Python Hyena Analyze That (2002): Dir: Harold Ramis / Cast: Robert De Niro, Billy Crystal, Joe Viterelli, Lisa Kudrow, Cathy Moriarty: Inferior sequel to Analyze This, which searched of the trauma of the Robert De Niro character. This time out regards current issues that plague the psychiatrist including the recent death of his father and the release of De Niro into his custody. De Niro claims that attempts were made on his life in prison and he fakes insanity singing songs from Hollywood musicals. Same setup with a formula agenda but a pleasant dismiss. Director Harold Ramis creates the same witty humour. He usually creates comedies with some sort of social message such as Caddyshack and National Lampoon's Vacation. De Niro once again finds the right note for humour and his role is written in an upbringing as well as his sincerity is tested. Billy Crystal comes to terms with aspects of his own life as well as closure with De Niro. Joe Viterelli as De Niro's closest friend in crime is given little to do, which is unfortunate given that he stole his scene in the first film. Lisa Kudrow as Crystal's wife has little screen time and she seems only there as a prop for the Crystal role. Cathy Moriarty co-starred with De Niro in the boxing masterpiece Raging Bull. Now they co-star in this unworthy sequel. This is a pointless sequel but if viewers enjoyed the much better Analyze This, then perhaps they may dare to analyze this as well. Score: 5 / 10

Topher Analyse This had a freshness and uniqueness of concept that carried right through the film and made it an enjoyable fluffy comedy. Analyse That falls very adeptly into the stereotype of the sequel that tries to emulate the original and fails miserably. The jokes are the same but somehow less funny, the new characters add nothing notable, Robert DeNiro seemed lost and unsure of his character, Billy Crystal was just plain annoying at times and the story was alternately ridiculous and pedantic. Are we really supposed to be curious about whether or not he's going straight? And in the end, did he? 6 is actually a bit generous, consider it a 5.5 rounded up.But that's just my two scents. ;)

Jackson Booth-Millard The first gangster comedy film was a surprising success, and they tried to create the same thing again with this sequel, from director Harold Ramis (Groundhog Day, Analyze This, Bedazzled). Basically Paul Vitti (Robert De Niro) is in prison following the events of the last film, and he seems do be cracking under the pressure, and he is fearing death. So naturally the one to called in to help him out is the psychiatrist and analyst he last saw, Dr. Ben Sobel (Billy Crystal) who has just lost his father. Paul appears to be catatonic when Ben visits him, but once they are are out of prison and the former gangster is Ben's responsibility, he shows he was faking. Paul is eager to both open up about his feelings once again, and try to find something to do to open up, make something of himself and feel good. He may in fact though be planning some big scheme, even when he finds a good job assisting the scriptwriter of a successful gangster drama show. Ben's wife Laura (Lisa Kudrow) is obviously not happy about the former gangster being Ben's responsibility, she would be even more unhappy if she knew their son Michael (Kyle Sabihy) was his driver. Of course it comes to the time when there is a big job, Paul has planned a robbery of a truck filled with gold bullion, and it seems to go reasonably well, up to the point when the police show up, and it is all part of the gangster show! In the end, the big crime family that the police wanted get caught, and Ben and Paul part ways as friends and singing a show tune from West Side Story. Also starring Joe Viterelli as Jelly, Reg Rogers as Raoul Berman, Cathy Moriarty as Patti LoPresti, John Finn as Richard Chapin and Callie Thorne as Agent Cerrone. Crystal is still great as the pressured, humiliated and embarrassed doctor, and De Niro is still good as the fast talking, rude and emotionally damaged crime lord. The film has its great comedic moments, but that is all it has, moments, it does not have the same dynamic the original had, but it is an alright crime comedy sequel. Okay!

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.