Final Analysis (1992) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
48 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
What's NOT to like in this film? Beautifully done suspense neo noir.
Gong54 February 2009
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.
36 out of 44 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
Good film! absolutely underrated!
NoName19899 November 2007
I don't really understand why this film has such a low rating. Most of the movie is very good. The story, the acting and the cinematography are very good. The story also has a lot of plot twists and the acting is very good. The screenplay is quite intelligent. Only the end is a bit less good, and that's a pity, because this could have been a masterpiece. The end is a bit stupid. Phil Joanou did a good job directing this film. It's a pity this film doesn't get a higher rating on IMDb. Richard Gere, Kim Basinger and Uma Thurman do a good job too. I recommend this film. It's not a masterpiece, but it's certainly not bad.
20 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
A Moody & Visually Stunning Neo-Noir Thriller
seymourblack-128 August 2010
Warning: Spoilers
"Final Analysis" is a moody and stylish psychological thriller in which murder, manipulation and deceit figure strongly and the numerous plot twists just keep on coming, right up to the final scene. It's also one of the most visually stunning neo-noirs ever made and in this context, the contributions of art director Dean Tavoularis and cinematographer Jordan Cronenweth are very significant and worthy of high praise.

The opening credit sequence immediately makes it clear that "Final Analysis" is influenced both in its style and content by some of the great film noirs of the past (most notably "Vertigo" but also to a lesser extent "Double Indemnity" and "A Place In The Sun") and in common with these types of movies, it contains a typically gullible man, numerous double crosses and characters with unclear motives who may not be all that they seem.

Dr Isaac Barr (Richard Gere) is an eminent psychiatrist who regularly acts as an expert defence witness in court cases where the accused pleads insanity in order to avoid a heavy sentence. At the same time, in his private practice, he has a patient called Diana Baylor (Uma Thurman) who is seeking his help because she's struggling to deal with some traumatic childhood memories. Diana suggests that it may help the progress of her treatment if Dr Barr could discuss some aspects of her background with her sister. Barr is initially reluctant to take up Diana's suggestion but when he subsequently meets her sister, Heather Evans (Kim Basinger), the couple soon become involved in a passionate affair.

Heather is unhappily married to a sadistic gangster called Jimmy Evans (Eric Roberts) and also suffers from a condition called "pathological intoxication" which makes her become crazy and violent when she consumes even a very small amount of alcohol. When she attacks Jimmy and kills him and her medical condition is a factor, Dr Barr uses his expertise and connections to save her from the full force of the law. Unfortunately for the doctor, this success is no consolation for the trouble that he encounters when he starts to realise that he may have been set up to be the fall guy as the missing murder weapon could provide evidence of his involvement in the crime.

Richard Gere is very suave and self assured as the very successful doctor who's used to being given a great deal of respect. Consistent success and respect can make those who are not vigilant develop an excess of pride and arrogance and can in turn have an adverse effect on their judgement. Dr Barr goes off the rails spectacularly when he gets involved with Heather and breaches the rules of his profession without any apparent concern.

Kim Basinger and Uma Thurman are both good as the treacherous and devious sisters and Eric Roberts is especially effective as the vicious and fiercely jealous victim.

This glamorous thriller is well written with some very quotable lines and is extremely easy of the eye. It's thoroughly absorbing, great fun to watch and should be regarded as essential viewing for all neo-noir fans.
11 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
6/10
Watch out for the secondary characters
gridoon24 February 2005
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)
30 out of 42 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
Slick, and a bit derivative, but...
MarieGabrielle9 September 2006
This film, if analyzed visually is quite interesting, and the addition of a distinguished Richard Gere and still- beautiful Kim Basinger doesn't hurt, either.

The sets are reminiscent of Hitchcock's "Vertigo"; there is even a scene with violets, right out of Freudian analysis, which Gere translates for his unsuspecting patient.

Uma Thurman is Basinger's younger sister, there is a murder accusation, Eric Roberts as the abusive husband, ends up being murdered. (This part was a bit too formulaic; mob ties again) but Roberts also gives a believable performance.

