To me, this movie is perfection.

For all the hype it got I was expecting a lot more!

It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

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!

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.

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!!!