Jack is a neurotic old man. He never got married in his life. In his later years, he pushed for euthanasia. He believes that people should choose their own death. People should be given this right. This kind of thinking is understandable, but the problem is that Jack wants to help those patients who give up their lives. Does he help people to die, called assisted dying? This behavior has been greatly criticized by people. There is also a lawyer who helped Jack, The lawyer used his knowledge to help Jack come back from the court again and again. Later, because of some things, Jack wanted to promote euthanasia legislation, and then broadcast the video of him helping others die on TV, which attracted huge criticism...
The proposition advocated by Jack is beyond reproach , but he did a series of things because of this claim that eventually broke the law. Just like at the end of the film, a female judge said that no one is above the law.
When it comes to this kind of love and law again, Jack is a doctor, his skills are superb, despite the name of the death doctor, when he did not play the death video on TV, people still tolerated him, but He blatantly challenged the limits of people's tolerance. This is his fault. The trial of the film lies in the person himself, not the euthanasia he promotes. This is where the greatness of the entire film lies.
This completely neutral perspective of the film can make people reflect on many things, for example, in order to show that you are healthy, you can go home and have sex with your wife, but you can't take your wife to the kindergarten children. Papa, your behavior is not wrong, it is the legal right of any married person to have sex with your wife, but in front of kindergarten children, it doesn't matter if you are married or not, are you married or not? My wife, the point of this matter is that you are hurting those innocent children. This example may be extreme, but it is very similar to the situation in the film. Jack's claim to euthanasia has its merits, but the fact that he's videotaping his death on TV for his claim is provocative, so he should be punished. That's what we call the wrong approach.
Many film and television works in Hong Kong can always accurately describe a murderer and a good person. This good person can not be punished by law because of the repeated mistakes of the bad person, so he embarks on the road of crime, which has won people's sighs.
The law protects everyone. Although there are many imperfections in the law at this stage, we can't be an underground judge. This kind of measuring other people's behavior based on one's own values is always briefly expressed in Western movies. For "You think you are GOD." For those good people who have committed crimes, we can only give sympathy, but not praise, because the law cannot tolerate anyone's violation, no matter what the reason is for the person who committed the crime, as long as he commits the crime If you do, you should be punished by the law, there is no doubt about that.
So Jack, the old man, no matter how pure and beautiful his motives, he challenged the limits of people's tolerance, personally killed people, and even broadcast it on TV. So he deserves to be punished.
Recommended index: four stars
Suitable for the crowd: everyone
Original link: http://mijin.lofter.com/post/78fc9_1649c0c
View more about You Don't Know Jack reviews
