Final Analysis

I'm not sure if you Hitchcock fans will love this extension of the master's genre, or be appalled at the blatant rip-off the the great man's techniques. The climax is staged on a crumbling lighthouse, at night, in a storm, with people clinging to railings, with the raging sea and rocks far below. Several shots in this movie are shot straight down of almost straight down from a dizzying height. You'll see some of that in the caps. Tuna didn't like it much, but I thought the movie was pretty darned cool, although I still don't know exactly what was going on. It's one of those with continuous twists and turns, and I didn't even understand the last one. You need to keep a flow chart to keep track of it all.

What is Uma's real role in the entire plot? How much is real and how much is artifice? Did Uma make up her entire past as part of Kim's master plot? Or is someone else besides Kim pulling the strings? Are either of them telling the truth? Gere has to use his head to sort through all the stings and counter-stings.

DVD info from Amazon.

nice transfer, but
no widescreen
no features

Quite a spectacularly filmed movie. Not only attractive, but plenty of things like gothic angles and over-the-shoulder POV shots of people running. Completely Hitchcockian, like it or leave it.

For me, grade B Hitchcock is still pretty good entertainment. If only someone with a bit more animation and color than Gere had been in the shrink role! He is really just kind of a generic guy, isn't he? Great looking guy, delivers a line competently, nothing really wrong with him, but no noteworthy unique characteristics, no charisma, no real personality in his characterizations. He's just there. You don't remember one thing about his character after the movie has finished. If Brando has too many eccentricities in his portrayals, Gere seems to have none at all, which is equally unrealistic.

The Critics Vote

General consensus: three stars. Ebert 2.5/4, Maltin 2.5/4

nominated for three Razzies, including worst actress (Kim Basinger), worst film, and worst screenplay

Rotten Tomatoes summary. Eleven articles on file

The People Vote ...

With their votes ... IMDB summary: IMDb voters score it 5.6

With their dollars ... domestic gross $29 million

IMDb guideline: 7.5 usually indicates a level of excellence, about like three and a half stars from the critics. 6.0 usually indicates lukewarm watchability, about like two and a half stars from the critics. The fives are generally not worthwhile unless they are really your kind of material, about like two stars from the critics. Films under five are generally awful even if you like that kind of film, equivalent to about one and a half stars from the critics or less, depending on just how far below five the rating is.

My own guideline: A means the movie is so good it will appeal to you even if you hate the genre. B means the movie is not good enough to win you over if you hate the genre, but is good enough to do so if you have an open mind about this type of film. C means it will only appeal to genre addicts, and has no crossover appeal. D means you'll hate it even if you like the genre. E means that you'll hate it even if you love the genre. F means that the film is not only unappealing across-the-board, but technically inept as well.

Based on this description, I guess it's a C+. Excessively complicated but interesting tale of set-up and double-cross, well filmed in the Hitchcock manner . Tuna says, "While I love a great thriller, I tend to be very critical of lesser ones, and this was a chore for me, but the proper score is probably C. A good enough thriller for those that like them."