User reviews

While it hardly offers any twists that we haven't seen before, "Extreme Measures" is a well-made, well-acted thriller that has an unusual air of believability. The most effective set piece, which doesn't have all that much to do with the main plot, is the hero's descent into the underground lairs beneath the Grand Central Station. Hugh Grant is very convincing and unaffected in one of his most serious roles, and the ending is not as cut-and-dried as you might expect it to be. But the most memorable moment, for me at least, occurs early on, when a very ill and frightened man, barely able to speak, looks straight into Grant's eyes, pleading for help. (**1/2)

A thriller in the medical world. Generally, doctors abide by the Hippocratic Oath - roughly summarized as "to do good or to do no harm". Hugh Grant as the English Doctor strives to uphold this. Gene Hackman plays the role of the medical researcher, now head of a powerful medical research foundation that can influence police and politicians, believes that medical research is more important than "to do no harm" if in the long run research does provide valuable improvements to medicine. Hackman is the ominous shadow of the German Nazi doctors, 1935-1945, such as Josef Mengele, who carried out abominable medical experiments in order to promote so-called medical advancement. Thus the conflict between Grant and Hackman: Grant the loner, a promising English doctor - a follower of the Hippocratic Oath, thus the moral man, is working temporarily in America to gain valuable medical experience. Hackman, the countervailing force, the ominous medical power with wide ranging influence in public power circles, controls the lives of his captured patients in underground "catacombs", disregarding their concerns in order to achieve his results for the "benefit of mankind" . Sudden deaths, escapes, mysterious liaisons, threats, moral arguing (but only a little as this in a modern American film - historically there was plenty of moral arguing), shootings, and of course plenty of blood are the powerful ingredients to this cocktail. Grant certainly knows how to play convincingly other roles than those "English" ones which rocketed him to the top. Hackman as always is a master of his role. Well worth seeing!

With an Above Average Script from Tony Gilroy and a Surprisingly Effective Against Type Performance from Hugh Grant, this is an Intense Thriller with Ethical Questions and Moral Dilemmas that have No Easy Answers.

It's those Difficult Questions the Movie Asks that makes this the kind of Movie that isn't made often. The Thriller Format is much more Popular and Easily Digested when this Type of Thinking is Not Required. Taxing the Brain is Not Formulaic for the Popcorn Crowd and it doesn't Sell Tickets.

This one is Noble in its Efforts and some Suspension of Disbelief is Required. There are a Few Scenes, most Notably when Grant's Doctor Submerges to the Bowels of the City, that Strain for Realism and one of the Few Times when the Film seems a bit too Hollywood.

But Most of the Movie Plays out some Twists and Turns that are Surprising and the quick Pacing Helps the Film Deal with the Malpractice Elements and the "God Complex" more Easily.

Overall, it is a Thinking Man's Thriller with Good Performances and Good Writing and is only Brought Down a Bit by the Contrived Situations Necessary to make it all Fit into a Two Hour Running Time.

I just saw this for the second time, on telly, and was struck again by how good it is; not great, maybe, but a very solidly written and acted film on an intriguing premiss and leaving the viewer a bit of room to make up their own mind (this is a GOOD THING, in case anyone is wondering). Hugh Grant shows again that he can do more than play variations on this 4 Weddings character - anyone who has seen An Awfully Big Adventure will be well aware of this. And Gene Hackman is as excellent as ever. A word for Elizabeth Hurley, who produced the film, and I think it was her first: a damn good job she did, despite some unsavoury sniping in the British press about her. I'd give it an 8 out of 10

Entertaining, but a lot like "coma" with Michael Douglas. Nothing really original in the movie, apart from the fact that the main person doesn't happen to get into a relationship during the movie and all that sort of sideline nonesense. Funny to see Hugh Grant just cannot help playing an insecure character even if he is playing someone who succeeds in at a very difficult task by being very determined. Moral issues, goodies & baddies with a little nuance, violent climax, happy end.

I enjoyed the suspense in this movie and the ethical debate as well. Hugh Grant, in a rare non-comedic role, was very convincing and Gene Hackman, as always, was first rate. The rest of the supporting cast, notably Sarah Jessica Parker and David Morse, were more than competent in their marginal roles. All in all, 7/10.

Great thriller...which is its proper genre. one of hugh grants best movies if not his best. director michael apted is not known for being a great director and it is an uncommon role for hugh grant. don't miss out on this movie if thrillers are your type of movies...especially good ones. really good pacing, rarely ever a dull moment even though the movie is almost 2 hours long and just like any really good thriller...it has its nail-biting moments. dont miss out on this movie if you get the chance to watch it. hugh grant is really really good in this and gene hackman is his usually solid self. great supporting cast...many faces you will recognize and even tho parts of it was shot in canada, alot of it was also shot in nyc.

Dr. Guy Luthan (Hugh Grant) works at Gramercy Hospital ER in NYC. He gets a patient with an unknown hospital's wristband and tells him about something called tri-phase. His patient body goes missing. He discovers records are missing and he is framed with drugs. After getting suspended, he asks nurse Jodie Trammel (Sarah Jessica Parker) for help. He follows the homeless to their underground world and secret experiments done by neurosurgeon Dr. Lawrence Myrick (Gene Hackman). FBI agent Frank Hare (David Morse) and NYPD detective Bob Burke (Bill Nunn) are also investigating a missing person.

