Freud's Last Session

The film is about a meeting between Sigmund Freud and CS Lewis. They meet to discuss the existence of God. Rather outdated topic in this technologically developed 21st century. Both Freud and Lewis have opposite views about the topic. In order to prove their view, they are discussing their close relationships to get a perspective. Freud's last session should be a stage play or it should stay in the literature. So the question is which literature should cross and move to theatre or screen? FLS mostly happening in a house. The director could not do anything to elevate the literature while transforming it to a script. When we read a fictional novel, we all make an image in our mind. The film adaptation shouldn't be the same as our mental image. If it is then we can easily conclude the director or the script writer is not imaginative enough. The problem with FLS is nobody can work with this subject and elevate it into another level. It's dull. I hate Anthony Hopkins as an actor. I know he is a respected actor and two times academy award winner. His performance in silence of the lambs as Hannibal Lecture was out of this world. But when I closely watch Sigmund freud in FLS, I also see a bit of Hannibal Lecture. His dialogue delivery and physical nuances are same. I don't know if this is only my imagination or not. My rating: 3.5/10.

I enjoyed this historical fiction about Lewis and Freud. In reality, they never met. Great historical fiction movie about an Atheist that is considered the father of psychology and a former Atheist Lewis. I like that at the end Lewis overcame his trauma unlike his polar opposite Freud that seem to repress everything while thinking Lewis was the one repressing. Fascinated about the controversy of Freud ever since I read about him for higher education going back to school by age 24 I took general psychology and later on, something told me my very first Lewis book and I read it. And always been a fan ever since.

If they are going to the trouble of making a movie with this subject and this quality of cast - it deserves a solid conclusion! Christianity, as with all other religions, is myth and nonsense. Freud may not be the ideal defender of atheism, but if this is imaginary - take it all the way! Punch holes all the way through the magical thinking called faith. That thinking is for children - to build a strong and creative imagination. It was never intended for adults to hang on to ignorance and remain child like into adult hood. CS Lewis had a brilliant mind and terrific imagination. But it doesn't mean he was right! Unfortunately, his intellect - as amazing as it was - was still informed by the ignorance of the time he lived in. Instead of putting it to use with critical thinking, he fell into the same comfortable trap that all religious followers do. Using his amazing abilities build magical thinking to support Christian nonsense instead of strengthening critical thought to support truth and tear religion down.

Sorry but what a snoozer that was. I love Freud, I love Anthony Hopkins, I love taking naps...but obviously not during a movie. One thing is slow paced, and I was expecting it since it is supposed to be a historical account of Freud's last session, it's in the title... right?. But, what I was not expecting was such lengthy dialogues about nothing relevant or engaging. Let's get in a positive note here, if you don't mind jumping from psychoanalysis into psychiatry, this movie would be the equivalent of Zolpidem aka Ambien. Take as directed, only when you are ready to go to bed. Now I can say that I slept with Anthony Hopkins.

This is not a story of Sigmund Freud and C. S. Lewis. It's a fictional narrative of an American's (presumably agnostic) imaginary conversation between his fictional idea of Freud and Lewis. The author obvious knew very little about either Lewis or Freud, and promoted several unfounded myths about each, as fact. While Matthew Goode is a fine actor, he played the role in a very un-British way (I'm assuming this is because both the writer and director are both American, and Goode was limited by this) and lacked the British, specifically oxbridge, calm dignity. Hopkins, as well, seemed to lack the more harsh Austrian personality that would have made the dialogue much more believable. In the end it's not a study of Freud or Lewis, but of the imagination of the author, which I found seriously lacking.