While you may have to ignore basic logic, if you enjoy the actors, this film is worthwhile. For some reason Basinger is better in under-stated roles, and Richard Gere transcends the material, and is interesting to watch. 8/10.
16 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Elements of Hitchcock throughout...and a lot of deja vu...
Neil Doyle6 July 2003
Warning: Spoilers
What might have been even more effective with a better script is this dark melodrama which seems to borrow heavily from past psychological melodramas--particularly those films of Hitchcock which rely on such settings as the final showdown between Gere and Basinger. Camera effects in the lighthouse spiral staircase seem to borrow from the bell tower scene in Hitch's "Vertigo". As does the use of San Francisco settings--but lacking is a score such as Bernard Herrmann supplied or a script that makes the events seem credible.

Kim Basinger does well enough as the woman behind the mysterious plot but never manages to be entirely convincing when the plot calls for heavy dramatics. Richard Gere almost sleep walks through his role. But Uma Thurman and Eric Roberts deliver what can only be described as "creepy" portraits that linger in the mind after the film ends. And end it does on a bravura note with a raging thunderstorm and a return visit to the lighthouse under more dire circumstances the second time.

The final scene is Thurman's big moment. But it all has the air of deja vu thanks to all those psychological thrillers of the '40s that got even better effects when filmed in glorious B&W.
21 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
9/10
Excellent thriller
timefreezer76 June 2001
I will have to warn you that I have not seen Hitchcock 's films except Psycho . So I don 't know if the accusations made that Final Analysis is a hitchcockian rip off are true . I have already stated and I will again say that if this movie is a rehash it was a very good and effective one. I will not give away much about the plot because the less you know the better . Basically a psychiatrist called Isaac Bahr (Richard Gere) is treating an enigmatic girl called Diana (Uma Thurman) . Meanwhile he meets her beautiful sister Heather (Kim Basinger) to "talk about the family history" but due to mutual attraction it is inevitable that they soon "hit the sheets" . Unfortunately their affair puts them both in jeopardy since Heather is married to a dangerous gangster called Jimmy (Eric Roberts) . You can never guess what is going to happen next since the script has many plot twists marvellously executed (and not for impression like in "Wild Things" ) . Just when you think that the movie is over something happens and here we go again . I will have to tell you that I have seen the film 6 or so times and even I know the plot 's surprises I am still enthrilled . Why ? Because of the powerful characters and the noir-ish direction . Eric Roberts and Kim Basinger are beyond adequate and memorable . Richard Gere is a very underrated actor and here he gives one of his best performance . Do not listen to cynical comments that he will never convince you as a psychiatrist and his choise is utterly unrealistic . (Baywatch appears only thin and well shaped bodies as swimmers on the beaches but the truth is that 50 % of USA people are fat so I believe that there has to be at least one shrink with good looks somewhere ) I also read comments from a prof who says that a REAL shrink would never do this ...or that ... etc . If this is accurate and if everyone worked as a prof we would live in a perfect society . It is so stupid saying that a prof would never sleep with a patient or discuss his sessions with others . Then no doctor would commit abortions , right ? Anyway it is probably Uma Thurman who steals the show as the mysterious Diana . She was a right choice for a disordered person since she has the blurr disorientated look on her eyes . Beyond the acting the characters are well written . The script has good lines . The cinematography and the music play a crucial part for the film noir atmosphere . It is a very good try and definately worths a look from thriller fans .

FINAL ANALYSIS 8.5 / 10
18 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
Final Analysis is awesome!
RCouch500007 January 2005
This is a wonderful thriller about a psychiatrist (Richard Gere) that begins an affair with the sister (Kim Basinger) of one of his patients (Uma Thurman). The acting is superb and the plot line an entangled web of romance, deceit and murder. It is very "Hitchcockian" in everything from the musical score to the film angles and that is a good thing.

Basinger won her Oscar for "L.A. Confidential" but trust me, that was a make-up by the Academy (as they often do) for not giving it to her for this film. She gives the performance of her life and this movie is worth watching just for that. But the movie is much more than that and saying any more would be giving it away.

