Freud (or psychoanalysis) has been declared dead many times. For instance, in an article in LA Times (2004):

The year 2000 ¡ª the centenary of "The Interpretation of Dreams" ¡ª should have been a triumph for Freudians. Instead, amid the celebrations was a funereal whiff of defeat: The psychoanalytic century was over before the 21st century had begun ... Psychoanalysis was indeed dead.

...

Of course, as with exorcism, the psychoanalytic "cure" hinges upon belief in mysterious entities such as the unconscious. For with belief we are back in the realm of suggestion and, at its best, the placebo effect. True, that's not nothing. But the cult-like exigencies of psychoanalysis dictate that normal human suggestibility be exploited for the cause of conversion. As Karl Kraus put it many years ago, psychoanalysis itself became the poison it purports to cure. Another way to put it is that it is psychoanalysis itself that has infected the Western soul with penis envy, Oedipal conflicts, death drives and so on. For these ideas are not given to, and cannot be found in, the world. They must be created. Consequently, the death of psychoanalysis is itself the only cathartic event psychoanalysis was ever designed to deliver.

But the question: Is Freud (and by implication, psychoanalysis) relevant? Or, as it often is phrased, "Is Freud dead?"

http://www.apsa.org/pubinfo/freudopen.htm - http://www.apsa.org/pubinfo/freudopen.htm

To the question of relevance, ... the American Psychoanalytic Association ... respond with a resounding "yes." "While some of Freud's theories about human development have been refocused, altered or even discarded, his two most important discoveries - that an individual's actions, thoughts and feelings are influenced by factors outside his or her awareness (the unconscious) and that an individual's childhood experiences have a profound influence on development and personality - remain undisputed," remarked Hoffman.

What's more, much of the language of Freud - the unconscious, repression, talking cure, slip of the tongue, free association - has become the common parlance of the 20th century, and the basis of the American Psychoanalytic Association's message: "We are all Freudians now."

...

In a 1996 Scientific American article titled "Why Freud Isn't Dead," writer John Horgan suggests that the persistence of psychoanalysis is a symptom of modern science's failure to explain the mind. Despite the periodic declarations of the death of Freud and psychoanalysis, Horgan argues that psychoanalysis will persist until an unquestionably superior theory or therapy renders psychoanalysis completely obsolete. To date, none has.

Furthermore, whatever the form of talk therapy an individual chooses - and estimates suggest there are over 400 - Freud is behind it. Psychoanalysis has been said to give a frame of reference for talk therapy in general, enabling psychiatrists and other therapists to better understand human motivation.

 WHAT DO YOU THINK

Freud gets his due. He came up with notions of layered unconscious. When surfaced they could be recognized, ventilated and given meaning. The psyche has three motivating forces that are still popular in modern usage - Id, Ego, Superego. Defense mechanisms were popularized by Freud. Repressed urges and thoughts are part of his mapping of the mind too.

Psychological terminology we still use today harkens back to him. So Freud gets his due.

Psycholanalysis as a therapeutic intervention is outdated though. Lounging on a comfy sofa for lengthy consecutive sessions in order to identify unconsious motivating factors takes too long.

Conscientious self awareness; the importance of rational thought; and focusing on healthy behaviors, are all newer methods of therapy that Freud had no part of. He has become outdated. A multimodal method of treatment is a better approach.

I didn't kill my dad,

didn't  have sex with my mother

and didn't spent much money for a very expensive psycho-analysis.

I think one of the biggest "mistakes" that neo-Freudians make is their inability to connect his theory (or at least certain concepts of his theory) to neuroscience. That's not the mistake of Freud himself, of course, as back then neuroscience was just in its infancy. However, given the tremendous progress that researchers have made in the field of neuroscience, the woeful lack of any genuine attempt to connect psychoanalysis and neuroscience is really inexplicable, if not inexcusable. Neuroscience has contributed a lot to the advance of psychiatry. It is high time neuroscientists used their knowledge to examine some of Freud's claims (e.g. neuronal basis of the unconscious). Among the various neuroscientists, I think Ramachandran's work seems to hold the most promise when it comes to bringing more credibility to Freud's theory.