It is rare that a movie actually changes the law. Usually, cinema is just a mirror, reflecting our problems back at us while we eat popcorn in the dark. But the In Broad Daylight film—or Bak Yat Heung Ha as it’s known in its native Cantonese—didn't just want to be a piece of art. It wanted to be a sledgehammer. Released in late 2023 and gaining massive international steam through 2024 and 2025, this Lawrence Kan-directed masterpiece tackles something most people would rather ignore: the horrific abuse within private care homes for the disabled and elderly.
It’s a tough watch. Honestly, it’s gut-wrenching.
But here is the thing about this specific movie. It isn't just "inspired" by a true story in that loose, Hollywood way where they change everything but the names. It is a meticulous, almost forensic reconstruction of real-life investigative journalism in Hong Kong. Specifically, it draws from the 2015 and 2016 exposes regarding the Bridge of Rehabilitation home. When you watch it, you aren't just seeing a script; you're seeing the ghosts of a systemic failure that left the most vulnerable members of society in the hands of monsters.
The Journalism Behind the In Broad Daylight Film
We have to talk about the protagonist, Kay. Played by Jennifer Yu in a performance that basically defines her career, Kay isn't your typical cinematic hero. She’s tired. She’s cynical. She works for an investigative unit in a newsroom that is slowly dying—a reality many journalists face today.
The plot kicks off when she gets a tip about a care home called "Rainbow Pine Villa." What she finds there isn't just "poor care." It’s systemic dehumanization. We see residents being tied up. We see them being left on a rooftop, naked, waiting for a communal hosing down because it’s "more efficient" than giving them individual baths. It’s a scene that stays with you. It’s meant to.
What makes the In Broad Daylight film so effective is how it portrays the "why." It’s not just about one "evil" person, though the superintendent, played by Bowie Lam, is deeply unsettling. It’s about the money. These homes are businesses. When the government underfunds social care, they outsource it to private contractors who prioritize profit margins over human dignity. If you can save five dollars by not buying enough adult diapers, you do it. That’s the cold, hard logic the film exposes.
Real-Life Parallels: The Bridge of Rehabilitation
The film is a thinly veiled retelling of the scandal surrounding Cheung Kin-wah. In real life, Cheung was the superintendent of the Bridge of Rehabilitation. He was accused of sexually assaulting a resident with an intellectual disability.
👉 See also: Album Hopes and Fears: Why We Obsess Over Music That Doesn't Exist Yet
The most infuriating part? In the real case, the charges were stayed because the victim was deemed mentally unfit to testify. The film doesn't shy away from this legal nightmare. It shows the limitations of a justice system that requires a "perfect" witness, even when DNA evidence exists. Watching Kay struggle with the fact that telling the truth doesn't always lead to a "win" is perhaps the most honest portrayal of journalism I’ve seen in years.
Why the Cinematography Matters
Most social realism films look grey. They look depressing.
But Lawrence Kan and his cinematographer, Leung Yuen-fai, chose a different path. The movie is often bright. Overexposed. It’s literally "in broad daylight." This is a brilliant subversion of the noir trope where crimes happen in shadows. Here, the abuse happens right in front of everyone. Neighbors see the residents on the roof. Government inspectors walk through the halls. The sunlight acts as a spotlight on collective apathy.
It’s a visual metaphor for the fact that these atrocities aren't hidden; we just choose to look away.
The pacing is also erratic in a way that feels human. We spend long stretches just sitting with the elderly residents. We meet Ming (played by the legendary David Chiang), who feigns dementia to cope with his reality. These moments are slow, quiet, and deeply empathetic. Then, the film pivots into a high-stakes thriller as the news team tries to verify their sources before the print deadline. It’s a jarring shift, but it captures the frantic nature of investigative work perfectly.
Critical Reception and Global Impact
When the 42nd Hong Kong Film Awards rolled around, people expected this movie to sweep. It did incredibly well, especially in the acting categories. Jennifer Yu took home Best Actress, and David Chiang won Best Supporting Actor. But the real victory wasn't the trophies.
