There are some historical figures that are brought to the screen in a way that feels definitive of their legacy, whereas there are others that have yet to be the subject of a film that perfectly represents their place in the global culture. Sigmund Freud occupies the latter category, and while there have been a number of attempts to explore his life and work, whether looking at it over a number of years or just focusing on a specific element of his illustrious career, none of them feel like they have captured the esteemed psychoanalyst who essentially pioneered modern therapy as a whole. The most recent effort to bring him to the screen comes in the form of Freud’s Last Session, in which novice Matthew Brown (who had previously made the solid The Man Who Knew Infinity, a decent but otherwise unmemorable film) works with screenwriter Mark St. Germain, the writer of the original play on which this film is based, in concocting a fictional meeting between Freud and C.S. Lewis, who many of us know as an author but who is here portrayed as a Christian apologist, an aspect of his academic career that is sometimes forgotten. Over the course of a single day, the two men engage in a lengthy discussion, which may initially be ignited by their very different views on the existence of God, but eventually transforms into a sprawling conversation on their careers, personal philosophies and perceptions of reality, which allows these two very different men to find common ground between them. The concept of a film that sees two diametrically opposed individuals coming together and establishing an unexpected connection is a tale as old as time, and it would be foolish to even consider stating that what Freud’s Last Session is doing is in any way unique or entirely effective, or anything other than an overlong misfire that spends far too much time on the details and not nearly enough of it establishing anything vaguely interesting, and instead spends every moment trying to convince us to find merit in a story that never had any, and struggles to find its voice despite many of its ideas being directly handed to it from the start.

There are many flaws embedded deep within Freud’s Last Session, but perhaps the most heinous of them all is the very conception of the story. The idea of taking two prominent historical figures and writing a piece in which they not only meet, but spend an entire day engaged in a lengthy conversation about every philosophical issue swirling in their minds, may seem interesting in theory, but it is dreadfully amateur, and considering how history is filled to the brim with genuinely interesting stories about real encounters, to create one seems like nothing more than fan fiction designed to be a vessel for the writer to explore his own existential quandaries by placing them in the mouths of two prominent individuals who I am not entirely sure would feel particularly enthralled to be the subject of such a didactic, commonplace account of the oscillation between faith and science. The film is based on a play, so that is where we have to draw our attention (and that itself is based on a non-fiction book in which the two men’s theories are explored, sometimes alongside one another), but the relation to fact is only marginal, and using two recognizable figures as the mouthpiece for a simplistic and often quite unconvincing story of faith seems inappropriate, and diminishes both men’s exceptional contributions to their fields of expertise. St German may feel passionate about the material, but his writing is not up to scratch, and it comes across as heavy-handed in a way that is almost contradictory to the brutal intellectualism of Freud, or the ethereal whimsy of Lewis – neither of the two subjects are treated as anything more than mascots for the two sides of the debate between religion and atheism, and its difficult to view the part they play in Freud’s Last Session as anything more than an overly simplified example of opportunistic storytelling that thinks writing a story about two well-known intellectuals is enough to cover up its own misunderstanding of the many complex ideas that defined their individual careers.

