一位年輕的女醫(yī)師蘇珊菲勒,其好朋友因簡單的手術而陷入昏迷狀態(tài);然而在她服務的醫(yī)院中,也有許多類似的病人,在經過簡單的手術后呈現(xiàn)昏迷, 這些病患被送至另一機構集中照顧,但是蘇珊菲勒發(fā)現(xiàn)事情并不如她所想......
American Science Fiction author Michael Crichton’s second venture into filmmaking after dipping his toes in grinding out a futuristic WESTWORLD (1973) which is in dire urgency of a retrofit (here comes HBO’s popular TV series), COMA is not from his own novels, but transposed from his friend Robin Cook’s book (which also receives a TV re-interpretation in 2012), it cleverly taps into a paranoia-driven (our mortal fear about hospital and surgery), conspiracy theory routine that takes place in a major hospital in Boston and is headlined by our tenacious heroine Dr. Susan Wheeler (Bujold).
After her best friend Nancy (Chiles) succumbs to a brain-dead coma after a minor surgery, Susan acutely sniffs some goings-on on top of the statistic hokum of bad luck, her pursuance of the truth will duly encounter mounting resistance, butnothing can hold her back, neither the bureaucratic pressure nor a ruthless killer trailing her among the cadaver-riddled hospital rooms in the witching hour. She even goes out on a limb and sneaks into a formidable institution on her lonesome to finally solve the puzzle and miraculously finds an exit route. Yet, just when we are astounded by her moxie and wits, she predictably makes a fatal mistake and throws herself on the mercy of the vile ringleader to be silenced on the operation table by carbon monoxide poisoning, only to be rescued by her knight-in-shining armor in the eleventh hour, as an ostensibly female-centered trend-bucker, that final phallocratic deed is tastelessly self-defeating.
What is more excruciating is the portrait of the aforementioned knight, Susan’s boyfriend and colleague Dr. Mark Bellows, played bya flip Michael Douglas, often gratingly plays the contrarian whenever a stressed Susan propounds her theory, and Crichton rams the hovering question into his audience by implicating that he might be complicit in the whole backdoor human organ trafficking, simply to pull off the kicker and feather the movie’s deceitful macho nest, don’t forget, he is the one who would rather staying in his car and leaving Susan alone to visit the sinister-looking facility in the first place, plus, if he were really such a perfect dreamboat, it would not have taken him until that later phase to realize that something is amiss.
While it is the imagery of horizontally floating comatose patients (all young, fit bodies, for practical and aesthetic reasons), that chiefly subsists the film’s dimmed allure, there is no denying that apert and competent Ms. Bujold makes for a strikingly sympathetic heroine, in spite of Crichton’s carefully veiled comments on women liberation, as Mark frustratingly mutters, he should have fallen in love with a nurse instead, which strikes her as a frigid, lippy woman whose femininity is subdued by her own aptitude.
Finally, two supporting turns are worth singling out here, an authoritatively stern Rip Torn can always give us goosebumps even without uttering one single syllable; whereas a blink-refrainingElizabeth Ashley knows perfectly how to put impersonality to the fore, her Nurse Emerson could be intricately computer-manufactured herself, to more align with the drift of Crichton’s works.
referential film: Crichton’s WESTWORLD (1973, 5.7/10)
當時就奠定了我對懸疑片熱愛的基礎……
中字甚爛。Jerry Goldsmith很擅長這類驚悚配樂。00:41:30-00:44:30金毛Ed Harris XDDD
故事比較公式化,醫(yī)學背景和陰森的研究室內景讓人脊背發(fā)涼,兩段深入虎穴的冒險戲拍的出色
Michael Crichton是描繪近未來惡夢的高手,觀影過程始終保持著極強的壓迫感,甚至可以容忍情節(jié)上的各種硬傷。通風管道和人體懸掛都是影響至今的經典場景。
反烏托邦杰作,充分反映出那個年代美國人的心理焦慮和不安全感。最終這個陰謀的目的是什么已經不重要了,卻有兩點給人的印象極為深刻:一是女主角在探求事件的真相時表現(xiàn)出的勇氣和行動力;二是整部影片的懸疑氛圍給人留下的人人自危的感覺。新好萊塢真乃一座金礦,完全兼有思想深度和藝術風格。
為Michael Douglas而看,情節(jié)一般想到了,沒想到居然有這么多熟臉跑龍?zhí)?,咕咕?/p>
早期引進中國內地的一批外語電影之一,原版小說coma在美國1978年出版之時就已經是著名的暢銷書。電影如今看來依舊有著令人引人入勝的節(jié)奏和氛圍,充滿著消毒水味的醫(yī)院里似乎暗藏著什么神秘的陰謀,接二連三昏迷的病人令女醫(yī)生不斷生疑,然而越是深入的調查越是會受到無形阻力的警告。電影的情節(jié)現(xiàn)在看來比較簡單,因此后面幾十分鐘都變成了女主角與反派貓捉老鼠般的追逐戰(zhàn),這在老驚悚片里也算是標準橋段了,現(xiàn)在看來實在老套。結局道格拉斯飾演的醫(yī)生在千鈞一發(fā)之際拯救女主角于危難之中,顯得倉促而無趣。這部電影作為醫(yī)療題材驚悚片有一定的開創(chuàng)性,不過可看性早已隨著時間的流逝而逐漸淡去。看看上譯配音版也算是別有一番風味。
70年代能有這樣的創(chuàng)意是有多超前,想想去年某類似題材韓國電影還得到一些人共鳴,確實最近幾年的韓國電影單從敢于自黑的角度來說還是很值得稱道的。再說這部配樂不錯,但是劇情張力不夠,僅僅只靠幾個設下的鋪墊更直接說就是幾個鏡頭來推進。PS:女主年輕的時候長的很像《行尸走肉》的瑪姬.
