Deseo y decepción

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)

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.

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.

A friend warned me about this film. "It's not very good" she said. What she should have said was "It's not very good, and it goes on for a long time, and Richard Gere can't change the expression on his face, and there are scenes where you say "doesn't that remind you of....?". There's not much point in discussing details, but some useful tips are revealed. (1) How do you escape from a high security prison hospital? Ans: You walk out with the visitors when they leave. (2) How do you steal/retrieve a heavy dumbbell being carried in a shopping bag by a villainess? Ans: You put her on a tram in San Francisco, with the bag dangling out, and you get in a tram going in the opposite direction, so that as the two trams pass, you just reach out and grab!! So simple. There are better ways of spending 2+ hours than watching this.

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.