not horrible nor great

Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

Not bad medical drama hampered by the fact that for a great deal of the film Spader's character behaves like an idiot. This isn't the actors fault, he gives as good a performance as possible considering the actions forced on him by the script. He is certainly supported by a high quality cast in almost every role. Kyra Sedgwick is annoying and not terribly convincing but she is the lone sore spot. Helen Mirren is wonderful as an understanding and compassionate nurse and Albert Brooks a stitch as a loony doctor well past his sell by date. The script has many holes but it does make a strong plea for doctors seeing patients as people not just science projects and sources of income.

Werner (James Spader) is a resident at a large city hospital. He's just learning about the politics behind the supposed goal of saving lives, something his colleague, Stella (Helen Mirren) is already savvy on. This is especially true when Werner meets a beautiful young model (Kyra Sedgwick) whose father is a comatose patient at the hospital. It is the model's opinion that her father should be taken off life support; her sister insists that the father communicates with her (by squeezing her hand) and that he can recover. Although the model seems sincere in her concern for her father's state, it turns out that she will inherit a large sum of money upon his death. Which way will the winds blow through the halls of the hospital? This is an awful movie, just awful. For those attracted to the smiling Spader and Sedgwick on the video's cover, get over it. Although the actors are not the film's weakest point, they do an I'm-working-for-a-paycheck job at best. (How they convinced Mirren to join the film, I'll never know). And, there is absolutely no comedy in the film at all, just one depressing scene after another. Lumet, despite his reputation, is to be faulted mightily for the poor direction, and the script is beyond abysmal. Do not waste your time with this movie, unless you just want to see what a film "bomb" really is. It is a failure, and not even an interesting one, at that.

Well I liked this a lot. I have only seen THE NETWORK so far from the same director and I am more willing now than before to check more. Thought provoking as few films can be & having a context dealing with many interesting, philosophical topics, this will probably appeal to the majority of serious film fans. Located in a hospital, it comments on euthanasia, doctor's and medical personnel everyday life, medical care VS. money but then again, much much more.Not long before the end, and after some smart religion-centered dialogs, I was a bit disappointed by the "religious" overtone given mostly the "nun"-character, but in the next scenes the film delivers again...Highly recommended, but it can be a bit depressing at times for the very sensitive ones.

This film takes its place beside many comedy/dramas touching on the inadequacies of the medical profession, such as Otto Preminger's "Such Good Friends (1971)" and Arthur Hiller's "The Hospital (1971)." Though the comedy here is not as "black" as those films, which concentrated more on the incompetencies of some doctors and nurses, "Critical Care" finds its humor in the insurance-driven medical profession today. Albert Brooks is absolutely wonderful as the epitome of a doctor caring only about the bottom line. His only concern is whether or not a prospective patient has medical insurance, and his decision to keep a comatose patient with no chance of recovery alive is based solely on the fact that the insurance company pays $9,500 per week ("cold cash") if he's alive, and zilch if he dies. Conversely, an emergency patient has very little priority if he has no medical insurance. The reason to see the film is Albert Brooks, in a much different role than he usually plays.The setup is a bit contrived, but is easily forgiven. I also enjoyed the brief roles of Wallace Shawn as the devil (called "furnaceman" in the credits) and Anne Bancroft as sort of an angel in a nun's habit.