Mjeteconer Just perfect...

Pacionsbo Absolutely Fantastic

AnhartLinkin This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

Jonah Abbott There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

doeyehof This movie should have a much Higher rating! Even after 22 Year It is still perfect.

Geoffrey DeLeons This is one of the better medical-oriented thrillers, or even medical-oriented movies in general, and I was prepared to issue it eight stars up until the final scene where Dr. Luthan is walking down the steps of N.S.U. with none other than the person who, very suspiciously, dogged and thwarted him through the movie, his supervisor, Dr. Manko. I was appalled when I saw that, and consider it a script error.Now they are buddies and all is forgiven? Manko was not a part of the conspiracy? Then why were we led to believe, repeatedly, that he was?If that is not enough, what happened next was enough to force me to detract one star and weep for what could have been movie that makes an important and powerful statement for human rights, and humanity in general: When Ruth Myrick offers Dr. Luthan Dr. Myrick's notes (sic), the movie sends a message and projects the erroneous, cynical assumption that in society today, there is widespread approval, by intelligent, cultured, principled people, of the savagery inflicted by her husband.When Dr. Luthan, after all of his diligence and vigilance, actually accepted the research material borne-of-murder-and-torture, it literally reversed and convoluted the established tenor and heart of the picture.It was abhorrent and inexcuseable.Dr. Luthan, when offered the media, had the opportunity to underline, summarize and emphasize his world-view and code-of-ethics, as a doctor of medicine, and as a human being. A great opportunity was missed.Other scriptual wrong-turns; 1.) Placing Jodie Trammel (and her brother) as part of the conspiracy. By-the-way, why wasn't she and he indicted? 2.) The vague notion of "the room". The definition seems to have morphed in the script, from a hospital room of torture to a homeless refuge far underground (with people who never come up to the surface)?Any other movie with these inconsistencies and horrible ending, I would have given 4 or 5 stars to. The promise of Extreme Measures was not fulfilled in the end, but the story is one of great social pertinence and one we should not forget nor dismiss. With "medicine's" singular focus on profit, it is highly likely that something like the scenario described in this movie could take place, performed by U.S. companies in either the U.S. or some other, more-receptive country. This could have been a great movie.

Python Hyena Extreme Measures (1996): Dir: Michael Apted / Cast: Hugh Grant, Gene Hackman, Sarah Jessica Parker, David Morse, Debra Monk: Provocative thriller regarding decisions and consequences. Hugh Grant plays a surgeon who ends up in the underground homeless where people are being tested for medical purposes. Eventually he is framed for a crime he didn't commit. Intriguing plot that is quite graphic but its conclusion asks questions regarding preserving life. Tense directing by Michael Apted who often addresses the human condition and motives. He previously directed Coal Miner's Daughter and Gorillas in the Mist, and this ranks as one of his greats. Grant plays off confusion and anguish in his search for answers and reasoning. Eventually he is put in position where results are a must since his career and reputation are on the line. This is a very different role from his usual romantic comedy roles, and he is backed by good supporting players. Gene Hackman steals every scene he is in as this genius surgeon with costly theories. Sarah Jessica Parker appears in a wheelchair. She is paralyzed from the waist down and looked to Hackman for a cure. Smaller roles are flat including David Morse as an F.B.I. Agent. While the film has plenty of suspense, it is the idea of using people as risks to find a cure that elevate it above standard conventions. Theme ponders whether a cure is worth the sacrifice. Score: 9 ½ / 10

Chase_Witherspoon Watchable but ultimately tripe with mis-cast Brit Hugh Grant playing a pre-eminent ER doctor who happens upon an apparent conspiracy when he treats a homeless man whose fatal symptoms are unlike any ever documented. His life is subsequently thrown into disarray as he's framed, fired and facing the prospect of ruin, decides to seek out those responsible and uncover their motives.Strong cast includes Hackman as the eminent professor somehow linked to the mysterious death, David Morse as a shady FBI agent and JK Simmons as a doctor mentored by Hackman. Parker and Grant are out of their depth, and both badly miscast, perhaps courtesy of Liz Hurley's influence as producer. The dialogue is abominable and no matter how hard he might try to convince you he's a fully fledged doctor on the edge, Hugh's anxious f-bombs all miss their target.It's technically well made, features some moments of genuine tension, but is so clichéd and contrived that the ethical dilemma proposed by the plot just can't withstand the patent idiocy of the execution. Interesting idea, just lacks the depth, refinement and core casting needed to make it vaguely plausible.