Freud's Last Session

Strictly evaluated as an opening-to-closing credits endeavor, Freud's Last Session isn't a terrific film (probably more like 6-stars). But director/writer Matt Brown's effort features enough interesting philosophical nuggets-bolstered by one terrific acting performance-to be enjoyable for those who may sit down to watch it.

For a very basic overview, Freud's Last Session imagines a fictional encounter-which may or may not have actually occurred-between the titular psychoanalyst (Anthony Hopkins) and Christian apologist C. S. Lewis (Matthew Goode). As the two trade philosophical worldviews in Freud's home, the doctor's daughter Anna (Liv Lisa Fries) struggles with her own relationship with her famous father alongside a closeted relationship with colleague Dorothy Burlingham (Jodi Balfour).

I'm not entirely sure if Freud's Last Session has ever been produced as a stage play, but if so that might actually be the better format for it. With the core of the film being an intellectual sparring match between two academics, it's a bit of an odd fit for a big-screen format or presentation. Brown tries to flesh things out with the Freud daughter plotline and various flashbacks, but those avenues feel a bit forced and ultimately serve to take the focus off the "main event".

Fortunately, the movie has two things squarely in its corner: First, the back-and-forth repartee truly does raise some food for thought (if treading somewhat familiar religion vs atheism ground). A few lines really stuck with me. Secondly, Hopkins continues to provide transformative performances. Fans of his won't regret the admission just based on his turn alone here.

Overall, I settled on 7/10 stars for Freud's Last Session. Technically it isn't even "that good" of a flick, but the Hopkins performance and general setup are enough that those even nominally interested in the premise can find enough to enjoy.

Anyone interested in the works of Freud and Lewis, or theology, philosophy, and psychoanalysis will likely find this interesting. Having no grounding in the work of one of both could be a barrier. Freud's health issues and the evil of war add a floor for the good vs. Bad, lovintheological arguments Echoing others, not a stellar script, but solid performances like Hopkins make it quite watchable. Anna's character's and the war's beginning add some plot points, but work fine as a ways to break up the dialogue and aid the flow. While I do not profess to be an intellectual, it's nerdy enough to be thought provoking, which may be it's best feature.

There is a recent outbreak of films made for people past puberty and this film is one of them. Serious issues are discussed. Thoughts are provoked. Both actors (and the actresses who get less flamboyant screen time) play intelligent philosophers grappling with something we all have to face - is there an eternity? Or oblivion? What prompts a genocide by humans to eliminate theirnown species? No flying cars or superheros, just intelligent adults grappling with serious questions.

Anthony Hopkins fills his unpleasant character with a minimum of scenery chewing, and Matthew Goode was a pleasant surprise, keeping his more quiet character in the mental battle. But the little known story of Anna Freud is tragic and brings real emotion to the story. A grown up film (sorry, Barbie).

I saw this movie this afternoon - Saturday afternoon - and there were only three people in the hall. I was not surprised.

Freud's Last Session is part of a cottage movie genre, almost always taken from a Broadway play, where two-man shows are relatively common. The author puts two historical figures together in a room and lets them debate various important issues for close to two hours. Nixon/Frost is the one I remember offhand, but there have been others as well. In the theater - a small theater - I can see this working well. I'm not sure how it works as a movie, or more to the point: for whom it works. Movies, even modest ones like this, cost a LOT more to produce than plays. Can something like this recoup the investment?

Yes, the two actors give very fine performances. People go to see Shakespeare plays not to see what will happen to Hamlet or Romeo and Juliet. They already know before they enter the theater. They go to see how the actors will deliver the lines.

But here, unlike in Shakespeare, the lines are not particularly striking. Hopkins in particular did a great job of creating the character Freud, but he didn't have Shakespeare's words - or even, say, those of the playwright who wrote The Lion in Winter - to work with.

So I'm left with my initial question: how many people are going to pay to see Hopkins and Goode deliver their uninspired lines? And will that make enough ticket sales to at least break even on this movie?

I enjoyed it, yes, but I found that it was too much of the same thing for too long, and would have been happier if it had been shorter.

The script is thought provoking as you follow a neurologist who discovered psychoanalysis conversing with a Christian author who wrote The Chronicles of Narnia. ALSO, the events take place on the day before WWII and both gentlemen are equally brilliant as they are stubborn, as seen with each of the many discussions-turned-arguments that take place. Transitions and flashbacks are heavily utilized to portray character depth, but whether it's a particular style of acting or the timing of each scene paired together, this format ultimately doesn't work. Anthony Hopkins and Matthew Goode showcase their individual acting talent with long monologues and fluctuating emotions, but in the pivotal moments of occupying a scene together, the chemistry never quite flourishes. However, director Matt Brown keeps the viewer engaged by allowing us to be an unbiased fly on the wall rather than purposely tilting the conversation in one direction. The story feels restrained, most likely due to the subject matter, but that won't affect the enjoyable experience that many will have.