The original: John Q (2002)
The remake: Tathastu (2006)
How similar are they? Identical, for the most part, except for the sport the son plays.
When young Gaurav faints while playing cricket, they take him to the nearest hospital in Bandra, where Doctors Nita and Sen inform them that their son is dying until and unless he receives a heart transplant with a high cost. A heart is available for transplant but the hospital will perform the surgery after they receive the money in advance.
A desperate Ravi turns to his insurance company, which declines to renew his policy; his employer, with whom he has worked for over 11 years, can't sanction enough. When nothing works out and Dr. Sen informs that his son will soon be discharged, Ravi gets a gun, holds 30 people hostage in the hospital until his son gets the necessary surgery.
Frankly, we’re a little surprised as to why the film was considered successful or popular enough to bother remaking. Actually, maybe that was the main reason… No one would be worried.
Do we recommend the original or the remake? The original is a saccharine bore, so the remake can surely only be an improvement.
Liked This? Then see:
- 6 Bollywood Remakes That Totally Miss The Point
- The 5 cleverest dumb sci-fi action movies ever
- 7 Soppy Rom-Coms Disguised As Man-Movies
Sign up for our free weekly newsletter for the latest news, features and reviews delivered straight to your inbox.
Comments
elmonty
Apr 10th 2009, 14:38
Ehem... You are aware that "3 Men and a Baby" is itself a remake of the (superior, IMHO) French film "3 hommes et un couffin", yes?
Alert a moderator
TurtlesofRhoyne
Jul 16th 2011, 21:03
I hope not, because Benjamin Button is an awful, boring film.
Alert a moderator