The End?
-
bikebryan — 21 years ago(January 06, 2005 10:30 AM)
The movie misrepresents the medical profession and insitutions in general. Do you really think all physicians talk about in the facilities are how surgeries went, various medical afflictions, and medical related stuff? That's what I hated so much about this movie. The so-called relationship between Douglas and Bujold in the film lacked any signs of real emotion - it just seemed like two actors reading lines in front of the camera. The same for the scenes where friends died, or where she was supposed to be talking to a shrinkthere was no emotion in this film.
The book focused much more on the HUMAN characters than where they worked. The film missed this element completely, making it extremely one dimensional compared to the novel.
Oh, and I saw the movie first, then read the book. -
kroberteaton — 21 years ago(January 06, 2005 04:33 PM)
Okayfair enough, that's YOUR take and you're welcome to it. I personally TOTALLY disagree as to the lack of emotion expressed, but that's MY take. Whateverglad you liked the book!
"Principles only mean something if you stick to them when they're INconvenient" -
lavashop — 18 years ago(January 08, 2008 05:19 AM)
I am so sorry but though I never read the book, the characters in the movie showed a wide range of emotions for me.
I am extremely pleased with the closeness of the two leads.
It didn't bother me one bit.
I don't agree with you that the two leads had a emotion-less relationship. -
josebut8 — 17 years ago(December 20, 2008 12:08 AM)
The underlying theme of "Coma" is the dehumanization of patients at the hands of the medical profession. The movie exploits this wonderfully in the service of unease (and disease?). It's supposed to be cold and clinical. I think this movie has a great sense of technological paranoia (Chrichton of course). Look at all the cases of organ theft and body-snatching rings out of funeral homes in the 30 years since this movie came out. Did "Coma" predict this, or just give people the idea?
I think Bujold gives a fully three dimensional and warm and yes "emotional" performance in this movie. -
HyperPup — 13 years ago(August 26, 2012 08:34 PM)
@josebut8, the underlying theme of Coma was actually what some will do to keep others alive, IE: create an elaborate system to force certain peoples into donating organs at the cost of said donors lives. Robin Cook said in interviews that as a young surgeon who practiced transplant surgeries, he often watched patients languish waiting for an organ for transplant. He wished that there was an easy solution to the problem but there was none. He then wanted to write a medical thriller about organ transplants and donation but with hospital controversy and politics mixed in. In truth Coma neither predicted or gave people the idea about organ theft and body theft, Coma was merely one way to present a story with ethical ramifications on two sides of an issue that even in the 21st century still plagues us. Do we just allow those in need of organs to die, sometimes painful and lengthy deaths while waiting and hoping for a transplant or do we create a modality where by we increase the number of transplants per year thus saving lives even if it means some may have to die in non-accidental deaths and their organs donated under a veneer of deceit to achieve this goal? Pretty heady stuff if you think about it because as a doctor, you take a Hippocratic oath to do no harm. You cannot ethically kill others for organs to donate but what about those that you can help if it means sacrificing anothers life? From one individual many can be helped through organ donation but there is no manditory rule that states a person must give up his organs upon death. So what to do. Well, in the case of the Jefferson Institute, you create a facade that you are a long term coma patient care facility and when the time is right you take a comatose patient off your roster, harvest his organs and then bid them off and take the cash.
Thousands die every day for no reason at all, where's your bleeding heart for them? -
JRK-4 — 20 years ago(September 12, 2005 07:08 AM)
Great point. People on these boards constantly compare books to movies, and almost always complain how the book was better. Blah, blah, blah. Write about the movie, not about how the movie failed to live up to the book (or your perception of the book).
-
bikebryan — 20 years ago(August 13, 2005 06:15 PM)
There is a vast difference between sleeping with somebody and being in a relationship with them.
In the book he was the resident overseeing her, as either a third or fourth year med student (I don't recall which year she was in, it's been a while). Having worked in a hospital, I can assure you that the supervising resident would NEVER sleep with one of his med students. In unprofessional, unethical, and could quickly get him in tons of trouble. -
mercycroft — 20 years ago(January 18, 2006 06:07 PM)
I just watched the film againfirst time since I saw it on old-fashioned cable in 1980 when I was a wee lassand it's still great.
A couple of points.
First of all, I agree that it's somewhat pointless to always say "the book is better." However, sometimes, the book of a film has additional details that are left out in the film, and sometimes characters and plot points are combined. Often, reading the book helps fill in gaps, or provides even more great story points to those who already like the film version. Sometimes, the book or short story are NOT better than the film, as is the case with Rollerball, which is a much better film than the William Harrison short story, Roller Ball Murder. With Rosemary's Baby, the film is as near exact a represention of the book as I've ever seen. I enjoyed both, but probably loved the film more because it was so brilliantly executed. Just remember, without the source material, there is no movie, however, and book writers deserve some respect not to see their original idea butchered on the screen.
I did not read the book Coma, and don't feel I need to since I really love the film. I think that the way films were made in the 70s just don't resonate with some newer audiences. Instead of overly dramatic moments, abundant close-ups, overacting, and shaky camera music video action, as is often the case in modern thrillers, in the 1970s, everything was way more subtle. I often laugh that audiences today have ADD, that they just can't sit still long enough and really watch a filmeverything has to be WHAM BAM and in your face.
Every era had its style1940s and 50s films were melodramatic, and people back then liked them. Doesn't mean Casablanca sucks, just because it's overly sentimental. The only problem I have with Coma is some of the "convenient" moments that allow her to escape peril (riding on top of an ambulance?), or some that really take a leap of faithsuch as Bujold immediately getting the computer guy to run a check on coma patients. That's really grasping on her part, based only the fact that her friend died and there was a tissue sample done.
Regardless, this was an important film, and one that resonates today with all of the government links to pharmaceutical companies and the medical profession. Thank god we can start and clone organs so none of us have to give up a kidney for some millionaire's son in Texas! A loose quote from the film. -
pasky68 — 20 years ago(February 24, 2006 06:11 PM)
Okay first off I love this thing you've all got going on with the one word that's capitals so I shall use one.
I totally agree with the dude who doesn't like the whole movie / book compare thing.
This is the internet MOVIE database (ha see what I did there) not the book database
This film reminded me of Soylent Green .. the same sort of thing -
org1andrew — 12 years ago(September 21, 2013 01:09 AM)
I'm glad you mentioned the book ending here, as it makes more sense. The movie ending was silly: on what grounds would Dr. Harris be arrested? There's no direct evidence to give to the police that would prove that he himself was involved in the carbon monoxide pump-line. The whole conspiracy runs too deep for a simple 911 call. A huge investigation would have to take place first before anyone would be arrested. And with all that money earned from selling organs, you'd think they'd be able to cover their tracks.
-
Amry0217 — 13 years ago(September 07, 2012 01:41 PM)
SPOILERS
I haven't seen this in.over 30 years, but at the very end, when the doctor gives the supposed wake up drug via thenasal cannula? out of the wall, Michael Douglas had just hooked the hose on the other end onto the correct canister. The assistant reports Genevieve isn't waking up yet, and the doctor says, confidently, "in a little bit", or "give it a little more time" or "she will." believing wholeheartedly she was never going to wake up. But when she coughed, the look on his face..Priceless!! I'll never forget it. I think that was my favorite part of the movie.
He gave her an appendectomy, that was the reason for the operationHe saw her appendix was fine, and made light of it. Oh look here, it's fine. Well let's take it out anyway; these things happen.."
I gotta rent this off Netflix!He lifts me clear to the sky, you know he taught me to fly.
