Recensioni degli utenti

I would say that this movie is very interesting.

May doctors let a patient die? Is it right to keep a person who wants to die alive?

These are two questions which this movie handles, and you have the possibility to agree or not. But wether you like the idea of letting a patient die or not, the movie really makes you think about all the angles in this case.

I would rate it 8/10.

Richard Dreyfuss is typically mercurial as an artist who is involved in an auto accident and is paralyzed from the neck down; he fights for his right to die with dignity while laid up in his hospital room, causing consternation amongst the hospital staff. Adapation of Brian Clark's celebrated (if thin) stage play--whose leading character has been portrayed at different times by both male and female actors--is given a fairly tight direction by John Badham, who seems unaware that Dreyfuss' sculptor can be awfully obnoxious on occasion. Still, the material has strong moments, and the supporting performances by John Cassavetes and (most especially) Christine Lahti are top-notch. Attempts to "open up" the stagy action tend to falter, with a pot-smoking sequence that is simply extraneous, yet it's a moving and satisfying picture, if somewhat aloof. **1/2 from ****

Based on a play of the same name, Richard Dreyfuss plays Ken Harrison, a very talented and vibrant sculptor who meets with tragedy one day when he's involved in a near-fatal car wreck. He ultimately learns that he will be dependent on being trapped in a hospital bed for the rest of his existence, paralyzed from the neck down and only able to move his head. Though Ken has a strong spirit and is basically good-natured, he cannot accept the fate of never being able to perform his craft again and seeks to be set free and allowed to die. His doctor (John Cassavetes), however, is a gruff but dedicated man with strong principles who feels he has a responsibility to preserve life rather than destroy it, and thus fights Ken every step of the way.

I first saw this controversial John Badham film upon its initial theatrical run, and it didn't get a DVD release until 2007, which then went quickly out of print, and that's a shame. It cost me a bit much to get the now-rare DVD, but it was worth it to me because I think it's such an involving movie. Richard Dreyfuss has one of his best roles, and it's amazing that he manages such a good performance when you realize that the actor himself was going through the flu at the time of shooting, and by his own admission has stated that he now has absolutely NO RECOLLECTION of making the film, as he was also heavily addicted to drugs at the time (which nearly killed him). It's quite mind-boggling to think that a person could be starring in a movie which is primarily focused on the value of life as its subject, all the while risking his own life with drug abuse simultaneously in between shooting. I really like John Cassavetes as Dr. Emerson in this story; he's got a professional yet snide demeanor that really makes him effective as the villain of the piece. Christine Lahti shines as another doctor taking care of Ken Harrison, who at first cannot sympathize with his plight but gradually becomes receptive to his feelings. The relationship between the Lahti and Dreyfuss characters is one of the strongest assets in the film. ***1/2 out of ****

This masterpiece is one of my all time favourite films. Richard Dreyfuss plays an unforgettable role as the exuberant and creative sculptor who becomes paralysed from the neck down after a car accident and argues for his right to be discharged from hospital so that he can end his life.

The entire cast provide great performances including Christine Lahti, John Cassavetes, Bob Balaban but it is Richards Dreyfuss which makes this film as brilliant as it is. He takes you on a journey where the viewer actually feels pain when he is in pain, we feel sad when he is sad and laugh when he laughs.

Although the movie is about the right to die, it is not at all depressing. It is a movie filled with raw emotion, love and humour. Definitely a must see movie

This film could have been great, except for some serious scripting and characterization problems. Many of the characters are stereotypical, wafer-thin portrayals, particularly the head doctor who wants to keep Dreyfuss's character alive. The "party scene in the hospital basement" is not only cliched, but nobody got fired or got in trouble (the Jamaican nurse in particular) for smoking dope in a hospital, and taking a quadraplegic patient out of their bed without permission in the middle of the night? Give me a break!

Finally, Dreyfuss's decision to "remain in the hospital to die" at the end... the judge's ruling was specifically that he be released (writ of Habeus Corpus), not that he be allowed to die without treatment in the hospital!

These serious problems (particularly the latter, where he decides to stay in the hospital) just about ruin the film for me. Never mind that there's never much of a real sense of suspense or genuine emotion here, and everything plays far too liberally off (melo)drama generated by the Dreyfuss character's decision. I'll give it 6/10, and I feel like I'm being generous. Comes dangerously close to trivializing the issues portrayed in the film, and occasionally crosses the line... if it weren't for much more honest films with subject matter just as difficult (like "Dead Man Walking") I might be more forgiving and just chalk it up to the best Hollywood can do with this sort of material, but I know better.

Events in your life can shape and change you...sometimes radically. Before my heart attack and triple bypass I rated this 8*. Now, it is a most resounding 10*! In "Whose Life" the life-altering event for sculptor Ken Harrison (Richard Dreyfuss in an outstanding performance) was a traffic accident that left him quadriplegic.

About 6 months after the fact, Harrison begins to to realize that not only his sculptures, but his perception of the world, its interpretation and his own self-image had been shaped through the use of his hands. Of course, his hands "died" on the day of the accident, and therefore, Harrison concludes, so did he.

The film focuses on both his day to day struggle to cope with his unbearable condition and his confrontation with the hospital administration, or at least with its decision-making chief medical officer, Dr. Emerson (John Cassavetes-turning in a fine performance), who is intent on keeping Harrison in the hospital and under its care, against his will, even if that means declaring Harrison incompetent.

Christine Lahti also has a supporting role. The film is highly effective but not pretentious or preachy in the least.

10*STARS*.....ENJOY/DISFRUTELA!

Any comments, questions or observations, in English or Español, are most welcome!

This searing black comedy is probably the only film out there where a person's right to self-destruction is regarded as a "happy ending".

Richard Dreyfuss plays Ken Harrison, a sculptor by profession, who is paralyzed from the neck down after being involved in a near-fatal car accident. Harrison, now a quadriplegic who's basically confined to his hospital bed, burns with bitterness (and bedsores) over his utterly hopeless condition. Like nothing else, Harrison so desperately wants to die.

Believe it, or not, this film was actually surprisingly upbeat. It featured excellent performances from the entire cast, which included John Cassavetes and Christine Lahti.

"Whose Life Is It Anyway?" was the faithful screen-adaptation of Brian Clark's highly-popular Broadway play.

GEE.... What ever happened to RICHARD DREYFUSS ANYWAY???

BUT FIRST... Let us FOCUS on the Title´s Content and Context:

Oftentimes...Events in your life can shape and change you... sometimes radically! Before my heart attack and triple bypass I rated this 8*. Now, it is a most resounding 10*********! In "WHOSE LIFE" the life-altering event for sculptor Ken Harrison (Richard Dreyfuss in an outstanding performance) was a traffic accident that left him quadriplegic.

About 6 months after the fact, Harrison begins to to realize that not only his sculptures, but his perception of the world, its interpretation and his own self-image had been shaped through the use of his hands. Of course, his hands "died" on the day of the accident, and therefore, Harrison concludes: SO DID HE!!!

WHOSE LIFE focuses on both his day to day struggle to cope with his unbearable condition and his confrontation with the hospital administration, or at least with its decision-making chief medical officer, Dr. Emerson (John Cassavetes-turning in a fine performance), who is intent on keeping Harrison in the hospital and under its care, against his will, even if that means declaring Harrison incompetent!

Christine Lahti also has a supporting role. The film is highly effective but not pretentious or preachy in the least!

10*STARS*.....ENJOY! / DISFRUTELA!

Any Comments, Questions or Observations, in ENGLISH o en ESPAÑOL, are most WELCOMME!

I was born in 1997 and a couple of years later I was diagnosed with Spinal Muscular Atrophy: Type 2.

Since I can remember myself I was not able to walk, move my arms by myself, being able to eat whatever I wanted (my swallowing was weak), move my head without having to be afraid that it would fall off to the side if I wasn't careful and so on. I was somewhat capable of doing things by myself and for anything else I needed my parents would help me out. I didn't mind being stuck on a wheelchair and not have the freedom to be independent for the rest of my life as long as I was partially limited by my disability. I woke up, my mom dressed me, put me on the wheelchair and we went to school. There, I could do everything by myself or with the help of my classmates/friends.

After I finished Elementary school my disability got progressively worse. One day, I was at my grandparents' house and I got sick. I got so sick the next day I couldn't breathe. And I couldn't breathe because SMA mainly affects the lungs, and mine were so weak at that point that no matter how hard I was trying to cough, the mucus inside my lungs couldn't come out and eventually blocked my trachea. Long story short - My parents came, I passed out on the way home, we went to the hospital (which to my BAD luck was on the way going home) and I am bed-bound with a tracheotomy and a ventilator ever since. All that happened when I was 14. I am currently 23. All I am able to move now are my eyes and my right thumb which I am currently using to control my trackball mouse. That's it. My whole life and mental health depend on a computer.

I could tell you more but it's very tiresome writing with one finger. Just know that I feel EXACTLY the same as Ken in this movie. But unlike him, I will never have a girlfriend, a job that I like, or the option to die and be free of this useless body.

I enjoyed this movie, I like Richard Dreyfuss and Christine Lahti never looked more stunning. The subject matter of this movie is dark, so was it plausible for the main star to take his plight so lightly? The arguments made at the end of this movie were both intelligent and very well done with both sides presenting their views with equal intensity.

Years before Dr. Kevorkian brought the right to die into the national spotlight and made it a subject of public debate, Richard Dreyfuss's magnificent performance and Brian Clark's wonderful screenplay made the most cogent and realistic fictional argument I've seen on the issue. Dreyfuss is, without a doubt, a stellar performer -- in everything from "The Goodbye Girl" to "Mr. Holland's Opus," he consistently excels, but watching this movie again, I was flabbergasted by his ability. Using nothing but his head, he managed to evoke a stunning range of emotions. In my opinion, this is one of the better movies made in the last twenty years of the twentieth century.

I am a great fan of Richard Dreyfuss. This, by far, is his best role. I am in healthcare and this movie handles the issue of dying with dignity and quality of life with brilliance. I really wish everyone would watch this great movie.

A brilliant performance by Richard Dreyfuss...and wonderful performances by Christine Lahti and John Cassavetes and Bob Balaban and Kenneth McMillan. I've watched this movie a number of times since it came out and it never fails to move me. Since I don't, and never have, worked in a hospital I can only believe that some of the events are a bit far fetched [jamming in the basement and smoking dope, for example] but getting past them, you have a riveting story. A battle for a human life. He wants to be allowed to die and they are determined to keep him alive. There are many wonderful moments, especially the hearing, that express the notion that both/neither is right/wrong. But whatever side you take you can't be disappointed by this moving story and these moving performances. In my opinion, 10/10.

Ken Harrison, a young sculptor in his early thirties, is seriously injured in a road accident. End of story.

"End of story", that is, in the sense of "end of any physical action". Not in the sense of "end of the film". Ken's life is saved, but he is paralysed from the neck down. When he discovers that he is unlikely ever to regain the use of his limbs he decides that he wants to die and asks the doctors to end the medical treatment which is keeping him alive. The rest of the film is essentially one long debate about the rights and wrongs of euthanasia and the right to die.

Ken's main antagonist in this debate is his doctor, Michael Emerson. Although the case against euthanasia is often presented in religious terms, here it is presented in purely secular ones. If Dr Emerson has any deep religious convictions, these are never expressed in the film. He believes passionately, however, that death is an enemy against which it is his duty as a doctor to fight; to allow a patient effectively to take his own life would represent a surrender to that enemy and a dereliction of that duty. Ken therefore finds himself in a "Catch-22" situation. He must be able to show that he is sane and rational enough to make the decision to end his life. Emerson, however, considers that a wish to die is in itself evidence of insanity and irrationality. Ken's dilemma can only be solved by hiring a lawyer to sue the hospital.

Richard Dreyfuss as Ken and John Cassavetes as Dr Emerson put across their respective points of view skilfully and with sincerity, but this cannot hide the fact that "Whose Life is it Anyway?" simply does not work as a film. At one time filmed versions of stage plays were done in a similar way to theatrical productions but by the seventies and eighties this was often seen as unsatisfactory because of the differences between the two media. When plays were filmed, therefore, the general tendency was to "open them up" by filming on location as well as on studio sets, by taking liberties with the playwright's text, often making significant changes to the plot and even introducing extra characters.

I have never seen Brian Clarke's play, but I suspect that this is a story that would work better in the theatre than in the cinema. There is very little physical action; most of the action consists of lengthy discussions around a hospital bed in which the main character lies paralysed. Such a plot does not lend itself to the "opening up" device at all, and the resulting film is very static, dominated by talk at the expense of action. Although it is well written and there is some good acting, I am surprised that a film was ever made of such an uncinematic subject. 4/10

This film is among the best of all time. I've seldom seen a movie in which all actors -- from the star to the smallest bit player -- deliver such forceful, realistic performances. I felt as if I were actually in that hospital room with Ken Harrison et al. While the film, which is about a sculpture who becomes a quadriplegic in a car accident and then decides to die rather than live life in that condition, has a seemingly depressing plot line, it is actually uplifting. Richard Dreyfus has the remarkable ability to infuse the main character with humor as well as sadness. It is a tribute to the director, writers, and actors that this movie, which could have easily been a maudlin weepy, turned out to be a paean to the indomitable human spirit.

Sane people can have the desire to die, it's an indisputable fact. In arguing why, "Whose Life Is It Anyway?" tries to balance a dispute so personal, that it seems bound to fail. And yet, it does not! The story features a sculptor who is left paralyzed after a wrecking car accident and ends up in a most undesirable situation. His status renders him incapable of being the person he once was and found in the impossibility to reconcile his former self with his current condition, Ken Harrison decides to die.

His quest is, most obviously, a difficult one. The doctors do not support him in his decision and in this debate - doctor::patient - it is where the film conjures the most solid arguments in its plea. Going beyond the usual ethical components of this choice, the film manages to assert a very personal position to the main protagonist, which therefore makes the whole experience one of anguish on a very personal level. And this is where it makes its point: there is no universal justification for death and the world has no right to interfere in the sphere of anyone's consciousness. Perhaps it is at times overly dramatic and it treats the subject with tantalizing care, but in the end, I felt the film balanced all the facts concerned in a convincing and compelling way, vividly portraying the painful demise of a strong mind in face of the cruelty of destiny. It might seem to take a stance on every man's right to choose his fate, but in the matter at hand (whether death by will is right or wrong) it emits no absolute messages.

Beyond everything, Richard Dreyfuss sustains an authentic feeling of intellectual pain, in his convincing performance. And it is only in pain and suffering that we can look into ourselves to understand how much we are willing to bear in this world and what makes us be. Suicide I do not believe a solution, but then again, I am on the other side of the river, where things seem filthy green, rather than nothing at all. We are so alone in death and pain, that nobody can truly claim to understand us.

This movie moved me from horror to laughter to tears. I can't believe Richard Dreyfus doesn't remember doing this film. His performance was magnificent. He was so believable in playing this role of a quadriplegic. This movie pulled me in to it and wouldn't let me go until the end. If they ever try to do a remake, I believe it may be hard to fill in this role with just any other actor. I compared it to the movie "million dollar baby". Each was special in it's own way, in one, you spend more time getting to know the person before her accident while the other with Richard Dreyfus, you didn't get to know him very well until after his accident which happens right near the beginning. By the way, that special effects car accident was spectacular.

This film is simply as close to perfect as I'd ever want a movie to be. The entire cast is impeccable. Even Khaki Hunter (the Porky's movies) gives a wonderful performance.

Richard Dreyfuss is amazing. He gives his most complete performance while only able to use his head. Bob Balaban, as a stuttering attorney is amusing. Christine Lahti and Janet Eilber make you want to cry. The only thing wrong with this movie is that it had an ending. It didn't need one. We could have been left to ponder the enormous question, right along with the judge, as the credits rolled.

This film may well deal with a taboo area of medicine which of course is patients control over their own death. The film deals with a very morbid subject area without descending into difficult viewing.Richard Dreyfuss's delivers a continum of comedy while not betraying the feeling of hopelessness felt by his character. Other than great dialogue and acting the film leaves the viewer questioning common sense notions of the rightieusness (probably spelt wrong sorry) of medical professionals as well as acknowledging the reality that the institution of medicine is a new religion that dictates its own values on the less powerful subjects in its claws (claws is too much isn't it). Great film!!!

This is a great movie for future nurses, etc. also saw Gross Anatomy, Chicogo Hope, and other medical related programming .....THANX for the inspiration / look up John Cassavetes, too.....He was the Medical Director, in Who's Life is it, Anyway, indikaur@khalsa.com "e" me, later. I really enjoyed the fact that it was in real hospital and actress nurses, possibly real ones, too and the close ups of equipment, and that crazy orderly, going' after SN as well as mini tours of that hospital when he was on the way to other areas within hospital, if you could tell me which hospital is was, I'd be grateful and the name of the school of nursing, too .....

Boston sculptor Ken Harrison (Richard Dreyfuss) is paralyzed by a car accident. He is left a quadriplegic. It's six months later and there is no improvement. Mary Jo Sadler is the young, inexperienced, new nurse and Rodriguez is the veteran. John is a friendly orderly. Dr. Clare Scott (Christine Lahti) is concerned about Ken and Dr. Michael Emerson (John Cassavetes) is the hard-nosed supervisor who insists that he knows what's best. Ken drives away his supportive dancer girlfriend Pat. He hires lawyer Carter Hill (Bob Balaban) to sue for his right to die.

This is an amazing character played by an icon. It's as simple as that. The emotions are all on display despite the character's limitations. It is a compelling performance and very human.