05-05-2010, 12:06 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall Jack ever offing anyone who didn't stand in the way of he and his objective. Isn't his big rationale for not following the president's orders that there is a wrong that needs to be righted regardless of whether the "greater good" suffers? Yet, his vigilante-like execution of Dana seems to sacrifice justice and right in favor of expediency (too much of a hassle to turn her over to authorities, besides, she deserved to die, and it felt good!). So, now that Jack is judge, jury and executioner. It's hard for me to reconcile the contradiction.
I think the idea is that JB has finally reached his breaking point, and now is out for revenge, an even looser cannon.
(Didn't they do something similar with the James Bond character in "Casino Royale?" Good character development in that movie, and hat's off to Daniel Craig. But in the end the movie boiled down to a fight over a bag of money. Yawn.)
I think the idea is that JB has finally reached his breaking point, and now is out for revenge, an even looser cannon.
(Didn't they do something similar with the James Bond character in "Casino Royale?" Good character development in that movie, and hat's off to Daniel Craig. But in the end the movie boiled down to a fight over a bag of money. Yawn.)