Analyze That (2002) Reviews

• Analyze This, That, and the Other Thing...

  MovieAddict20162003-05-28

  "Analyze That" is proof the critics can be wrong. Which probably means you shouldn't be listening to me, either. But you are, oh well. I guess I'll have to review the movie, now. The Boss and The Shrink are back in therapy: Paul Vitti (Robert De Niro) has been locked up in Sing-Sing for 850 days. Ben Sobel (Billy Crystal) has just lost his father. That's when he gets the call from Vitti. Vitti gives him the low-down: Someone is trying to kill Vitti in jail. Sobel hangs up, Vitti gets mad, so he fakes crazy, and Sobel gets called in (since he is Vitti's psychiatrist). Sobel believes Vitti is cuckoo in the slammer, as he sees him singing tunes from "West Side Story" (one of the funniest parts in the film). So Vitti is released into the custody of Ben Sobel. But on the ride to Sobel's house, Vitti snaps out of it, only to reveal that he is not crazy, but, in fact, quite well. Now Vitti must start a new life and get a real job - that involves working "from 9 to 5!" - and find out who is trying to kill him...and why. Perhaps I am mistaken, but "Analyze That" is funnier than "Analyze This." Maybe it's just me, but I found it quite funny. I didn't think it was a "rip-off" sequel, there for "no artistic reason." Sure, it's a sequel. Of course it's not going to be an Oscar-winner for originality; I don't ask for that in a comedy. Honestly, can you think of any sequel (other than the rare "Godfather Part II" film) that is as good as the original in terms of reasons for being there? All I know is that I think "Analyze That" had some very funny moments. Take, for instance, the scenes where Vitti is trying to get a new job. He becomes a car salesman for a day, and leads around a couple, showing them a nice car. "Look at that trunk - you could fit three bodies in there!" he says. When they say they're going to think about it: "What's there to think about? You've been busting my b@lls for the last hour over this thing, asking me all these stupid questions, taking it for a test drive...so why don't you buy it?" Scenes like these are hilarious. And while there are somewhat long sequences without any laughs, the laugh-out-loud scenes more than make up for those lacking. The only thing about this film that makes me drop the rating a notch is the execution of the last half hour. Just like the first movie, they set up a ridiculous "action" ending, that isn't action at all. Its ending is overlong and goes way too long without any laughs. But that is the only thing I didn't like about the movie. De Niro and Crystal have a real chemistry, even more so here than in the first film. De Niro steals the scenes he is in, and Crystal steals the scenes he is in, and when they are both on screen, you're not sure who to look at. I find Robert De Niro's latest journeys into comedy quite funny. He made a few comedies here and there in the past, but in the last three years he's coughed out some funny movies. "Analyze This," "Meet the Parents," "Analyze That," and to a certain degree (it was okay), "Showtime." Perhaps I am confused. Maybe I need to see the first again. But having seen the original about twice, and "Analyze That" once, I can honestly say that I laughed more in "Analyze That" than I did watching "Analyze This." And if that's not a good sequel, I don't know what is. Here's to "Analyze This, That, and the Other Thing"! 3.5/5 stars - John Ulmer

  More

• Shadows !

  elshikh42008-09-23

  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.

  More

• Humor, action and a half-hearted attempt at depth

  imdbfilmcricket2002-12-08

  Analyze This had an element of novelty and a generous dose of humor. Lacking the novelty due to its sequelhood, Analyze That tries to compensate by making forays into the psyche of Dr. Ben Sobol (Billy Crystal) as well as a little more (very little) analysis of mobster Paul Vitti (Robert De Niro). The psychology angle is not given much time or emphasis, but I suppose director Harold Ramis should get a couple of points for making a token effort. The film is pretty funny and worth seeing, but doesn't really offer us anything new. This is forgivable, though, because Crystal and De Niro are entertaining enough to carry the picture. Overall, I'd recommend it -- it's funny and watchable and the two leads are very good.

  More

• Oh Please!

  desmondthomas2012-05-11

  I don't usually write reviews, but I remember watching this stinker, and wanted to throw in my two cents. This film is about Paul Vitti pretending to be insane to get out of jail, thereby driving his psychiatrist insane. How idiotic a premise is that? "Analyze This" was a good film. But "Analyze That" is bad. The plot is empty and chaotic. Apart from the beginning few scenes, there is almost nothing related to madness. The film tries so hard to be funny, by doing the exact opposite of "Analyze This". This time round, the psychiatrist gets crazy and the mobster has to cheer him up. And it is Ben who bugs Paul all the time. I feel that they try too hard to be funny. The end result is that the film ends up not being funny, and sometimes becomes just plain silly. "Analyze That" is a disappointing sequel. Don't waste your time on this.

  More

• As expected: scarce

  tributarystu2003-01-31

  Another sequel on the market, another disappointment. It is not something totally new, but the fact that De Niro keeps playing in such movies is quite sad. I don't think he is really made for comedies, and if he is, then for no more than one. His type of character is quite clear and I wonder now how another sequel, to a good comedy, "Meet the Fockers" will be like. I sincerely doubt it will be good. Spoilers The story is quite predictable...There is De Niro, a mobster (the one we know from the first film- Paul Vitti) who has to spend some time behind bars...but it so happens that he escapes with the help of his doctor, Ben Sobol( Billy Cristal), and exactly as in the first movie he gives him a very hard time. And so the story starts... The movie hasn't got an interesting plot, but it should've had many funny moments. Unfortunately these were quite missing, not totally, but I didn't laugh as much as I should've. The humor is dry, and not funny. The only question really was, how much they could squeeze out of all the mafia parodies. The answer: not much. The actors lost their charm too, and neither De Niro, nor' Crystal gave the movie an exciting tempo. It was slow, despite lasting around one hour and a half, and the rest of the characters where poorly modeled on the screen. There were much to few interesting moments in this film. If you want to see a good parody about the mafia, I would recommend "Mickey Blue Eyes", which I personally enjoyed very much! Or you could watch the first part to this sequel if you haven't seen it, because it is definitely better. Or if you want a comedy with De Niro just watch "Meet the Parents". All of these movies have more charm than this one. a cold 5.5/10

  More