GamerTab
That was an excellent one.
Aedonerre
I gave this film a 9 out of 10, because it was exactly what I expected it to be.
Senteur
As somebody who had not heard any of this before, it became a curious phenomenon to sit and watch a film and slowly have the realities begin to click into place.
VitoCorleone1972
"Analyze That" is a sequel to the 1999 film "Analyze This" that rather misses the reason why that latter film was enjoyable."Analyze This" was a movie that worked fairly well as an amusing comedy because of the chemistry between Robert De Niro and Billy Crystal. Their relationship was the heart of the picture, and the audience gravitated towards it.De Niro and Crystal are no worse here, but the script makes the mistake of not focusing on them enough. Instead, the majority of the film follows De Niro and his plans to get back into the "business." This persists until the final act, which turns into the most cliched mafia picture you've ever seen, nearly devoid of humor all together.All of this considered, however, the movie does feature some scenes between De Niro and Crystal, and when their doing their thing and bantering with each other, it's just as funny as the first film. That being said, I simply wish there was more of it."Analyze That" is not a terrible film, it's simply a mediocre and forgettable one that doesn't reach even the simple enjoyability of its predecessor.
classicsoncall
It could be "Analyze That" is even funnier than the original picture, and it certainly is more liberal in it's use of the F-bomb than "Analyze This". I guess that's because there were a lot more mobster characters in this one, as Paul Vitti (Robert DeNiro) is released into the custody of his psychiatrist Dr. Sobel (Billy Crystal). The picture takes on the guise of a caper movie during the latter third, and it wasn't quite clear to me at what point Vitti turned the tables on the the Rigazzi Gang and Patti LoPresti (Cathy Moriarty). With all the bullets flying, it's tough to keep straight who the 'good' bad guys and 'bad' bad guys are, but it's not important enough for me to watch it all over again. The one thing I noticed for the very first time in any film made after the events of 9/11, was the absence of the Twin Towers as part of the New York City skyline. Prominent by it's absence, it had me thinking about the picture in an entirely different light.
elshikh4
Sequel is mostly not a reputable thing in Hollywood. In one week I was reviewing sequels to memorable comedies like (Arthur 2: On the Rocks - 1988), (The Odd Couple II - 1998), and now (Analyze That - 2002) to have a bad result all the way. I think the commercial exploitation reached its explosion at the 2000s. Away from that, just look at this example : Director (Brad Bird) after the smash success of his Oscar-winner (The Incredibles - 2004) refuses to make any sequel, prequel, spin-off and dedicates himself to make totally another movie, another Oscar-winner (Ratatouille - 2007). This is wise creative person with bold decisions to make. Unlike Mr. Bird, here, after the genius simple (Analyze This) they produced (Analyze That) ! First off, the concept of this (That) was weak. I mean it could have been prettier idea to see some reversal as the mob man treats the doctor this time, or something like that. But unfortunately what we've seen was muddled, semi-pointless, and less funny compared to the first one. Basically the situations were on shaky ground. The sense of credibility, which was smartly coherent at the first (Analyze), is lost. And to hide that they made all the possible comic lines they can do, however none was well enough ! The best of this movie is its first half, where (De Niro) is a mad singing man or undesirable guest or failing at many jobs. As the second half was the best of perturbation; the wholly unfunny matter of the TV show (strange how they missed to produce any laughs out of it), some car chase, a sudden unbelievable heist, and one genuine fabricated happy end where (De Niro) must look as the criminal with the heart of gold, and everything finishes fine. (De Niro) seems rare as finally Mr. Hollywood; who's making the obligatory empty sequel, what a pity to hire a great comedian like him (who didn't have the chance much to express his talent at that area) just to be in a nice sketch or two. I'm sorry to say it, but (Billy Crystal) makes outrageously his Razzie-worthy role and movie, if you looked closer you'd find that the script gave him nothing to do, so he had to manage with what appeared as his most ridiculous performance yet. (Harold Ramis) turns to remakes (Bedazzled - 2000), and sequels (Analyze That - 2002) after years of his "original" masterpiece as a writer, producer, and director (Groundhog Day - 1993). It's nearly the perfect case for what Hollywood does with its people at the insolvent boring 2000s ! This movie is in disarray made it look poor. And after the success of the previous one, it's disappointing. What can I say? The hasty dealing and the absurd plot did it. The only good thing to be said about those couple of movies is that they're way better and more watchable than De Niro's other candy bars of the same time (Meet the Parents - 2000) and (Meet the Fockers - 2004) which were horrible.More often than not.. The shadows of good movies, which they call sequels, can shadow effectively.
Framescourer
A poor sequel (to a pretty lightweight predecessor). It's a narrative collection of sketch-style moments.Robert de Niro is the most watchable. Even in this comic-caper fare he manages to be genuinely menacing. However, one man recycling old tropes whilst having a ball as the grandstanding 'villain' does not a movie make.Billy Crystal plays himself. Lisa Kudrow plays a parody of his put upon wife from the first film. This is as nothing to the complete lack of a story. All we have to go on is a rough ultimatum drawn up by the FBI about how long de Niro's mafia boss must stay under Crystal's shrink-roof. It doesn't deal - like the first - with whether a leopard can change its spots. It's Hollywood big guns on a slow morning. 3/10
