17 reviews
Susan Wheeler (Lauren Ambrose) is a medical student starting at her late grandfather's Peach Tree Memorial Hospital. Dr. Mark Bellows (Steven Pasquale), Dr. Theodore Stark (James Woods), and Dr. Agnetta Lindquist (Geena Davis) are some of the senior faculty. Mrs. Emerson (Ellen Burstyn) cares for the coma patients.
A&E remade the 1978 movie based on the 1977 novel into a 4 hour TV mini-series. It's important to note that the paranoia of the era worked great to infuse the original with atmosphere. However this one is much more of a thriller. The biggest logic problem in this one is that it's no longer the '70s. It just seems that somebody would just sue in today's world. But if you're willing to accept that, there is some good thrills to be had here.
A&E remade the 1978 movie based on the 1977 novel into a 4 hour TV mini-series. It's important to note that the paranoia of the era worked great to infuse the original with atmosphere. However this one is much more of a thriller. The biggest logic problem in this one is that it's no longer the '70s. It just seems that somebody would just sue in today's world. But if you're willing to accept that, there is some good thrills to be had here.
- SnoopyStyle
- Aug 31, 2013
- Permalink
As soon as I heard Coma was out on video I had to put it in my Blockbuster at Home queue. After watching it I think it was way below par for Ridley Scott. I know some people have called it a 'mini series' but at almost 3 hours of pointless characters it is anything but mini. I definitely liked the original version better and after talking to a few guys in my office at DISH I know I am not the only person that holds that sentiment. About half way through Coma I took it to the to the Blockbuster store down the street for a free exchange. I paid to watch a movie that night and I am happy I didn't have to do it twice at least.
- anglesmith719
- Oct 30, 2012
- Permalink
- tonyhouston2
- Jun 8, 2013
- Permalink
Well, talk about disappointing.
"Coma" is a two-part miniseries from A&E directed by Ridley Scott and starring Lauren Ambrose, Steven Pasquale, Richard Dreyfuss, James Woods, Joe Morton, Geena Davis, and Ellen Burstyn. Great cast, great director, bad script.
The original coma in 1978 starring Michael Douglas and Genevieve Bujold was more compelling. The story concerns a medical student (Ambrose) who discovers an inordinate number of people at her hospital are going into comas after surgery. Her investigation leads her to the Jefferson Institute, where all the comatose patients live out their lives. Her investigation puts her in a great deal of danger.
In this version, the action in the finale is moved to the Jefferson Institute and takes on horror movie aspects.
Lauren Ambrose has a real workhorse role and does it well as the curious and ultimately terrified Susan Wheeler. In this version, Wheeler comes from a prominent family in medicine, so even though she makes more trouble than Dracula loose in a blood bank, she isn't thrown out, though she manages to get her roommate expelled, someone else fired, and the senior resident set up on a drug charge.
Where Susan in the original was seen as unstable, this Susan is seen as a royal troublemaker. Also, in the original, there was an excellent reason why Susan looks into the comas - her best friend goes into a coma after a D&C. Here, it's someone she used to see at the pool. Frankly, I would have been upset but I don't know if I then would have been borrowing people's IDs so I could violate HIPAA regulations and search patient charts.
What this Coma does give us is a realistic look at the way people are treated in hospitals, including ignoring dying people in the emergency room, neglecting the elderly, and being disrespectful to the dead. These things do go on, which is why it is important to have a family member or friend looking out for you when you are hospitalized.
Coma dragged on and because we never got to know these characters, did not hold interest despite this stellar group of actors, many of whom had very little to do. Steven Pasquale is no Michael Douglas, and his added May-December romance with the psychiatrist played by Geena Davis seemed unnecessary.
As it turned out, watching it was unnecessary too. See the original, which gives us a love story, characters we can relate to, and some good suspense.
"Coma" is a two-part miniseries from A&E directed by Ridley Scott and starring Lauren Ambrose, Steven Pasquale, Richard Dreyfuss, James Woods, Joe Morton, Geena Davis, and Ellen Burstyn. Great cast, great director, bad script.
