Spidersecu Don't Believe the Hype

Pacionsbo Absolutely Fantastic

Bessie Smyth Great story, amazing characters, superb action, enthralling cinematography. Yes, this is something I am glad I spent money on.

Skyler Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

ikeybabe I loved the cast. There were some really stellar actors in this TV mini series. I remember the original Coma and that was spooky to me, being a kid at the time. This version was all right. I was moderately entertained. I did keep guessing as to who the bad guys were, because there were a bunch of possibilities. There was plenty of creepiness here and the modern upgrade with the technology and the look of the comatose victims was pretty cool. Overall, I'm glad I watched this. It was worth the time and it was nice seeing Lauren Ambrose, who was in one of my very favorite series (HBO's Six Feet Under). It was nice seeing the dude from FX's Rescue Me too. The chemistry between the two wasn't so real, however, but it was palatable.

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.

Rich La Bonte (flatrich) 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.

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.