"Final Analysis" is one of my wife and I's favorite movies. Do yourself a favor and give it a shot.
9 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
4/10
Sub-Hitchcockian balderdash...
moonspinner5525 January 2008
Richard Gere and Kim Basinger reunite from 1986's mediocre "No Mercy" for this outlandish, just-as-shallow would-be murder mystery. Occasionally enjoyable, fruity concoction concerns psychiatrist Gere becoming involved with two sexy sisters who are hoping to formulate the perfect murder plot. Lots of story twists, each one more preposterous than the last, but with a slick production and a fine climax atop a lighthouse. Gere looks a bit ill-at-ease, but Basinger and Uma Thurman are both very good. Eric Roberts is eliminated early (a plus), but Keith David flounders in the hopeless role of the detective on the sisters' trail. For viewers in the requisite silly spirit, not too bad. ** from ****
12 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Hitchcock Style Thriller Based on Unethical Clinical Practices
hans1010679 December 2000
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.
16 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
4/10
Confusing story of murder, insanity, and assorted mishigas.
Robert J. Maxwell17 April 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Kind of disappointing considering the cast -- Richard Gere as the morally upright but slightly imprudent psychiatrist, Uma Thurman as his "caterpillar" patient, and Kim Basinger as Thurman's seductive older sister.

To help him understand Thurman's problems, Gere seeks out Basinger and winds up making furious love to her on their first date. You ought to see them, rutting around like two sea lions in heat. If that isn't disgusting, I don't know what is. The scene's only redeeming feature is that Kim Basinger isn't particularly modest. The two were my supporting players in the tasteful and artistic "No Mercy," and I had to practically carry them through the movie.

Basinger, lamentably, is married to one of those narcissistic, madly possessive Circum-Mediterranean gangsters who has muscles all over his body as well as inside his head. This is Eric Roberts in his perfect evil greaseball mode. He dominates Basinger and makes her do humiliating sexual things, which is perhaps his one good idea before she bashes his head in with one of his own dumb bells.

It seems she suffers from "pathological intoxication." One sip of alcohol and she becomes violently psychotic, and she had innocently sipped some alcohol-based cough medicine just before the homicide. Gere helps her shape her defense, brings in his friend, Paul Guilfoyle, to serve as her lawyer, and she gets off with a "not guilty by reason of temporary insanity." Thereafter, it gets twisted.

A little too twisted if you ask me. By the end I could hardly tell who was who or what was what.

It's pretty thrilling all the way through. It's just that it doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense. Thurman's character begins in cahoots with her sister, then betrays her, then helps her escape from the funny farm, then takes over her identity and murderous quirks. Why? It would take more than a shrink to determine that. It would require a mind reader, or maybe a rabidly commercial screenwriter.

It's nicely acted and the location photography is picturesque -- San Francisco at its most glorious, the Golden Gate Bridge is in every other shot.

But it's cheap too. The director uses every cliché in the book regardless of whether they fit together. The climax at the top of a light house has the railing collapsing and Gere dangling over the crashing breakers -- in a howling electrical storm the likes of which Point Reyes has never seen. The fulsome orchestral score belongs to the genus Slasher.

And, as I say, the plot is dizzying and at times makes no sense. Okay. Basinger is accused of murder, which she has in fact committed. The only question is whether a condition called "pathological intoxication" exists or not. The prosecution calls an expert witness, a haughty woman psychiatrist with a bony face and a foreign accent. She declares that the condition does not exist except in the minds of defense counsels. Why doesn't she believe there is any such thing? Because there is no physical evidence. It doesn't show up in brain scans or blood tests, she points out. An experienced defense attorney would have jumped all over her and asked if there were any "physical evidence" that schizophrenia exists. There isn't, but nobody can deny that the condition is real.