The original coma in 1978 starring Michael Douglas and Genevieve Bujold was more compelling. The story concerns a medical student (Ambrose) who discovers an inordinate number of people at her hospital are going into comas after surgery. Her investigation leads her to the Jefferson Institute, where all the comatose patients live out their lives. Her investigation puts her in a great deal of danger.
In this version, the action in the finale is moved to the Jefferson Institute and takes on horror movie aspects.
Lauren Ambrose has a real workhorse role and does it well as the curious and ultimately terrified Susan Wheeler. In this version, Wheeler comes from a prominent family in medicine, so even though she makes more trouble than Dracula loose in a blood bank, she isn't thrown out, though she manages to get her roommate expelled, someone else fired, and the senior resident set up on a drug charge.
Where Susan in the original was seen as unstable, this Susan is seen as a royal troublemaker. Also, in the original, there was an excellent reason why Susan looks into the comas - her best friend goes into a coma after a D&C. Here, it's someone she used to see at the pool. Frankly, I would have been upset but I don't know if I then would have been borrowing people's IDs so I could violate HIPAA regulations and search patient charts.
What this Coma does give us is a realistic look at the way people are treated in hospitals, including ignoring dying people in the emergency room, neglecting the elderly, and being disrespectful to the dead. These things do go on, which is why it is important to have a family member or friend looking out for you when you are hospitalized.
Coma dragged on and because we never got to know these characters, did not hold interest despite this stellar group of actors, many of whom had very little to do. Steven Pasquale is no Michael Douglas, and his added May-December romance with the psychiatrist played by Geena Davis seemed unnecessary.
As it turned out, watching it was unnecessary too. See the original, which gives us a love story, characters we can relate to, and some good suspense.
COMA is a 2012 television miniseries based on the Robin Cook medical thriller of the same name. If it seems familiar, that's because Michael Crichton already directed an adaptation in the form of a movie back in 1978. It was a great little film, and the miniseries seems destined to pale in comparison.
Not that this new COMA is bad; it turns out to be quite decent, especially by TV movie standards. The reason it works is that it focuses throughout on the developing suspense and conspiracy situation, which means that it's never less than involving. Yes, there are problems with the direction and the acting, not to mention plenty of hulking plot holes, but the crucial thing is that COMA remains watchable from beginning to end.
Very nearly, anyway; the last twenty minutes or so falls down with a silly, sci-fi scenario which goes against all that's come before. It's something that belongs in a SyFy Channel movie, not this, but at least it's only at the very end that things fall apart.
The young actors in this production aren't bad, but the most fun comes from 'spot the star' in the older cast members. James Woods, Richard Dreyfuss, Ellen Burstyn, Joe Morton and Geena Davis are all present, and there's fun to be had from guessing which of them is involved. It certainly helps to pass the time, anyway.
Not that this new COMA is bad; it turns out to be quite decent, especially by TV movie standards. The reason it works is that it focuses throughout on the developing suspense and conspiracy situation, which means that it's never less than involving. Yes, there are problems with the direction and the acting, not to mention plenty of hulking plot holes, but the crucial thing is that COMA remains watchable from beginning to end.
Very nearly, anyway; the last twenty minutes or so falls down with a silly, sci-fi scenario which goes against all that's come before. It's something that belongs in a SyFy Channel movie, not this, but at least it's only at the very end that things fall apart.
The young actors in this production aren't bad, but the most fun comes from 'spot the star' in the older cast members. James Woods, Richard Dreyfuss, Ellen Burstyn, Joe Morton and Geena Davis are all present, and there's fun to be had from guessing which of them is involved. It certainly helps to pass the time, anyway.
- Leofwine_draca
- Jul 15, 2013
- Permalink
- RobertLThorpe
- Feb 12, 2014
- Permalink
When making Trainspotting Danny Boyle described the film as something of 'a remix' of the source book to allay any fears of viewers who had read and would perhaps feel allegiance to the cult phenomenon of the Irvine Welsh novel. To corrupt that same analogy, this production of Coma is like a bad 80's 12" version of the (rather schlocky) original 70s film. Some scenes are very faithfully/slavishly reproduced to seemingly mimic the original film. I know the source material is the same but exactly the same shots are employed without further thought or creativity. So there is familiarity in places for those who've seen the other one. But the over-riding feel is one of jarring cliché, unrealistic 'lifestyle gloss' applied to the characterisation and art direction and most problematically a lot of condescending exposition and spoon-feeding of plot without any regard for tension or pacing. The cumulative effect is of an overlong, corrosively hallucinatory 'bad trip' with dialogue and acting that create an oppressive air of malevolence that is both reductive and exploitative of the audience.
