I would not have watched this film if it were not for one good person. The man is not involved in psychology, but I understood him that he got an idea of ​​the work of psychologists from the film. Out of curiosity, I watched the film. I’m sharing my impressions with you. The plot of the film is this: there is a psychologist who uses her tools to, among other things, suppress the aggression of men. Suppress tightly. So to speak, reinforced concrete. There is a company whose head, a businessman, looks like a very cruel person. And he has a young deputy, the son of his friend. This deputy accidentally encounters a client of this psychologist, a former boxer who behaves like a downtrodden rabbit, due to a misunderstanding still moving his legs. Deputy our main character turns to a psychologist, formally hires her as an assistant to his boss. The goal is to turn the head of the company into a kind of shadow of a boxer, that is, into a rabbit who will never be able to show aggression. And she, regularly spitting in disgust and at every step making incurable psychiatric diagnoses for this head of the company, is nevertheless rapidly moving towards the goal - equal to depriving a cat of teeth and claws, and a dog of muscles and fangs. As a result, the head of the company turns out to be a fool and unearths news that his assistant is not an assistant at all, but a terrible brain specialist. A stormy scene follows, as a result of which the insidious psychologist drives the unfortunate former criminal element, and now a successful but cruel one, with no less insidious questions businessman, in the network of his psychological correction. From these networks, some kind of psychological invalid is selected, who allows anyone to violate his boundaries, which is what everyone does: the ex-wife throws him out of the house and takes away his real estate and son; the young son of a deceased friend immediately takes over the company - in the end, the only thing left for the hero is the dog, which also ceases to be considered an owner. Our psychologist, suddenly ashamed of something, looks for the unfortunate victim of her manipulative psychology and “returns” his aggression to him. A curtain. Everyone is getting married. I wonder if the screenwriter of this film tried to consult with practicing psychologists, so to speak, or received information about the work of psychologists from other films?) After all, the psychologist, to summarize the entire scheme of her therapy, simply suppressed the man’s aggression, psychologically castrating him. But aggression was the only defense that “covered” his Inner Child from this insidious and dangerous world. Without giving anything in return to this Inner Child, our psychologist left his defenselessness exposed. Well, there was nothing else to cover this Child with - no one taught him. Either aggression - or the helplessness of the Victim, who was immediately attacked by a crowd of Persecutors. What should have been done? - you ask. 1. Work through the trauma that the satisfied screenwriter gave us. When, as a little boy, the main character got lost and was afraid of a dog. The purpose of the work is to reduce the fear and despair and helplessness of a small child, then aggression would begin to decrease. 2. Change the beliefs of the main character, which he spent the entire film saying: “All people are bastards!” something like this. 3. Expand the framework of our protagonist’s reaction, and he knew perfectly well how to “suppress” and “punish” - this is one point of the continuum, and the second is “fear” and “helplessness.” Essentially 2 variations of response to the outside world. And there are more ways of reactions). Once again we, psychologists, have been discriminated against). But, thank you, at least they didn’t make us look like fools, like in other films, a little manipulative and unfit for a profession).