Violence would have been one of the best movies of the decade if the source material had been stronger (honestly, the comic is just bad).

Huh? What does it matter, when they're so, so different?

[Boner M]

Looks boring.
Trailer troller.

[Sven]

Looks boring.

.

[Dukefrukem]

I'm in.

Youtube trailer for those that can't access the above link like me

uZ7JKmcLTsI

[transmogrifier]

Let me rephrase: nothing in that trailer suggests that I will get much enjoyment from this movie. Doesn't look like my kind of thing. Sorry to offend everyone's sense of trailer etiquette.

Of course, the actual movie might turn out to be fine, but the evidence at the moment is not encouraging. And isn't that what we are doing, making guesses based on the trailer? Not sure why "Uh...wow" is acceptable but "Looks boring" isn't. Both are valid responses.

[Sven]

Yeah, looks dull, and all the swelling music did it no favors. Surprised people are so impressed, actually.

[Dukefrukem]

Yeah, looks dull, and all the swelling music did it no favors. Surprised people are so impressed, actually.

Sex scenes not enough for ya?

[Raiders]

"Dull" and "boring" cannot be refuted, so I'll simply say it looks very not dull and very not boring.

[[ETM]]

the swelling music did it no favors.

I thought so too, but then again - this is a trailer. It's supposed to sell it to average moviegoers. I didn't even have to see it.

[DavidSeven]

I didn't even like A History of Violence, but I can appreciate good trailer-making when I see it. The glimpses of Fassbender and Knightley's performances (particularly Knightely's), a uniquely cut intro, and some provocative teases sprinkled throughout. Definitely promising all-in-all.

[transmogrifier]

"Dull" and "boring" cannot be refuted, so I'll simply say it looks very not dull and very not boring.

In much the same way "good" and "bad" can't be refuted, I guess.

[Pop Trash]

Cronenberg is one of the most consistently good directors around. Almost all of his films are 8/10 or higher for me.

[Irish]

Looks boring.

First time I read this I thought you were joking.


Huh? What does it matter, when they're so, so different?

Whaaaa? They're not that different, dude.

[Mal]

It's not boring... it's too short to be boring. But it is dull and there is nothing new here on the Jung/Freud front that an Intro-to-Psychology course in a community college couldn't get across in two weeks of classes. On the psycho-sexual front... that's where this is boring. We get some spanking, some nipples, and thats about it. The real heart of the story has this whole obsessive back-and-forth relationship between Knightley's Sabina and Fassy's Jung, but it never comes into fruition beyond the costuming and paper (literally). I have no doubt that stating this movie is half-assed will get some doubters claiming I'm probably not articulating well because they expect more from the parties involved --- but it is. It is half-assed and it looks nice. Disappointing.

[transmogrifier]

Yeah, most of reviews out of TIFF make it sound exactly like it looks through the trailer - dull and boring.

I mean, you start with a script by Christopher Hampton, you get what you deserve, I guess.

[Raiders]

I mean, you start with a script by Christopher Hampton, you get what you deserve, I guess.

Dangerous Liaisons is anything but dull and boring.

Sad to hear the mixed buzz on this one. I'll still see it of course.

[MadMan]

I find it hard to believe than any Cronenberg movie could be boring.

[Grouchy]

I find it hard to believe than any Cronenberg movie could be boring.
I know I'm in the minority, but I think A History of Violence is boring even though it has a fantastic premise - and title.

Eastern Promises fixes that and then some, though.

[ledfloyd]

kind of floored by this. and i wasn't expecting to be at all. i want to watch it again as soon as possible.

[Bosco B Thug]

Yeah, liked this a bunch as well. A film about flailing intellectuals and their circuitous intellectual talk, and aware of their desire to change the world and the ironies of their alternating successes and failures to do so. The ending is quaintly sentimental, but it's a wonderful way to end the film after all the properness and historical perspective (not that it forgoes those things in the end, it just melds them, which is why I think it's a wonderful ending).

I thought Knightley served herself well in this film, although I'll admit to being more impressed with her early all-out imbalanced state than when trying to watch her moderate it through the rest of the film. She's good, though.

[Adam]

Odd movie. Not Cronenberg odd, but more like what the fuck is the point of this odd. Could've watched three hours of Mortensen and Fassbender trading psycho-brickbat and chomping on cigars and grumbling and stiffly licking off milk mustaches. But yeah, everything else, from Knightley to Otto Gross to Jung's wife, sinks it for me. Agree with Zac Efron that it all just seems strangely half-assed and uninteresting. And I guess it's admirable that she went for it and all, and I'm by no means a Knightley hater, but her histrionics and monkey faces did not work

[ledfloyd]

but knightley's character is more or less the point of the film. the introduction of female sexuality into intellectual discourse and the sea change that represented.

[Adam]

Yeah but actually having to witness everything to do with her was superfluous and dry and boring. I'm saying I would've been content to just watch Mortensen and Fassbender talk about it

[KK2.0]

Odd movie. Not Cronenberg odd, but more like what the fuck is the point of this odd. Could've watched three hours of Mortensen and Fassbender trading psycho-brickbat and chomping on cigars and grumbling and stiffly licking off milk mustaches. But yeah, everything else, from Knightley to Otto Gross to Jung's wife, sinks it for me. Agree with Zac Efron that it all just seems strangely half-assed and uninteresting. And I guess it's admirable that she went for it and all, and I'm by no means a Knightley hater, but her histrionics and monkey faces did not work

the words 'Cronenberg' and 'odd' together mean film of the year to me. ^^

why do you think it isn't 'Cronenberg odd'? This film looks like it's in the same line of Spider to me.

[lovejuice]

The film is way too short. Like a 100-minute trailer taken out of 5-hour miniseries. It's made worse by being strangely -- I'll say, poorly -- edited. The characters gaze at the coast of America; Jung calls the place "the future"; and in the next scene, everyone is back in Europe. So what the hell happened in the land of future!

(Historically speaking, I believe, on their trip to the new world was where Freud outright denied to told Jung his dream. Cronenberg might decide to stage the whole sequence for the sake of historical correctness. Poor choice. It makes the already sparing movie even more disjointed.)

Cronenberg wants to tell the rival story between the two intellectual giants of psychoanalysis, but somehow he thinks it's a good idea to look at the conflict though the intrigue between Jung and Spielrein. Unfortunately neither of the three characters nor their relationships come out fully realized. He'd better stuck Freud into the background and concentrated more on the lovers.

[Boner M]

Dunno why this (http://joemande.com/post/21280084047/here-ive-curated-a-timely-and-important) didn't happen sooner.

http://www.images.joemande.com/ub8b.gif

[Derek]

Dunno why this (http://joemande.com/post/21280084047/here-ive-curated-a-timely-and-important) didn't happen sooner.

http://www.images.joemande.com/ub8b.gif

:lol:

Reminds me of my why Taubin compared Knightley's chin in this to Fassbender's cock in Shame.