- stuartwhyte300
- Jun 5, 2013
- Permalink
- tracytucciarone
- Jul 19, 2013
- Permalink
The original is more disturbing both visually and psychologically, despite being made in 1978. But this film, complete with high-tech horror effects and a psychotic performance from Ellen Burstyn, is a keeper. I watched both parts and found it a bit strange why they didn't just release it as a single film. I had the same technical confusion with Bag of Bones with Pierce Brosnan. You do have to seriously suspend some disbelief. While the original has its moments of cheese, and dated 70s gimmicks, it is far more believable than this one. Characters are relentlessly picked off in the most public of places and no one notices. An entire unit of gore and horror lurks in the bottom of a shady medical center and yet, despite a video clip of such horrors being on Youtube, no one issues a warrant to search the place. The victims of the conspiracy in the original were more elaborated upon (including an empathetic and very young Tom Selleck who meets his end in OR 8). Here, the victims are seen after surgery in their comatose states, so we have no connection to the human being who once was conscious and lived. The film underuses a very talented case, which includes James Woods, Geena Davis, and Lauren Ambrose. Their characters needed to be seriously elaborated on. Someone was having too much fun with the FX and not with the emotional meat which was desperately needed. It's more outrageously inventive than the original, but far less plausible or thought out. It's a fun, frightful romp that definitely is a grisly charmer and one to keep though.
- marais-alexander
- Sep 22, 2013
- Permalink
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.
- Minerva_Meybridge
- Sep 5, 2012
- Permalink
- nogodnomasters
- Jul 23, 2018
- Permalink
The fist ten minutes is swirl of atmospheric nonsense. If you've read the book, or seen the original, you sit there mouthing 'what?' ; and if you haven't you'll still be mouthing 'What?', and not knowing why!! Next the alleged protagonist puts it all together within five minutes of working her first day, Amazing! This is a real mess. I am feeling very underwhelmed, and dancing on the cusp of a vegative state. Come on Ridley!!
All these negative remarks and reviews, people are so blind and up their own tails. You have no idea of a good movie or show if you thought this was bad. I absolutely loved it. I didn't discover it was a series until after the first sequence ended and my brother and I were thirsty for more. This was great. People keep turning their backs on material like this and wondering why Hollywood keeps pushing out crappy films. You are the reasons. This was amazing, and i highly recommend it. I haven't seen the original, but maybe that's why people are blabbing out negativity. This show was suspenseful, it drew you in, it had all the elements of a great suspense. If you love investigation shows, like Csi, Er, or House, this show had all those great shows wrapped up in one. I wish they would make more of the series. I love love love it.
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.
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.
- SceneByScene
- Jun 10, 2013
- Permalink
Sometimes it is wise just to let a dead dog lay. As I remember, the first version of Coma wasn't very good. This one is about the same. Overblown to distraction by the Scott Brothers, the TV "mini-series" version features good actors going to waste and almost nothing new.
Yeah, there is a big super tech conspiracy tacked on to the original plot, but even that was tame next to 21st century TV series like Dr. Who or Fringe. Lauren Ambrose was excellent in the lead, but deserves better, and it was a joy to see Ellen Burstyn working, even in a sort of Boris Karloff role. James Woods was good. Geena Davis, Joe Morton and Richard Dreyfuss - what were you thinking?
I watched it On Demand and, like another reviewer here, was grateful that Fast Forward was not disabled.
Yeah, there is a big super tech conspiracy tacked on to the original plot, but even that was tame next to 21st century TV series like Dr. Who or Fringe. Lauren Ambrose was excellent in the lead, but deserves better, and it was a joy to see Ellen Burstyn working, even in a sort of Boris Karloff role. James Woods was good. Geena Davis, Joe Morton and Richard Dreyfuss - what were you thinking?
I watched it On Demand and, like another reviewer here, was grateful that Fast Forward was not disabled.