If you have seen the original "Coma" and were not in a coma during the first 10 minutes of the film, you should have it fairly well figured out except for some slight nuances.Susan Wheeler (Lauren Ambrose) is a third year hot shot medical student and now an intern. Her grandfather was the legendary Dr. Wheeler who is remembered by the older staff. She quickly discovers something wrong is going on the hospital, the only question that remains is who can she trust. This should have been a a movie that examines the moral and ethical questions of "death panels", the common good, and embryonic stem cell research. Instead it only glosses over the topic and then inanely makes a mockery of the whole thing.It is really ashamed because they had good actors to support this script and failed to deliver the goods. They managed to turn scenes which should have been shocking into the mundane.Made for TV, TV-14 This should be a free film for Amazon Prime. I predict it will soon make the bad horror film muti-packs.

--SPOILERS! -- I loved the original "Coma" with Bujold and Douglas, and I liked this version, too. Or would have liked it. It was a bit slow-paced, and could have done without the bizarrerie associated with the obviously mental guy who was chasing Susan around, but other than that, it was well-acted and great fun to watch -- that is, until the character of the evil head of the Jefferson Institute was shown praying the Rosary. I mean, really?! Any Catholic who's Catholic enough to pray the Rosary would know that Church teaching prohibits doing evil so that good can come from it, would know that murder is a sin, would understand very well that one doesn't put people into comas in order to conduct medical experiments on them, and so forth, so why, WHY, did the powers-that-be just have to make that character a "Catholic"? Haven't we had enough of this sort of nonsense? Why does Hollywood have to constantly poke at Christians -- Catholics in particular? Would the director have gone out of his way to depict that character wearing a Star of David or as an obvious practitioner of Islam? Why is it not OK to do that to folks of religions other than Christianity? Why is Christianity singled out for this sort of treatment?I am sick of this sort of thing. It really is disgusting. And it's too bad, too, with regard to this particular movie because, as I said, it was otherwise enjoyable. Sigh.

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.

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.