Moustroll Good movie but grossly overrated

FuzzyTagz If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

Hayden Kane There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

Sameer Callahan It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

PWNYCNY This movie offers a non-sensationalized account of the career of Dr. Jack Kevorkian. Although the movie is not unbiased, it still manages to avoid becoming an outright polemic arguing in favor of assisted suicide. The movie presents both sides of the issue. The title character, Dr. Jack Kevorkian, is portrayed as a victim of a justice system that is too inflexible and biased to afford him justice. Hence, he is treated as a criminal for doing something that he believes is beneficial his patients, which is assisting them in exercising their right to die. Dr. Kevorkian is portrayed as a crusader for patients' rights which he claims are being ignored by a medical establishment that would rather permit a patient to die in pain than to end the suffering. Kevorkian's argument is compelling. The problem is, as depicted by the movie, that Dr. Kevorkian is assisting his patients without any outside controls as would normally be expected for any kind of treatment modality. This leaves him vulnerable to criminal prosecution which occurs, thus effectively ending his medical career. Al Pacino's resemblance to the actual Jack Kevorkian is uncanny; his performance is outstanding. He captures Kevorkian's rage, sense of indignation and his commitment to his cause. There is no question that Dr. Kevorkian believed that he was doing right by his patients. He knows that he is going it alone and that it is only a matter of time before he is stopped.

punishmentpark A biopic that is at times really hard to watch, but does an admirable job in telling things as they are - even if it is 'just' a movie. In America, this issue is still... an issue, in Holland... it also still is (pain, suffering and death will not be eradicated from life with a changing of the law, even if it may of course help considerably), since recently a doctor took his own life after euthanizing a patient under (alledged) suspicious circumstances and being investigated by a medical board. Still, the rules áre more humane here than in America, with exception of a few states (though it must be assisted suicide, not euthanasia, something which would be unthinkable in Holland). It can be made to be a difficult subject of debate, but here (in the film) the conditions for euthanasia are clear and, for instance, Kevorkian turns down about 97% of the requests and a man who is 'simply' depressed, is refused as well. Sure, he paints macabre paintings and he has a strong tendency to make life as difficult as possible for himself, but he has great wit and a tough history to overcome. I should say 'had', may he rest in peace.Back to the cinema. Al Pacino plays a captivating Dr. Kevorkian, and Vaccano, Goodman, Huston and Sarandon assist wonderfully. With its runtime well over two hours, it is no small feat that it does not bore for a minute; not only is this story interesting and challenging, but it is told with great care and calm and does not repeat itself at all. Every new case adds a new element to the story of Kevorkian's struggle for a basic civil right. Visually I really liked the film, too; sober and grayish, though it has atmosphere in spades.A good 8 out of 10.

chaos-rampant This is a remarkable little movie in its odd way. You have a man who wanted to change the world for the better, a doctor. He had some reasonable but gnarly ideas, including blood transfusion from cadavers. He may not had been Galileo as perhaps in his moments of persecution felt some kinship to, but he did argue for reason and science and tried to make life better.The snag is that he had vision of a sort but he was the worst possible guy to explain to the world. No one would listen until he went out on his own and did it. And the only reason anyone listened was because he made films about it, filmed his patients. So how about this for a deeply cinematic subject?The point is that reason, facts or ideas, do not change the world. Being able to present it as part of an appealing story does.You'll see this in the film for a clear effect, in Kevorkian having sound ideas but no one is really willing to be convinced, since he presents them in such a morbid , confrontational way, until he pulls out his films. It is the emotional story in those films that moves the jurors, the theatrics of conscience on display.The film is the same theatrics offering the same cry. We are the jury.Al Pacino was just the right man for the job - playing a favorite part of aging actors, the frazzled old person, he nails the right balance between visionary flame in earnest and slumping human shell in his baggy pants. DeNiro would not manage, not anymore.

Petri Pelkonen This is a movie about Jack Kevorkian (1928-2011).He became known as "Dr. Death", being a physician-assisted suicide advocate.You Don't Know Jack (2010) is a TV movie directed by Barry Levinson.Al Pacino does a tremendous job as Jack Kevorkian.I saw on TV him winning the Golden Globe from his role , and Mr.Kevorkian was in the audience.It was a really sweet moment.John Goodman gives a fantastic performance as Neal Nicol.Brenda Vaccaro is terrific as Jack's sister Margo Janus.Susan Sarandon is brilliant as Janet Good.Danny Huston is marvelous as the lawyer Geoffrey Fieger.In this movie you also see Jack being interviewed by Barbara Walters and Mike Wallace, who passed away last month.The movie raises an important question, the euthanasia question.Is it right to end the suffering of a patient, or should it all be left in the hands of God or something.This movie is clearly on Jack's side, which is only understandable.And this movie does a great job bringing out the point of view.The trial in the end, where Jack works as his own lawyer, is drama at its finest.Really a great movie.