Most of his work is either considered outdated or usually just flat out wrong. The psychodynamic approach has persisted though, so I wouldn't say it's all written off. There has been a general shift towards Biological/Neurological and Cognitive explanations/treatments.

It depends a little on what the thing you are trying to explain is, so for example if you are looking to explain a fetish (haram) then Freud is usually the man to turn to. If you are looking to explain malformed attachments to a biological parent, then it used to be Freud but now it's more of a cognitive approach iirc. So rather than it being an oedipus complex that is why you don't get along with your dad, it's more to do with him being absent in your life (Theoreticals never really apply well for examples)

When it comes to mental illness, it's mostly disregarded altogether but some of the principles like the therapists chair and all that bollocks still persists.

If I was to recommend a treatment/therapy though, my personal inclination would be to go for the scientific approaches (Cognitive-Behavioural/Biological instead of looking at the subconscious) over the psychodynamic ones.

(A little rambly, but if there are any points you would like me to elaborate on then just ask)

I would also note that opinions vary among psychologists, some are adamantly X/Y/Z disciplined so they would of course look at a problem with their set of tools >.> So this^ may not apply to all psychologists.

So essentially you're not normal if you're going through an anal stage, rc