Unlimitedia Sick Product of a Sick System

SpunkySelfTwitter It’s an especially fun movie from a director and cast who are clearly having a good time allowing themselves to let loose.

Huievest Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

Roman Sampson One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

SceneByScene What a shame: all but the last 30mins or so of this drama are classic TV movie: badly scripted & fundamentally disjointed.The trailer promised cameos by a range of superb actors. This boded well . . . but the performers were then completely wasted. A few key phrases and 'masterful' TV-drama looks, and they were gone. What a shameful squandering of the talents of James Woods, Richard Dreyfus, etc. I can't say I was surprised. Few TV movies make 'the grade' in storytelling. And few remakes (big-screen or otherwise) ever match the quality of the original. So a drama that fits into both categories has much to fight against to attain any form of success; which this TV remake does not.The one redeeming feature of this version of 'Coma' may be for those viewers who haven't seen the excellent 1978 film original. The Genevieve Bujold version sticks in my mind over 25 years since I first saw it! For those new to the story this drama may hold its own. After all, it will have no alternative against which to be measured.But I still feel that, whereas in the 1970s the concept of this kind of scientific experimentation was unknown & shocking to the layman, to a modern audience it is all too familiar & newsworthy. So the shock level of the story is lost; which is after all the mainstay of the plot.The usual mistakes of cheap movie-making occur: story threads are left incomplete, the plot continuity has gaping holes in it, and the character development is threadbare. One character {I will leave the name left blank here: to avoid spoilers!} is in one scene adamant that they want to continue their affair with their lover, then in the very next scene are suddenly keen to throw that affair over: with no real explanation to the observer for such a key change of heart. More 'jumping' occurs when the role of at least two of the 'baddies' is left unclear. Overall there is too much left unexplained. Another character turns 'tail' in loyalties at the end with – again – no in-depth explanation to the viewer as to the reason for his change of heart. This film is simply a case of too many characters & not enough characterisation.Yet another example of a poorly put together TV film for which one cannot blame the actors. It is the material they are working with that is at fault, not their acting performance.There is also a signature of TV movie 'dross': an extended stalking scene. It is ridiculously long, and is neither necessary nor well made. In the same scene there is even a long-winded monologue – over an intercom! – by one of the 'baddies'. It made me think of a plagiarised Jack Nicholson in 'The Shining', without being anywhere near as riveting or chilling.Geena Davis is given a lot of screen time, but the camera seems to just dwell on her pretty face rather than let her get to grips with what could have been a more in-depth role. Another wasted talent.The script is patchy; not as bad as it might be perhaps – and it may well be another skill area in the production process that causes this problem in the end product – but the screen play is not good enough to link the scenes together and make a substantial movie of this.In the last hour or so we finally get to see what is going on 'behind the scenes'. And the pace becomes more appropriate, with the scenes finally beginning to connect a little more. But it is too little, too late. And, being a TV movie, of course we get to see too much blood & guts in the final moments; in place of the necessary development of the back plot. Lots of gory: not enough story.We never get to hear more than a few words of explanation of the ethics of the experiments, or the motivation for it. This is crucial to the whole storyline. We need to hear the psychology & drive behind what is going on. But there is none told to the viewer. Sadly, there seems little if no thought behind this film. It is, frankly, just superficial popcorn drivel.Bizarrely, the credit sequence at the end is the best part of the whole production!: original & stylish.The 1978 film was quietly intelligent. This remake, sadly, is empty of any style or substance – and 'loudly' so. What a shame that those two greats – the Scott Brothers – couldn't leave well alone. After all, if it ain't broke, don't mend it! I only assume, being producers, that they had little to do with the creative process. So I shall leave 'Blade Runner' & 'Top Gun' as happy memories to remind me what skilled film-makers they can be.

tonyhouston2 coma wow just thinking about the old Richard Widmark ,Douglas and Bejould classic still sends shivers down my spine but tuned in and really enjoyed this new updated version with the lead actress in particular in great form also the old stalwarts of woods and Dreyfus just go to prove that you never loose your touch but cant help getting the feeling that the the old hospital and in particular the way they shot the Jefferson institute scenes gives us much more off an uneasy feeling plus the way the ending was left open could lead us to think that another sequel could be on the way makes you wonder just exactly what mr Crichton would have thought of the whole thing but definitely worth the watching but just remember one thing Don't LET THEM PUT YOU UNDER .

Marc Marchioli I unlike the other reviewer found the original story quite intriguing as the medical aspects were very accurate and the setting plausible. However, this rework of the story starts interesting but there are way too many distractions that add nothing to the details or complexity of the story. Yes, the large corporate conspiracy is a decent throw-in for Hollywood but others were too much and add little to the quality of the story such as the psycho killer, the floppy haired lead (and by the way in a medical setting floppy hair would not be allowed even by a medical student! It would be required to be cut or kept out of the face/eyes at all times due to health concerns), the crooked police, and quarreling cut-throat medical students (which should be residents to be more accurate).I think taking the original story and updating the technology and possible corporate profit areas would have been plenty (this part was done nicely with the genetic component which was only addressed in the original by the tissue typing for the needed organ).So, take a good story and inject Hollywood and you get what the "Mavericks of Silicon Valley" call the poison pill. It's a good reason why viewers are turning to the subscription channels for high quality programming.Bottom line, nice try but better luck on the next one.

Minerva Breanne Meybridge One would have thought that something produced by Ridley Scott, who directed Alien and Blade Runner, would have been tightly knit. It wasn't. The movie totally drags during the first half and the first hour of the second half. This, like the original, should have been a two-hour film. I was bothered from the start when during the first commercial break, there were cast interviews revealing what was going to happen. The only thing really interesting were the special effects towards the end. Fortunately, I recorded it and was able to use fast forward or I, too, might have lapsed into a coma from having to sit through all of the initial tedium.