Pathology (2008)

Overrated and overhyped

Don't listen to the negative reviews

Blistering performances.

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

I'm laid up ill in bed and watched this movie. TWICE. I particularly enjoyed the ending!Whilst many have complained about the wooden acting and charmless characters, I found that I was captivated by the horrific idea that this behaviour could take place at a medical school near me! All 3 main hospitals near me are teaching hospitals and we've had a disturbing number of proved, malpractice stories in the health and social care field in the UK. Therefore the basic premise is not too far-fetched to be credible.The sex scenes were not as disturbing to me watching in 2014 as they might have been if I was younger or less experienced. There were only two, brief Dexter-like sub-plots where the victim's previous behaviour led to their selection for murder. There were no cheap amoral 'tricks' of snuffing out the lives of the very young, very old or euthanasia. I heartily recommend this film. Currently my favourite! horror/murder.

Pathology wasn't too bad. These are my thoughts after watching the film for the first time. Twenty-five minutes in, I kept saying to myself how messed up the film is. It was gritty, violent and a tad oversexed but it had potential. The story was unique- Residents committing perfect murders and being able to cover them up on the job. Not unlike a group of Hannibal Lectors as they harness the craft. Milo Ventimiglia's character was deceiving. I honestly didn't see him turning into one of them- I thought he would have remained a good guy throughout. But his transformation segment is where I turned a disliking eye towards the film. The drugs, the not well-placed sex scenes and the nonchalant attitudes of Doctor's who were committing murder as a game... It all felt like a failed attempt at making the story seem more raw. How cool and collected the four doctors besides Gallo and Grey behaved made them look like incomplete replicas of Tyler Durden; and not nearly as interesting as his character was. Alyssa Milano's character was unfortunately "bland"- almost as if they didn't need to cast a name as big as hers for such a minute role. Her death was something of a surprise, as I had anticipated a typical movie story where the good guy re-emerges inside of Milo and he somehow saves the day for everyone. After she died, I figured that he would do one of three things: (1) Set a trap for Gallo where both of them would take the fall for the fire and Gwen's murder (as with her death, Grey would have lost his raison d'être) (2) Leave the hospital and live on the run (3) or end up getting killed by Gallo making his story somewhat realistic. However, Michael Weston's character is an unrealistic individual. Is it possible for a psychopath to become a doctor? Of course. But a doctor such as him who more than likely grew up privileged, going crazy without anyone of note knowing, perfecting a murder routine at his age (while not having become an established M.D.) with enough charisma for others to follow his lead and displaying the habits of a pimp? It's a bit of a stretch. So keeping that in mind I was prepared for any type of ending and was leaning towards disappointment. Within the last 5 minutes, i was prepared to give the film a 5 out of 10 stars. But the ending surprised me quite pleasantly, I must say. The doctor who had a man-crush on Milo's character coming to save the day- a bit unrealistic but his revere for Grey had been established in the film more than once before this scene ever took place so his involvement in Gallo's downfall wasn't entirely random. Grey's description of his girlfriend's death while a paralyzed Gallo listened as Grey chose to forgo the mercy he showed to Gwen, was sadistically sweet. The ending bumped my rating up one star; I gave it a 6. The writing could have been better and the cinematography was a tad boring but it was a decent story that was portrayed by good actors and the pace was solid enough to tell the story without losing anyone's attention. If I watch it again, I may juggle the rating between a 5 and a 6 only because the surprise is not linger a factor, but overall, it was a decent film.

Ted Grey arrives at University Hospital in Philadelphia as an intern.This piece of drudgery starts with hand-held footage of entitled idiots re-enacting the fake orgasm scene from When Harry Met Sally. The stars of the re-make are cadavers. Funny? No. Indicative of character? Perhaps.At an early group evening at a watering hole, the group starts talking about killing people. Which people would one be willing to kill? They are especially interested in Ted's answer. Soon thereafter, Jake takes Ted to the sickest depiction of a whorehouse that I've seen in a long time.The next day or so, the exemplar cadaver was the bouncer at the whorehouse. Ted is shocked. He swallows his extra knowledge, and comes up with a correct diagnosis of how the murder was committed. He does not figure out that this fellow interns killed the man. Jake was surprised that he did not figure that part out. Ted has his suspicions, of course.With very little nudging (OK, some extortion involved), Ted joins the group. He kills his first. He participates in the post mortems where the group tries to guess the method of murder. He does cocaine with his group. This is a still seems abrupt.In any case, Ted's in harness. How does this group of happy-go-lucky murderers end up? Will the joy of sex after murder fade? Do the police get involved? Are there any responsible, observant adults running the hospital? -----Scores-----Cinematography: 6/10 Well shot considering the overall darkness of the film, which is too dark.Sound: 5/10 I can usually hear the actors' voices, but sound is not really an asset in this film.Acting: 3/10 Milo Ventimiglia was wretched in Gilmore Girls; I expected nonsense and got a bland who-cares performance in this film. Based on his track record, I expected nothing good from Michael Weston, and found him more irritating than usual. Alyssa Milano has the longest record of disappointing performances, but here I saw a short performance that was not bad. I expect to see at least a few minutes of good delivery and dry wit when John de Lancie is a film; that worked well. Johnny Whitworth's performance was purely repulsive: an overreaching bully whose challenges are never met. How did this law-of-the-jungle lout ever get into medical school? His antics in CSI: Miami were not much better.Screenplay: 4/10 In the first ten minutes of the film, Ted seems to be a bright, hard working, decent lad who deserves to be well-recommended. His rapid descent into drug use and serial murder conspiracy seemed unfounded. The autopsy of Gwen by Ted was unlikely; it would seem to me that his doing it would be prevented by protocols. Also, the extracted heart seemed awfully large for a slim woman in good health. This film reminded me of Lord of the Flies, only the adults never show up.

Once again another movie making the erroneous assumption that the lives of psychopaths are interesting. Yeah, they are not. I don't know how to break it to you but murder, sex, and gore are boring without good story. I mean if this was made in 1980's maybe it would be shocking or edgy, but in 2008 it was dated and by 2014 its silly. So what went wrong? What went wrong is storytelling first of all, tale is told predictably and weak. Next failing is the characters, I'm sorry but psychopaths are not cool, psychopaths live stunted shriveled little lives, its a big fat who-cares. The dialog in this movie also sucks, no one except the head doctor dude, played by John de Lancie, has much of anything worth saying- you can't screw up the words in your movie, folks, you need those words to work. Good words have power, for your movie you MUST find the good words.