Harrison Cheung
I promised not to bitch about crappy movies people should not waste time seeing, but HBO’s premiere of “You Don’t Know Jack” (not a crappy movie), left me a bit on the fence. All I can say is that I almost loved the whole thing and I was looking forward to it this weekend, but my jolly movie-loving bubble was burst towards the final minutes of the film. The best things about the film, and there are many: Al Pacino (as Dr. Jack Kevorkian), in an another memorable role; another words, Al giving a performance in the amazing category, minus the signature yelling Pacino made famous in the 90s. Susan Sarandon (playing Janet Good) is always fantastic, always getting under the viewer’s skin and keeping it all new and unexpected every single time. So glad seeing John Goodman (as Kevorkian’s buddy, Neal Nicol) popping up in great roles. Remember, he worked with Pacino in “Sea of Love” (1989) and their buddy-factor on the screen worked then and it works today. Danny Huston seems to often play the sneaky, dare I say sleazy guy. But he plays a goody in this one. Well, O.K. he plays a lawyer but we get to see him in a refreshingly interesting, do-gooder role as Kevorkian’s attorney Geoffrey Fieger,(and that hair!!!)
Director Barry Levinson doing what he does best, which is telling a good story about extraordinary people, without forgetting the small personal details which help in understanding the main character. Those little yet crucial things are simply ignored in some bio-pics, yet Levinson finds them while he seems to be directing from afar without looking like a forced hand making insertions into the production. His movies flow freely and easily even when dealing with the subject of assisted suicides. The Levinson production quality is impressive as always, and it seems like an effortless, rewarding process.
Everything held my interest up until the final 3-5 minutes where I think the film sent mixed messages. It missed the mark; the one having to do with freedom of choice, or basic human rights. If anything it navigated the viewer into a hole of confusion. Afterall (and regardless of where Dr. Kevorkian took a morally questionable u-turn), what was achieved by sentencing the flamboyant doctor to a lengthy prison sentence and then having him freed a few years after? Was justice served? Did “god” win? Did it…, Does it make a difference in the lives of total strangers, not directly effected by such terminal illnesses??
I understand open-ended statements, and the film trying to be as polarizing as its subject, Kevorkian, but this very film needed to reach a conclusion, even if it took sides on the man and the issues it presented.
– HenryK