還是在電影院看的 無聊的恐怖片
3.5,邁克爾·克萊頓總是懷念那些舊好萊塢的類型神話,即便在《昏迷》這部嘗試將生命政治、陰謀論、女性主義等一切可能讓《銀幕》期刊偏愛的類元素混入一爐的政治驚悚片中,隨著影片進入后半部分,配樂從陰沉的底軌突然間浮現(xiàn),并控制影片的節(jié)奏之時,它便成為了另一部《西部世界》,動作取代空間作為主導機制,醫(yī)院空間轉變?yōu)橐粋€充滿技術裝置的紀念碑谷———克萊頓甚至沒有仿效最值得模仿的奧爾德里奇黑色電影。試問還有什么處理方法能比把政治電影的體制之惡簡化為西部片般的追殺、對決更為愚蠢呢?比起設想邪惡的大他者,政治驚悚的恐怖感恰好來自于這個體制的中心是空無的,或者說沒有一個具身的主體,正因如此,周遭的一切才可以被動員起來,不過好在結尾最后一個鏡頭足夠復雜多義。
小時候2000年左右看的 竟然是78年的電影!!果然前衛(wèi)!??!
邁克爾·克萊頓編導羅賓·庫克暢銷小說,邁克爾·道格拉斯主演,但邁克爾克萊頓雖然是好作家,卻不是好導演,把個一波三折高潮迭起的故事拍得平平淡淡,女主角又選錯人,找了文藝向的Genevieve Bujold,看著她實在緊張不起來。。。
小時候看的,當時覺得還不錯,現(xiàn)在看2011年的新版
節(jié)奏掌握的不是很好,略慢,沒有顯現(xiàn)出緊張的氣氛。
故事和結構還是可以的 速度慢了點 幾個沖突沒點破 年輕的道格拉斯沒有演技啊 女主也是曇花一現(xiàn)
78年的片子拍的像90年代的,氛圍控制的很好。這導演的職業(yè)生涯主要身份是編劇,對醫(yī)療行業(yè)熟稔,這個醫(yī)療黑幕主題的驚悚片還有些女權意識。不過整個故事順下來有些不合理啊,男主遲鈍的表現(xiàn)不矛盾么?
78年的片子了,故事題材其實還不錯,可是片子到一半怎么就這么水了,本來還挺懸疑的劇情怎么一下子就讓人根本看不下去了,人物的設置與作為也傻得可以,觀眾用屁股都能猜出來誰是背后BOSS,女主居然還2B到親身去自投羅網,不過道格拉斯年輕時還真挺帥氣的,吊人那場景挺科幻挺經典的,現(xiàn)在還有片用!
很小的時候家里還用錄像機的時候翻來覆去看過好多遍,一個非常大的房間里很多人通過一根管子漂浮在空中的畫面震撼極了
題材前衛(wèi),放到2022年也毫不過時。這種題材國內拍不了,好萊塢現(xiàn)在也不拍了。當醫(yī)生掌握絕對權威,面對金錢利益時,病人就有徹底淪為搖錢樹、小白鼠的風險(結合湘雅二院劉翔峰有感)。
大神早期就這么愛秀醫(yī)學術語了.劇情簡直鬼扯,不過混搭了女權運動后的時代色彩,70末做作的男女談情橋段,道格拉斯年輕時很俊,tom selleck這醬油打得...