Anyway, in a sense, it's an exciting movie and soothing too, watching cliché follow cliché while common sense flies out the window. Kind of a ritualistic experience, like listening to a meaningless but reassuringly familiar pop tune.
8 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
5/10
Dramatic Hitchcockian suspense
bugsbunny15 March 2001
This movie does start a little bit slow, but it builds up in its suspense and intensity. The way the story is told you do not even highly suspect that anything is wrong until it comes out. The plot twists and turns are enough to keep you on the edge of your seat. This is the kind of movie Alfred Hichcock would have made had he still been living in 1992. At one point the background looks like it is straight out of "Vertigo". The music score even sounds like Bernard Herrmann. This is a very entertaning suspense thriller that "The Master" would have been proud of, and I'm shure many will find entertaning. " Final Analysis " makes for a great night' entertainment.
9 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
4/10
Some promising elements but sinks under character and story flaws
mysteriesfan2 August 2007
Warning: Spoilers
This movie has some promising elements. There is a premeditated murder plot with some intricacy, twists, and atmosphere. Kim Basinger is good playing a beautiful mystery woman with a troubled past and an exotic, violent illness ("pathological intoxication"). She conveys soft, placid (if overly simple) beauty one minute and psychotic rage the next, rivaling Catherine Zeta-Jones' in "Traffic" in her ability to turn memorably driven, tough, and hard-hearted on a dime.

Uma Thurman looks and acts her slight part adequately enough as Basinger's delicate, spaced-out sister, a patient of Richard Gere. Paul Guilfoyle hams it up as a boorish criminal defense lawyer pal of Gere's. A police detective is tough, crude, and menacing, on cue (barking at Gere, "Don't yank my dick").

But the film collapses under the weight of its many flaws. Gere is completely unconvincing as an "eminent psychiatrist." This has less to do with how he looks than how the movie presents him. He never says or does anything to credibly establish such a character. His attempts seem limited to occasionally speaking in jargon or hushed tones. He appears gullible and ignorant, as when it takes someone else's lecture to tip him off by chance to a colorful passage in Freud's work that is key to the criminal's scheme; even one of the plotters had expected Gere to be familiar with it. His supposedly joking answer to Basinger that as a psychiatrist he simply repeats, as a question, whichever last two words his patient speaks -- "'Your mother?'" -- hits a little too close to home. It is a truer description of how Gere comes across here than he thinks. Nor does the film give any background that might help explain the personal vulnerability that makes him such a dupe. The character is little more than a dim, steady facial expression and a resume.

Thurman's character amounts to no more than a stagey plot gimmick. She never comes alive as a real person with a real relationship to anyone. The prosecutor is played with gruff style and no substance by Harris Yulin. He is given so little to say and do, and the character accomplishes so little, if anything, that I could not even find him listed in the credits.

Even worse is the Eric Roberts character, Basinger's intense husband with mob ties. It is a tired, superficial, trying caricature that drags the movie down to the level of countless low-budget, rip-off "romantic thrillers." The unoriginal character and portrayal recall cinematic gems like "Play Murder for Me" and "Dead On" (both with Tracy Scoggins), "Tryst" (with Barbara Carrera), and probably dozens of other "abusive husband" exploitation flicks and TV show episodes (ala "Silk Stalkings").

The weaknesses in the characters are only compounded by the weaknesses in the story. The plot flaws become so damaging and distracting that they sap entertainment value right out of the film. Watching the movie becomes like trying to drive a stick-shift down a road full of sink-holes (the film does feature a "ditch"). The abrupt, midstream shift in tone and pacing does not help.

No explanation is ever offered for how the killer was able, in real time, to "hide" the murder weapon from the police - don't they search a crime scene? don't they have search warrants for other hiding places? And this is a plot point that drives most of the movie.

We are supposed to believe that the prosecutor would proceed with a first degree murder trial not only without a murder weapon but without establishing the accused's motive, not even bothering to investigate until afterward exactly who was in line to receive a $4 million payout.

We are supposed to believe that Gere can install himself on the psychiatric board responsible for evaluating the fitness for release from an institution of his own, indefinitely confined lover.

We are supposed to believe -- and cheer -- that two outside professionals would arrive for an interview without introducing themselves or their reason for being there, and that another character would suddenly switch a lifelong allegiance, all so that Gere can stage an elaborate trick on someone he later acknowledges is mentally ill from childhood abuse, only apparently to arrange an even more haphazard, convoluted, and contrived manipulation later by behaving cavalierly and roughly to a patient.

We are supposed to believe that murderers can walk out of mental institutions simply by switching clothes with someone else in a bathroom.

