Análisis final

I just watched this movie again, after having seen it twice before in 1996-97. It has held up pretty well. It steals a lot from Hitchcock (the "I had the dream again" key phrase from "Rebecca", the superficial psychoanalysis from "Marnie", the setting of the climax from "Vertigo"), but Phil Joanou's direction is farly static - until the last 20 minutes. The two leads, Gere and Basinger, do a solid but routine job in their roles; it's the secondary characters who give this film a life of its own: Eric Roberts (an outstanding performance) as the edgy husband, Uma Thurman as the patient (whose character is the only one who remains an enigma right to the end), the detective who keeps making insinuations, Gere's colleague who gets panicky when he has to testify, etc. If nothing else, Joanou shows a talent for allowing his actors to do their stuff. (**1/2)

I am overcompensating here, this should really be a 9/10 but I am so annoyed by the lack of taste shown by the ratings at IMDb that I feel the 1 extra credit is fair enough. I have actually lost all hope of people choosing wisely and making good suggestions on films...Hollywood has made a science out of aiming for the lowest common denominator anyway and making trillions.

It would be great if we could comment comment on an existing review at imd, such as the one by some "licensed clinical psychologist" which has been been chosen as spotlight review. Now this fella in all his psychotherapeutic wisdom acts like a 5 year old and takes this film literally and passes judgment on Gere's character's psychiatric practices. Is he nuts? It's a damn film for Christ's sake, and a neo noir!!! Of course the shrink will cross the "boundaries" with his patients and act unprofessionally and "needily", he's supposed to be setting up a drama. Let alone that these things ALSO happen in real life. Drama's are not set up by shrinks who act according to AMA rules and psychiatric ethics. To pass judgment on the film on such grounds is like saying that Dumbo is not supposed to fly because elephants don't. PLEASE, IMDb, take this review off the front page,it's insulting.

OK. on with the review: THIS IS A GREAT NEO NOIR FILM, ACTUALLY IT'S PROBABLY THE BEST NEO NOIR AND ONE OF THE BEST CRIME/SUSPENSE/LOVE DRAMA FILMS I VE WATCHED.

Why? The plot is intelligent, it has plenty of twists, and surprisingly very few holes in it (that ANY neo noir or crime thriller for that matter even David Mammet is going to have). Even the more clever viewers are going to miss some of the twists and they won't see them coming. But anyway most here complained that it went to fast for them...may I suggest they use a staple of the modern DVD/blue ray/VCR the pause button and reflect in the interim pause...The script is also highly emotionally charged. Of course that's happening within the confines of its genre, it's not a film heavy on realism but provided you abide by the codes of the noir, there's plenty of pain here, shame, longing, distrust, antagonism, hate, love, friendship not only involving the main characters but every single minor character too. It's also very NUANCED which I suspect is why the film warrants the "this film sucks" comment gracing the boards.

All characters are very conflicted, very human, you can't pin them down to a simpleton archetype, the good doc, the manipulative patient, say, because they all have their blind spots and conflicts. I am sure a lot of people will hate this -why's the script writer messing about-, he or she should be acting in this a to b to c predictable way. Yet this is what makes the film so great, far better than the Hitchkokian bore it alludes to.

THE CAST IS ALSO GREAT, EVERYONE. They all nail down their roles to the tee. And then you have the main trio, Richard Gere and Kim Basinger in their prime, and Uma Thurman in one of her budding roles. What else does one want from the lead roles in film? First of all they are all stunning. Now that might not mean much to most in, and it doesn't mean anything to me either most of the time, but these three are not just good looking, they are gifted. They all have a once in thirty years in film charm to them. Seriously folks has their been a more charming lead than the good Buddhist Richard Gere, after Brando, and maybe coming close to him Mickey Roorke and Johny Depp. Who? Mat f. Damon? Gere has such a tender yet tough face, I won't do him justice describing his charisma here in a small review. Anyone who's got eyes can see. And so is Kim, I re-watched the film recently and after all the Scarlett Johansens and Kate Hudsons we 've seen recently you can tell that Hollywood has dropped the ball big time... look at the nineties they had Kim, and Madeleine Stowe, and Jessica Lange and, and, and...this are dirt poor times wrt to actresses' talent.

Kimmie is just fantastic here, the tone of her voice, the understated performance, she oozes charm with a mere glance. He chemistry with Mr. Gere is like hand and glove too. And she's a way, way underrated actress. This girl is up there with the top stars of the 40s, 50s, and 60s, she's a Marilyn. She plays a very complex character here and there's not a single scene where she's not mesmerizing...An all too brief nod -for no other reason than brevity for this review- to Uma and the rest of the cast, I ll just say that the scenes with Uma on the couch have such a suspenseful and seductive mood, the way she phrases her dream and looks at the shrink, Uma another natural talent.

I also really liked the directing here but the 1000 word limit calls. I loved the motifs: the lighthouse, the promise of love, the chance that love and truth above all can undo the damage, the remorseless nature of damage being done and perpetuated. Those who've watched the film will know what I mean, and I am not giving anything away to those who haven't. Last but not least I find George Fenton's score excellent, a really intricate part of the whole film. Maybe it could have been a bit more risky and less classic, but I think this austerity and measured portions of predictability and inventiveness only add to this very classy and elegant film which to me is a lost gem.