If there is one element of Freud’s Last Session that we can view as being somewhat positive, it is that it reminds us of how lucky we are to be living at the same time as Sir Anthony Hopkins, particularly in how he has continued to deliver astonishing performances well into his golden years. One of the most reliable actors of his generation, there is very little doubt that he is an industry icon, and someone whose work we are all quite fortunate to have experienced. Having said that, there’s very little way of denying that his performance in this film is operating at the most fundamental level of which he is capable of doing, and that there is nothing he does here that he hasn’t done many times in the past. Hopkins has moved into making films that pair him with another actor, and where the extent of his work is essentially to play off his co-star – sometimes it works, in other cases it isn’t all that interesting. This film falls squarely into the latter category, with the overall impression we get from the film being that Hopkins was cast based on his stature and a passing resemblance to Freud. Mercifully, he is extremely commited to the role, to the point where his efforts seem to be in vain, since this is a film that disregards all the work he put into creating this character. Conversely, Matthew Goode (who is a great actor who is best when the material knows how to take advantage of his unique talents) is his scene partner, and does not fare quite as well, having the lesser role of C.S. Lewis, a character who exists purely as a patsy for the more sympathetic Freud to use as the subject of his aggressive intellectualism. Goode doesn’t do anything particularly noteworthy, which is not his fault, but rather the result of a script that simply did not have any interest in developing him as a character, instead just using him as a figurehead of the Christian apologists, who this film seems to feel need to justify their existence through Goode’s character. It’s not a performance that represents his gifts particularly well, and outside of a few lovely moments shared between the two actors, neither Goode nor Hopkins is doing anything particularly noteworthy, a shocking turn of events for a film that could have done much more with its premise and the two gifted actors cast as its leads.

Freud’s Last Session is unfortunately the kind of film where the ideas are better than the actual execution, which is quite a stark discovery when dealing with something as simple as this story. In a cinematic landscape that has allowed the genre of the biographical genre to flourish into something genuinely exciting and unique, to have a film that takes such a prosaic and commonplace approach feels oddly regressive, and doesn’t seem to be contributing anything of value to the conversation. It doesn’t help that the emotions are beyond overwrought, and Brown clearly struggles to find the right tone, not knowing whether to construct this film as a complex character study, or a meandering series of moments between characters as they bicker and try and outsmart one another – and then almost with prophetic clarity, they realize how much they have in common. It’s hackneyed and conventional, and doesn’t make for anything particularly exciting. It isn’t even worth citing this film as being an old-fashioned pot-boiler of a historical drama, since those elements are almost inconsequential, to the point where it feels jagged and underformed, and never amounts to anything of value. If anything, Freud’s Last Session is an ambitious idea that falters at the conceptual stage, almost as if there was more work put into the idea behind the film than the writing itself. It all feels quite pointless, and the emotions are fraught with the historical details that we are asked to believe are authentic. It’s a stale, misshaped film without any discernible merit, and what promise there is with the story is quickly dismissed in favour of dense dialogue in which the actors are given long passages of text to memorize, but in the process we start to realize that despite the volume of what is being said, there is nothing of substance to be found anywhere in this film, and the storytelling is not nearly strong enough to make up for the lacklustre writing or the fact that there aren’t any elements of this film that feel like they are worth the time or effort, especially since it doesn’t lead anywhere particularly notable – it concludes exactly how we imagined, and would have saved two hours of our time, since the worst kind of historical drama are those in which we walk away not having learned anything valuable, which is one of the most significant flaws that sit at the heart of this film.

Understanding exactly where Freud’s Last Session faltered is not a difficult task – the problem is established right at the start, when a lackluster script that needed to fabricate a meeting was handed to someone who was too inexperienced to make the material seem interesting. Logically, we’d assume a film set in a single location and focusing mainly on the dialogue between two characters would be an appropriate measure of a young director’s talents and a good entry-point into the industry (especially since he did show some promise in his earlier film, albeit not in a way that felt like an immediate acknowledgement of his talents), but yet it feels so extraordinarily bland, it never amounts to anything of value. Ultimately, everything in this film is something that we have seen at some point already – the conversations are common, the theories are well-known, and the characters’ beliefs are not anything special. Instead of an engaging and complex character study, we get two hours of self-serving mediocrity, a film that amounts to nothing, despite genuinely believing it has made some salient points, when in reality, it’s simply done the bare minimum. One of the year’s more unconvincing efforts, Freud’s Last Session is certainly not something worth too much of our time, and judging from how nearly everyone is operating on a diminished level, we have to wonder if the same could not be said about them. It’s dull, uninteresting and never says or does anything particularly noteworthy, and just leaves the viewer utterly bewildered and frankly quite bored, which is never ideal for a premise as promising as the one that inspired this story, which no one seemed willing to put any effort into elevating beyond mediocrity.