John
Q
Directed
by Nick Cassavetes
Written
by James Kearns
Starring
Denzel Washington, Robert Duvall, James Woods, Anne Heche, Kimberly Elise
and Ray Liotta
118
minutes. Rated PG-13. Original aspect ratio: 1.85:1. 2002
The tagline for John Q poses a valid question: how far would
you go? That's one of the things that I like about this film -- it's a
totally believable scenario. John Q isn't the best film I've ever
seen, by any means, but just by getting off on the right foot with a believable
plot, they win points in my book.
The film,
in case you don't know, is about a blue collar worker whose son, it is
suddenly revealed, needs a heart transplant. Not sure how believable the
"suddenly revealed" part is, but we'll get to that. His insurance company,
being an insurance company, refuses to pay for the extremely expensive
procedure and medication required, so our hero, John Quincy Archibald,
takes matters into his own hands. He locks up the emergency room of the
hospital his son is at and says that unless his son gets a heart transplant
and STAT, he's going to start killing hostages. As I said, totally believable,
that a father's love for his son -- and the bullshit of a HMO -- could
push a man to these lengths.
The film
is mainly propelled by a collection of very strong performances, Denzel
Washington as the protagonist in particular. The entire cast is strong,
but Denzel really carries the movie. His performance is of a good man,
a funny man, a likable man, pushed to do something he doesn't want to do,
and he creates this character with strength, emotion, and again, believability.
He's unsure of himself and of what he's doing, but he's desperate, and
that comes across wonderfully. Robert Duvall and James Woods are strong
as well, although they don't really do anything you haven't seen them do
before. The actors playing the hostages turn in good performances as well
... the entire film is really well-acted.
Which
is a good thing, 'cause the script isn't all that great. I know I said
that they've got a good basis for a story here, but that don't mean squat
when you can't follow through. The film, especially in the second act,
is a lot like John is -- seems to know what it has to do, but not quite
sure of how to get there. It doesn't drag, per se, but it does kind
of stumble around a bit as it tries to figure out what it's going to do
next. There are a multitude of times when John's carelessness, had this
been a "real" hostage situation, would have gotten him killed, but of course
no one takes a shot at him. The one assault the police do throw at him
is a pretty half-assed one, too.
The supporting
characters don't seem to be very well defined, either. James Woods as the
chief of cardiac surgery, and Anne Heche as the head of the board of directors
in particular stand out as being especially one-dimentional. They both
start out as cold, uncaring bastards, then somewhere along the line, with
no warning whatsoever, 
both
do one-eighties and come over to John's way of seeing things. Of course
you've got to get these characters on his side, but can't you do it a little
better than that? It would have been so simple for them to show regret
at having to turn John and his son away, and struggle with the decision
to help, but no, they both seem very secure in the knowledge that they're
doing all they can, and they don't really seem to give a damn one way or
the other if John's son lives or dies. Then, all of a sudden, they care
-- James Woods in particular has a sort of ridiculous moment when he says
"I'm still a doctor!" Boo! Hiss!
The direction
and cinematography are adequate. Nothing really stands out as being particularly
creative or marvelous, except maybe the opening sequence.
Now,
the nitpicky stuff. I find it extremely hard to believe that John's son
would have shown no signs whatsoever of having an enlarged heart
before he does in the film. Your heart doesn't just balloon to three times
it's normal size when you're running from first to second. He would have
had chest pains, fatigue, a whole grocery list of symptoms that no doctor
-- and no father -- could have possibly missed. And yes, it's brought up
that perhaps his doctor was being paid by the HMO to keep quiet about any
symptoms he did find, but I find it hard to believe that this kid never
once said, "daddy, my chest hurts."
Here's
something else -- the woman who's killed in the opening sequence. We zoom
in on a medic alert bracelet she's wearing, presumably letting us know
that she's a donor. That's idiotic! Donors don't have to wear those stupid
little bracelets -- people on medication or with pre-existing medical conditions
wear those, so that if they're brought into an ER and can't speak, the
doctors know what medication they're on, as so not to mix it with another
medication that could have an adverse effect. My uncle has one because
his blood clots in some funky way. My dad has one because he had
a heart transplant. I do not have one. I, and every other organ
donor in this country, have a little pink card in my wallet and a little
pink sticker on my driver's license. I don't wear a fuckin' bracelet!
Anyway,
the acting is really what carries this film. The acting gives it it's power
and it's emotion. 'Cause otherwise, all we've got is a kind of hokey script.
Bottom line: Great acting, bad script
My grade:
B -
My advice:
Fill out your donor card. Oh, the film. Worth a rental.
Get the movie
poster!
