Sang chaud pour meurtre de sang-froid

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.

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, 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.

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.

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.