We are supposed to believe that Gere would enlist a psychiatric patient to steal for him, without giving any warnings or taking any precautions to protect the young man from the vicious homicidal maniac with whom this puts him at odds (to compensate for this colossal error, the movie prematurely discloses the man's fate, creating a witness and another potential crime to prosecute and thus undercutting the suspense of whether the killer of the earlier victim will escape unpunished).

We are supposed to believe, for the sake of a quick, shock-effect touch at the end, that, after two court trials had thoroughly publicized the events of the case, a character at its heart would appear to be recycling the exact same modus operandi for future use. And so on.

The movie suffers badly under the relentless battering of these accumulated character and plot problems. Simply dismissing them with an air of glib pseudo-sophistication, all-knowing cynicism, empty flippancy, or lazy, unintelligent flicking of the "not helpful" button on any review honest enough to point them out is not a serious response. Nor do they simply disappear because the movie inserts some attractive visuals, such as of bridges and lighthouses, or ramps up dramatic music (somewhat frantically and mechanically, starting about halfway through). Any meaningful review has to come to terms not only with the elements of the movie that are promising and likable but with the substantial flaws that prevent it from being satisfying.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
Kim Basinger was Fantastic !
whpratt118 November 2004
This is truly a great film with outstanding actors and a very suspenseful plot which managed to keep my eyes glued to the silver screen. Richard Gere,(Isaac Barr)," Shall We Dance",'04, was a doctor who was treating sexy Uma Thurman,(Diane Baylor),"Chelsea Walls",'01, who was beginning to fall in love with Isaac until he meets Kim Basinger,(Heather Evans),"Cellular",'04. Heather gets Isaac all hot and bothered and seems to have a magical control over his entire mind and body. Paul Guilfoyle,(Mike O'Brien),"Tempesta",'04 & CSI Las Vegas, is a lawyer friend of Isaac and tries to give him good advice about his relationship with Heather. Eric Roberts,(Jimmy Evans),"Killer Weekend",'04, is married to Heather and is very abusive in his love making and his possessive control over her mind and body. This is a great film to watch, especially if you are a great fan of Kim Basinger!
7 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
Excellent, sexy, edge-of-your-seat romantic thriller
Catherine_Grace_Zeh21 November 2005
FINAL ANALYSIS, in my opinion, is an excellent, sexy, edge-of-your-seat romantic thriller. If you ask me, the opening credits were really neat. You'll have to see the movie if you want to know why I said that. Anyway, I'll get back to critiquing this movie. I thought that Heather (Kim Basinger) was a very beautiful seductress. To me, Barr (Richard Gere) and Diana (Uma Thurman) were excellent in all their scenes together. When Jimmy (Eric Roberts) got hit in the head, I got really uncomfortable. Now, in conclusion, I highly recommend this excellent, sexy, edge-of-your seat romantic thriller to any Richard Gere or Kim Basinger fan who hasn't seen it. You're in for a good time, so go to the video store, rent it or buy it, kick back with a friend, lock the doors and windows, and watch it.
6 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Just excellent
trpdean17 November 2004
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.
4 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
9/10
the slow beginning and the great end
spud-139 November 1998
I liked the development of this movie because it all starts very slowly but then you see how perfectly Kim Basinger has planed her murder. The tension is constantly growing because you know always as much as Richard Gere does and that gives you the motivation to think what you would do now . The best part of the film is definitely the end scene with Uma Thurman. Don't miss that one
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
3/10
Hitchcock must be turning in his grave
johnny-0822 July 2008
I must say that I had high expectations about this movie because of solid cast and what it seemed interesting story in Hitchcock way. We've got ordinary man (Dr. Isaac Barr) who founds himself in strange situations and also blond female characters (both Heather and Diana). Also the end, the lighthouse, the fall of Heather Evans is a copy of Hitchcock style. I must say, after watching movie, that this is very bad movie. Beside Eric Roberts, who is always good as bad guy, all other actors are just acting it through (Gere was awful, Basinger funny when she tried to be bad and Thurman had nothing to act). Script was written on so stupid way that we've got numerous inversions but in a very predictable and dull way, so I waited finally to end. Very big disappointment for me and poor Hitchcock must be turning in his grave.
5 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
Final Analysis- You'll Enjoy this Evaluation ***1/2
edwagreen10 November 2007
Warning: Spoilers
When viewing this film, I thought that Alfred Hitchcock had returned to film making.

