jongru

So we have this real-life doctor who's a bit eccentric, huge moustache, ear-rings, claims that he isn't in medicine for the money. Let's give it the Hollywood treatment. Who should play the lead role? Why, Robin Williams of course - we don't have the imagination to find any new acting talent, we'd rather go for the same formula that worked so well in Dead Poets Society. Being in the movie industry we don't really understand the medical profession so let's fall back on some familiar stereotypes, namely: (1) doctors are only in it for the money and status (2) doctors only see their patients as pieces of meat (3) doctors feel threatened if you suggest they should smile at their patients (4) medicine ought to be free to everyone and if it was, then everything would be all right. And let's pretend that Patch has some sort of original philosophy that we can all learn from: let's set him up as a guru and let's take the credit for discovering him.

There's nothing in this movie that is true or original. Worse, it misleads the viewer. Worst of all, it offers glib tear-jerking scenes that offend your intelligence. Grade: 2/10. Avoid like the plague.

I haven't read the book, and maybe you need to if you want to appreciate the story properly. All I could see was a Dynasty-style plot about a man trying to bring himself to seduce a dying rich girl so that he could inherit her money, then having terrible qualms about it, as you would. None of the characters seemed to have any personality. It's worth watching if it's on TV free of charge but I wouldn't go out of my way to see it. But if you have never seen Helena Bonham-Carter's bare bottom...

I'm surprised by the negative comments. I found this film engrossing and very well scripted. Yes, it was a bit stagey, as you'd expect of a stage drama translated into a movie. Maybe your reaction depends on your preconceptions. I was at university in the mid 70's and it all seemed to ring true for me. The male teacher who speaks as he writes using wooden and formulaic ideas and theories, little seeing how his ideas relate to real life and emotions. The female student, taking his words too literally and perceiving them as an attack on herself from which she must defend herself. Usually the teacher is in an unassailable position of power, able to humiliate the student with a poor grade. Here, the student empowers herself, uses the system and destroys the teacher because in this debate there's no mediator to ensure fair play, only the audience watching powerlessly. I think it has a lot to tell us about academic debate, and is among Mamet's finest work.