It might help to explain points of my review by giving some background information.I am a counseling psychologist and psychotherapist,with 20 years experience.Watching this film initially,in February 1992,almost contributed to a heart attack.Whoever did the screenplay to this atrocity hadn't the faintest idea of what constitutes appropriate clinical practice.Dr.Isaac Barr muffs the handling of this case from the onset.One wonders as to how he got through his psychiatric residency,let alone his training analysis,supervised cases,and what was going on in his personal analysis at this time?The pathological antics indulged in in this film would cause anybody else to get into serious trouble BIGTIME with the local psychoananlytic association,the American Psychoanalytic,the American Psychiatric,the AMA,and the State Board of Medicine.People have had licenses suspended for less.Where do we begin the critique?Let's start.A woman enters into Barr's office one night,claims to be a client's sister,and starts pumping Barr for information.He complies with her request.Now wait a darn minute-if I came into the office,claimed that I was the sister(I am 48 years old and have a full beard),would he give me the same courtesy?I seriously doubt it.You never release ANY information without having the client sign a specific release of information,with details as to who the data is going to.Barr could get sued out the wazoo for a stunt like this-and he'd deserve it.Then he and Heather go out to have coffee and discuss the case.You NEVER engage in professional activities outside of the work setting-your malpractice insurance won't cover it,and if something should go awry,won't assume any financial liabilities.Then,Barr and Heather end up making love-but it isn't love.This is not a relationship between equals,it's countertransference getting out of hand.She's extremely vulnerable emotionally(not really,but you're led to think that she is)and it is Barr's responsibility not to exploit a needy person.The onus is on the therapist to respect the boundaries.Barr is acting on his pathologically needy state,rather than reflecting as to what is going on.Dr. Lowenthal,upon being made aware of this situation,should have insisted that Barr re-enter therapy at once,and establish a supervisory relationship pronto.Noncompliance would involve informing the authorities.The Freudian psychoanalysts are very careful about not contaminating a therapeutic relationship,and this involve getting involved with family members of their patients.Barr should have refused to have anything to do with Heather AT ONCE.I wonder if the screenplay writers wanted to do a hatchet job on the psychiatric profession.

This film presents something of a dilemma, on the one hand it is an original, psychologically clever and rather twisted with a rather intriguing climax and on the other it is presented as a typical early 90s generic Hollywoodized Basinger/Gere cliché. It could be considered really good, Basinger's performance is actually quite brilliant and if she wasn't who she is but a "serious character actress" and wasn't so damn gorgeous and her character wasn't so clearly a temptress, she'd had probably got some plaudits for it. Uma Thurman equally did rather well although with a little more detachment but Richard Gere seemed remote and rather emotionless despite all the things that happened to him like he was in a trance the whole way through.

Again, the plot, the actual idea is very clever. A woman (which of the two sisters you aren't really sure, or both) is either a brilliant pre-meditated killer, product of a nightmare upbringing and abusive marriage to a callous and rather self-centred misogynist in the form of the dark and horrible (well performed although somewhat typecast) Eric Roberts or she's just a sociopathic manipulative do-anything-to-survive chameleon... and this is played out well throughout the story. Kim Basinger is perfectly cast although playing very much characters she's played before - the blonde beauty, wearing red, the light catching her hair and baby-doll features flateringly etc etc. There's a brilliant bit where a colleague of Gere's is chastising him by saying that no woman is so beautiful as to make a man forget all reason and go against everything he stands for and then he sees Basinger standing in the doorway looking incredible and he just stops talking. Uma Thurman though a beautiful woman in her own right, is perfectly cast as the younger (you presume) sister who is constantly the ugly duckling the "caterpillar" compared to her butterfly sisters and even when she "turns into a butterfly" she is still a pale imitation of the original.

It's difficult to review without giving anything away. There are aspects of this film which I found I predicted, could see coming, but I had no idea how the film would play out, what Gere (playing psychologist) would do, I mean of course the court outcome is to be expected, but that was almost a given in order to set up the totally unpredictable sequence of events and almost gave a false sense of security that you would know how the rest concludes. Typical early 90s fare including the obligatory sex scene, so scripted and paint by numbers (bare behind, bare nipple, dim lighting, sound effects etc) yet non-emotive or engaging and fairly unnecessary for the plot, the film is clichéd in most regards but there's also a dark aggressive and unusual aspect in that it deals with some issues a lot less palatable than most. Take away the clichés and some of the average made-for-TV male performances, and step back a bit and this is actually quite a good film, Basinger giving one of the performances of her life stepping out of her usual totally innocent and just eye-candy comfort zone and the which sister did what aspect you are left which is rather clever.

A wonderfully twisty unpredictable plot, very appealing actors and beautiful actresses, great music, tremendous suspense again and again - this is a whale of a movie.

Time and again, I was completely bowled over by the plot developments - and the climax is frankly better than any I can think of in any Hitchcock movie outside of The Man Who Knew Too Much.

I just loved it. I really disagree with the previous reviewer about the friendship between the psychiatrist and lawyer - one sees it all the time. Remember Gere is NOT the treating or testifying psychiatrist for any woman accused of any crime - and the friendship between himself and the lawyer is a very common phenomenon in criminal cases. (I've been a lawyer in quite a number of them).

Perhaps the most fascinating - because so wonderfully understated - matter is the change in Gere's morals over the course of the movie - they go to pieces as we find him lying to people, arranging for thieves to hide evidence, etc. yet it's completely believable and interesting.