✨ Don't miss: The Name of This Band Is Talking Heads: Why This Live Album Still Beats the Studio Records
After the In Broad Daylight film hit theaters, it reignited a public conversation that had gone cold.
Hong Kong's Social Welfare Department faced renewed pressure. People started asking: What has actually changed since 2016? This is the power of "social impact" cinema. It forces a re-examination of policy. The film highlights how the Residential Care Homes (Persons with Disabilities) Ordinance was fundamentally flawed. It showed that even if a home’s license is revoked, the residents have nowhere else to go because the waitlist for public housing is years long.
Debunking the "Misery Porn" Label
Some critics initially worried the film would be "misery porn"—a movie that just revels in suffering for the sake of drama. I disagree.
The film is incredibly careful with how it shows violence. It focuses more on the psychological weight of the abuse and the indignity of the situation than on graphic visuals. It’s about the loss of agency. When a resident is forced to eat a meal they’ve already vomited up, the camera doesn't linger on the bile; it lingers on the resident's eyes. It’s about the soul, not just the body.
Honestly, if it weren't for the moments of humor between the journalists—the "kinda" messy office politics and the banter—the movie would be too heavy to bear. Those light touches make the darkness survivable for the audience.
A Comparative Look at Social Realism
How does this stack up against other "protest" films?
🔗 Read more: Wrong Address: Why This Nigerian Drama Is Still Sparking Conversations
Think about Spotlight or the South Korean film Silenced (2011). In Broad Daylight shares that DNA. However, it feels more cynical. In Spotlight, there is a sense that the truth will set you free. In the In Broad Daylight film, the truth is just the beginning of a very long, very exhausting fight. The ending of the movie—which I won't spoil—is divisive. Some find it hopeless. I find it realistic. It acknowledges that a single newspaper article can't fix a broken society overnight.
It’s a story about the "good fight," even when you know you're probably going to lose.
What You Should Take Away From This Movie
If you’re planning to watch it, prepare yourself. You’ve got to be in the right headspace. It is currently available on various streaming platforms depending on your region, and it’s a must-watch for anyone interested in international cinema or social justice.
But beyond just "watching" it, there are real-world lessons here.
- Support Local Journalism. The film is a love letter to the people who spend months chasing a story that might only stay on the front page for 24 hours. Without Kay and her team, those residents would have died in silence.
- Audit Care Facilities. If you have loved ones in private care, the film is a reminder to be hyper-vigilant. Check the staff-to-patient ratios. Look for signs of "physical restraint" that aren't documented.
- Pressure for Policy Reform. The systemic issue in the film is the lack of public care beds. Private facilities fill the gap, but without rigorous, unannounced government inspections, they become lawless.
The In Broad Daylight film isn't just a movie you watch and forget. It’s a call to action. It’s a reminder that the "monsters" in our society don't always hide in the woods; sometimes, they wear lanyards and work in well-lit buildings in the middle of the city.
Basically, the film asks one question: Once you know the truth, can you really go back to pretending you don't?
Practical Next Steps for Viewers
- Watch the 2016 Documentary Footage: If you can find the original news reports from HK01 or Apple Daily (before its closure) regarding the Bridge of Rehabilitation, watch them. It adds a layer of chilling reality to the film's performances.
- Check the Credits: Pay attention to the dedication at the end of the film. It honors the whistleblowers and the journalists who risked their careers to bring these stories to light.
- Research Current Legislation: Look into the 2023 amendments to the Residential Care Homes Legislation in Hong Kong. See how the "In Broad Daylight" effect actually translated into increased penalties for abuse.
Don't let the credits be the end of the experience. The film is a tool for awareness; use it to look more closely at the care systems in your own backyard. It’s easy to think this is just a "Hong Kong problem," but the privatization of elderly care is a global trend with similar risks everywhere.