This reveals too much too early. Myrick shows his hand so quickly that the story has only one or two surprises. This could have been great paranoid thriller action for the first half but I'm simply waiting for Gene Hackman to connect the two dots. I'm not sure Hare and Burke make sense. They need to act heavier as the threatening muscle. I also don't understand how these patients keep walking away. They have terrible security. They could buy a bunch of handcuffs. This movie feels manufactured and should be more thrilling.

GOOD - A very interesting story start-to-finish is the main attribute of this movie. It simply entertains, which is what you want in a film. It's also well-acted by the two leads: Hugh Grant and Gene Hackman.

It's nice to see Grant in a serious role for a change while Hackman and David Morse are their usual intense selves. Also included in the cast are Sarah Jessica Parker, Paul Guilfoyle (of CSI-Las Vegas fame) and Debra Monk.

BAD - My objections to the films are: 1 - a few unrealistic scenes such as the meek doctor (Grant) beating up a tough FBI agent; 2 - the FBI guy (Morse) portrayed as a cold-blooded killer (boy does Liberal Hollywood hate any law- enforcement group); 3 - they also get a religious cheap shot in by showing the hateful bad guy at home with a picture of Jesus. The film world's bigotry never lets up.

OVERALL - The unique story and the acting talents of Grant and Hackman make this worth seeing.

The first time I saw this movie back when it was released I just didn't like it but recently 2019 got to see it again and wow, it's a great movie

Summary:

The dilemma that underpins this is whether or not it is right to sacrifice a few for the good of many, particularly when the "few" are represented by New York homeless down-and-outs, and the "many" by wheelchair bound accident victims. In tackling this dilemma a number of cinematic options are open and here the makers opt for the thriller genre rather than a story woven around personal tragedy. But in so doing the moral dilemma tends to take a back seat in order that the thriller approach can grab the audience's attention.

Dr Luthan (Grant) is a bright up-and-coming doctor working in the Emergency Room of Grammercy Hospital in New York. Gunshot wound and drug overdose victims are staple diet for this ER but Luthan's curiosity gets the better of him when one of his patients dies in mysterious circumstances. His subsequent investigation of this death see him drawn into a murky world equivalent to that of good old-fashioned body-snatching. Indeed, even the two police officers he comes up against are Messrs Burke and Hare!

His pursuits lead him into all manner of personal and career crises as he descends (literally) into the Hell beneath the city streets. This leads to his eventual showdown with Dr Myrick (Hackman) who has his own ideas about conducting medical research. And here we are presented with the moral question - to what extent should it be permissible to sacrifice the few for the many? It's also at this point that the use of the thriller genre as a vehicle for the moral question comes a bit unstuck. We have been rooting for Luthan throughout as he overcomes one difficulty after another and, as a result, it is difficult not to side with him when it comes to resolution of the moral questions. Although some efforts are made to help convey Myrick's viewpoint they are really shoe-horned into the scene in which the two doctors come up against each other on level terms. Here the audience is clubbed about the ears with Myrick's viewpoint, a viewpoint rather heavy-handedly reinforced by the presence of his pretty wheelchair-bound assistant.

The ending sees Luthan symbolically ascending the steps to his own "Promised Land", in sharp contrast to his earlier escapades in the nether world. Overall the film was not a bad attempt at involving its audience in the underlying morality issue. But the thriller format and the consequent need, in such circumstances, to have the audience firmly on one side, obscured objective consideration of the issues.

The performances in the main were excellent. Gene Hackman played a very cool and balanced Dr Myrick in such a way that although we are never sympathetic to him, we do recognise his intentions are good - the problem is with the means. Of Hugh Grant, what can be said? He again plays, well, Hugh Grant. He looks more like an amiable, slightly detached Notting Hill bookseller than an overworked ER doctor - but he does so in all his films! David Morse deserves a special mention for his mean portrayal of Hare (of Burke and Hare fame). The direction is well-paced and in the whole thing treats its audience with respect.

I am a big fan of House because of the weekly dilemmas posed. Should we sacrifice a few for the benefit of the many is a question posed in this thriller with J.K. Simmons, Hugh Grant, Gene Hackman, and Sarah Jessica Parker.

Grant, as a doctor who uncovers some shady goings on is out of his usual element and, because of that, it really works well. And, he always seems to have some luscious woman around - this time Sarah Jessica Parker.

Hackman is superb as Grant's nemesis and really makes this a movie worth watching.

My Age: 13

Dr. Guy Luthan, played by Hugh Grant, begins making enquiries when the body of one of his patients who died under suspicious circumstances disappears. There are certain people who don't want these enquiries made. They are led by Dr. Lawrence Myrick, played by Gene Hackman, who is experimenting with people to cure diseases. But he is breaking the law by testing people instead of animals. Guy uncovers this plan and must put a stop to it.

Rather boring throughout most of its length, Extreme Measures isn't much of a thriller. A bad guy shouldn't be trying to do a good thing in a thriller I think, which defeats the purpose of Gene Hackman's character. Characters weren't very well established, but acting was fairly good from both leads, but not so good from some of the supporting actors. A fairly good end to the film makes it at least a fair go, but it is still an unsatisfactory film for me.

Australian Classification: M 15+: Medium Level Violence, Medium Level Coarse Language

Rating: 47 out of 100