Noutions Good movie, but best of all time? Hardly . . .

CommentsXp Best movie ever!

ChanFamous I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

Cunninghamolga This is a gorgeous movie made by a gorgeous spirit.

edwagreen James Coburn stars in this 1972 film about a doctor, who is unconventional, taking a position at a California hospital and soon becoming involved when the head administrator's daughter dies after a failed abortion and an oriental doctor is charged with her death.Coburn goes the limit in attempting to prove the innocence of the accused doctor and of course there is romance, violence and the question of doctors performing abortions. (Remember this is before Roe vs. Wade.)Pat Hingle co-stars as a tough detective and we see a family of doctors, consumed by their own contempt for others.

lazarillo James Coburn plays a pathologist who is investigating the death of the fifteen-year-old daughter of the chief of medicine, who has died of a botched abortion that has been blamed on his colleague (James Hong), who is an illegal abortionist on the side. A lot of people today would be horrified of a movie where the hero is actually trying to help out an abortion doctor. But this was 1972 and people tend to forget that everything wasn't all bright and wonderful back when abortion was still illegal either (I don't personally take a side on the abortion debate, but I have a problem with people on either side who think the issue is in any way morally clear-cut and unambiguous--it's not now and never was). But before anyone goes bemoaning "liberal Hollywood", there's also a real "Dirty Harry" element to this movie, like a scene where Coburn essentially tortures information out of a drug-addicted suspect by denying her treatment. This particular scene should offend liberals everywhere (as well as anyone else who's ever heard of the Hyppocratic Oath).But the fact that this movie might offend both conservatives AND liberals is exactly what I liked about it. The real world is morally messy and no one person is ever 100 percent morally righteous, and the many, many Hollywood movies that try to make things morally simplistic and their protagonists morally pure actually do a great disservice in many ways. Of course, the moral complications in this particular movie seem to be more the result of a confused production than anyone's clever intentions. Still I always find an interesting failure like this much more enjoyable than a boring success (like whatever old TV show they're making into a major motion picture this week). And in 1970's Hollywood there was a whole string of these kind of interesting failures, which is why I find that whole period so fascinating.This movie definitely has some problems as other have said. Jennifer O'Neil is completely wasted, and the basic plot is riddled with holes (i.e. noboby but the protagonist notices that the botched operation was very obviously not the work of a trained doctor). Coburn isn't bad though, and this movie does kind of anticipate both "Coma" and the popular TV series "Quincy MD". Not good, but interesting, and certainly worth seeing.

moonspinner55 Curiously mediocre, middle-of-the-road film from director Blake Edwards, adapted from Michael Crichton's novel "A Case of Need," has James Coburn (cocky as ever, and enjoyably so) playing the new pathologist at a Boston hospital, sorting out the mystery of a young murder victim. Light drama keeps tongue-in-cheek yet has aspirations to be a whodunit and doesn't quite make the grade. Coburn's general panache is effortless, but he's just coasting through, and the role doesn't challenge him (or us) in any way. Jennifer O'Neill is attractive but (once again) underused as a romantic interest. Screenwriter Harriet Frank used the pseudonym James P. Bonner for the credits--just as original writer Crichton did (as Jeffrey Hudson) for his book! **1/2 from ****

inspectors71 I've seen Blake Edward's The Carey Treatment twice since its airing on CBS in the mid '70s. I don't remember a lot of the details, but I am fairly certain that it was a pleasant and engaging medical/crime drama, although it looked TVish even for TV. I watched it with my grandmother of all people--she didn't like anything suspenseful because it aggravated her angina--and Nana gave it the ultimate compliment, "This is a good shoot-em-up!" To my grandmother, all movies, with or without firearms, that had suspense were "shoot-em-ups." The film was based on a work by Michael Crichton, but I can't recall if TCT has some of Crichton's trademarks--an ensemble casts of flawed, believable characters and a technology-heavy story. Instead, there's someone killing people, with a hospital as background and James Coburn looking very cool (and a bit Crichton-like in demeanor).See, I really don't remember much but for the fact that I enjoyed it.It appears you can't get the film at Amazon (although I haven't checked Netflix). That's too bad, because a cheap copy or a quick rental of this small mystery movie would be fun and enjoyable.Just remember to bring your little pills, okay?