A marvelous, intriguing film dealing with a psychiatrist who becomes involved with the sister of his patient. Unfortunately, he is unaware of their diabolical scheme.

As a gangster husband of Kim Bassinger, Eric Roberts is quite effective in this role. Ms. Bassinger has one of her best roles and turns in a powerhouse performance as a deeply disturbed woman whose diabolical scheme is unimaginable. She uses psychiatric data to justify murdering her husband, and if things don't go her way, she can always blame her sister's psychiatrist, played by Gere, who gives a restrained but compelling performance.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
6/10
Methodical thriller
gridoon20181 July 2017
Warning: Spoilers
As early-1990s psychosexual thrillers go, "Final Analysis" is classier than "Color Of Night", but it's not quite as much fun. It's a bit on the long and slow side, but it's methodically plotted and skillfully directed (the early scenes feel kind of cramped, but Phil Joanou makes good use of the San Francisco locations later on and stages a fairly exciting finale). In a high-powered cast, everyone does their job well but Eric Roberts steals the acting honors. **1/2 out of 4.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
Final analysis: very good
Final Analysis, is a film that really puts a spin on psychological thrillers, and it's a spin I love. Re teaming here is Gere and Basinger after that forgettable No Mercy back in 87, and Basinger here shows no mercy when killing her rich and abusive gangster husband, (Roberts). Rightly so, he deserved to die as he's a real bastard to her, even in restaurants, where he gives Gere the bad eye, for ogling her. We then meet em' in the toilet, it's a bit of an tense and unnerving moment. Gere plays a psychiatrist, and he isn't bad, as is Basinger as the murderess, where I like Thurman's enigmatic and twisted performance more. FA does take a while to move along. Be patient. Stretching out to a two hour running time, he does beautifully flow as did Jennifer 8. We more so want Robert's to die, where too, there's layers to Basinger's motives besides ridding him of his abuse. And I really liked where this went. When Gere really finds out what happened, he himself is cornered, on the account of a missing attachment to a dumbbell, which has his prints on it, a no finer moment for Basinger who says threateningly to Gere, "Don't f with me Issac". I liked the fact too, that Keith David was in this as a hardened detective who doesn't approve of Gere's prognosis's, even suggesting David should have a session, after letting a young mentally ill Latino kid, free. Gere later uses him (and I'm glad the kid didn't die) to retrieve that missing piece of dumbbell. Basinger is bloody hot in this too, where she could almost smoke up a scene anywhere. The ending is one of the most suspenseful ones I've seen in a thriller, at that light house. The photography shots are awesome, where this film is pretty awesome, but I don't want to press it. One of the best best psychological dramas of 1992.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
6/10
great performance by Basinger and plot, marred by 90s clichés and a made for TV feel
HelenMary19 August 2013
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.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
3/10
All over the place
gcd702 September 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Painfully slow for the first hour, "Final Analysis" is an 'old-fashioned' thriller that has little of the style that made those film noir flicks of the 40's and 50's so very enjoyable.

This picture never manages to grab its audience until half an hour before the end, at which time it reaches such a frenetic pace that it becomes a little too much to cope with. This is not to say that the plot is bad, however the screenplay and direction are both very poor. Most movie-goers will find themselves sleeping through the first half of this one, and then staring in disbelief at the conclusion. Wasted film making.

Saturday, March 28, 1992 - Knox District Centre
3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
4/10
Very disappointing, unoriginal (spoilers)
jckeilman11 September 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Some of the problems that I had with the movie had to do with location. I am very familiar with the location where the light house was supposed to be. It does not exist and never did, so that whole part was a stretch for me. The plot and story borrowed heavily from Hitchcock, but not well. Too many things happened that did not seem possible, as another reviewer pointed out, the escape from the mental institute, the grabbing of the dumb bell from the cable cars etc. I can understand how people would like it if they have not seen "Vertigo" "North by Northwest" "Rear Window" and numerous other Hitchcock films. All of the actors and actresses are pretty people, easy to look at. I don't recommend it if you are at all familiar with Hitchcock, it will disappoint.
3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
loading
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews