As if a robber would tear the place apart, but leave cocaine that's sitting out in plain sight.
Was everyone in that hospital in on the conspiracy? Too far fetched.
But it's the only time I've ever liked Hugh Grant. I knew he could speak in sentences if he really tried. No mumbling or stuttering.
I guess it's like looking at clouds. You see one thing and I see another. Peace.
Exactly my thoughts...How could the police be so dense? Either someone came to Hugh's place to look for something, or to rob - in which case why wouldn't they take the cocaine?; or someone came in to plant it.
Not everyone in the hospital was part of the game - his boss Jeff and the red-haired female doctor who had called the police certainly weren't. But that becomes obvious only in the end of the movie.
Yes, I agree too. It really defies belief that Guy would be arrested and convicted in those circumstances when his front door is kicked in and his apartment trashed.
shareNot just things mentioned above but isn't there a simple blood test to show he is not a user as they suggested. No one could have thought he was a dealer since he is a doctor.
In fact I started watching the movie and it seemed good but it became a ridiculous comedy of errors. I mean a secret organization would be printing it's name on a plastic bag!? That's absolutely ridiculous. And the old "leg stuck on a rail" is such a dumb cliche.
Forgot to mention another dumb thing. A fly at a secret facility? At first I thought it must have been his imagination, but the movie hasn't resorted to these type of cinematic techniques, so it must be a real fly.
Similarly I had a similar paralyzing injection for surgery. It was below my hip bone. When they remove this thing called a "nerve block" it takes at least four hours to even stand on a leg, that is barely. Would not feel the surface of the skin for at least 8 or more. That goes down the nerve from wherever it is placed. If they put it in his back to give him false lack of feeling.
Just a bs movie. It's outrageous there sh even a moral dilemma there. Most people realize there is no moral dilemma there, that sacrificing people is wrong, objectively, for whatever purpose. Dumb movie.
The facility has doors, doesn't it? I've seen a fly in my office building up on the 15th floor.
It was a bit strange he could suddenly do everything after he was "paralyzed," but I don't think it's that big of deal since we are dealing with medical procedures that aren't even able to happen in real life (at least yet) throughout the movie.
Why is it outrageous that there is a moral dilemma? Do you not think there are doctors out there who have decided to cut corners when it comes to ethics? The issue is that Triphase was dealing with homeless people who it considered to be worthy of sacrifice since few (if any) people would miss them. Hackman's character even points out at the end the issue of curing cancer if you have to kill one patient. Still totally wrong from the standpoint of the oath that doctors take, and I personally believe it's wrong without giving someone a choice, but it totally makes sense that someone would have that viewpoint.
You do make some good points, ok. But regarding the ethic issue, to me it just immediately seemed like a no-brainer. Not because of the oath doctors take, in fact I wouldn't be surprised if many doctors avoid helping random people outside the hospital for legal reasons. It just seems that even the film itself knows that most people would expect that even the sick homeless people have a human right to life. The directors expect that to be the most common reaction because it seems they make a case for it throughout the film.
share