Slashdot Mirror
Movie Review: John Q
The plot is pretty simple. Denzel Washington plays John Quincy Archibald, a beleaguered working class guy in Chicago whose hours at the factory have been reduced and whose car has just been repo'd. He is catching guff about money from his wife (Denise Archibald), and the couple has a cute and loving kid Mike (Daniel Smith) who collapses during a baseball game.
It turns out that Mike needs a heart transplant, which the nasty hospital administrator (Anne Heche) informs John will cost $250,000, an operation his insurance policy doesn't come close to covering. The Archibald's sell of nearly everything they own to try and raise the money to pay the hospital and the greedy, uncaring surgeon (James Woods) and as Mike slips closer to dying, John snaps and takes over the hospital emergency room.
Robert Duvall plays Lt. Frank Grimes, an aging hostage negotiator undermined by his idiot boss (Ray Liotta). Almost everybody in this movie is a cliche -- the uncaring administrator, the political and bumbling police chief, the saintly, too-good-to-be true John Archibald, whose solution to his very valid complaints about the American health care system -- a solution much endorsed by the movie -- is to get a gun and take over the emergency room while patients bleed and give birth. Even while holding hostages at gunpoint, Washington's character is noble, even saintly. Washington is a great actor and he is a likeable hero here, but the plot just takes too many loopy twists and turns. Everyone in the film is either a cartoon villain or a noble lifesaver really to preach about the evils of HMOs at the drop of a gun.
The best parts of the movie, not surprisingly, occur when Duvall and Washington are sparking off one another. But unaccountably, there are so many silly plot contortions that the power of that great pairing is lost. Director Nick Cassavetes and writer James Kearns twist their movie into a pretzel trying to deal with all of the potential racial, class and political sensibilities. To balance all the evil doctors, there are some wonderful ones.
To avoid the appearance of hitting racial issues too hard, Archibald's friends are all white. In addition to the stupid police chief (is any authority figure in America ever competent in a Hollywood movie?), there's a woman-beater and an airhead, vain TV reporter.
I won't give away the ending, but it's fun watching the moviemakers wrestle with a dilemma of their own making. The movie seems to be saying that the best way to deal with your insurer is to get a weapon and take some hostages. Unlike the heroes of Dog Day Afternoon, perhaps the classic modern hostage movie, John Archibald is saintly and noble enough to run for President. So what becomes of our Dad/kidnapper? You'll have to see the movie to find out. It's entertaining, and it's almost sure to be a big hit. But even a superstar can't mask a silly story.
Stop telling us about the latest crappy movie you've seen. It wore thin a long time ago.
Start telling us about some of the good movies you've seen. Show that you know how to do something more than bitch about how none of the movies these days live up to your l33t intellectual needs, and maybe you'll start seeing posters do more than bitch about what a moron you are.
Just a thought.
Complaining about the US healthcare system? You should take a look at the Canadian system. Around here patients die not because they don't have enough money but because they have to wait a year for a surgery. Some nurses are even refusing to work, others are getting sick. It's a freakin disaster.
Ok, so the kid needs a heart transplant. It's not as if there are tons of matched hearts laying around and one only needs 1/4 mill to get them.
IIRC, hospitals must treat patients regardless of whether they have insurance or not in a life-or-death situation. If the kid was going to die, he would have to receive the heart transplant.
Now, medications and stuff are a whole different story. And, again IIRC, I do not believe heart transplants have a very long life-extension rate. I am rather sure that folks don't live forever with them.
One would think the sheer fact that it is a child would complicate the situation more since a child obviously could not get an adult's heart. So the hospital would need a child of a similar age's heart that was also compatible with the kid's blood type.
It's hard to speak out on an issue using an unrealistic circumstance. Considering that we live in a free market, the fact that so many people who can't afford the level of care they receive are actually getting it.
This is sort of like the senior prescription drug stuff. Elderly individuals that did not live their lives planning to live so long, can be kept artifically alive via medication. What happens in society if we figure out a way to add 20 more years to a persons live (but of the quality that most seniors suffer^H^H^H^H^Henjoy now). Is that a good thing and more importantly, whose going to pay for it?
int func(int a);
func((b += 3, b));
First, for those who want a real review, try this page.
I will give Jon credit where credit is due: His overall description of the movie, though poorly written, isn't too far off the mark. But as usual, there's some important information left out. For example, one of the reasons that the director became involved in the movie is because his own child was on a donated organ recipient list. An important tidbit when trying to understand why the movie may be the way it is. Background research never hurt anyone, Jon. If you're gonna use Slashdot's bandwidth to review a movie, at least try to make it somewhat insightful.
Speaking of which, why is this review even included on Slashdot? What is the "geekiness" factor of this movie?
John Q is contemporary Hollywood's idea of an issue movie: preachiness hiding behind a superstar.
*sigh*
Better read as "Jon Katz is Slashdot's idea of a columnist: preachiness hiding behind a Net celebrity."
to what end will you take this ridiculous argument? why don't you fly off to some 3rd world nation and feed the poor and hungry instead of going to work?
My 'ridiculous argument' centered around sending fifteen bucks to a charity that you believe in.
How this is prohibited by "our current sociopolitical and economic systems" is a bit beyond me.
Have you considered the fact that you may just be being a cynical asshole?
The world *is* a slightly better place when you do something for someone else, no matter how small it is.
Wasn't it Ghandi who said "Almost everything you will do is meaningless, but it is still important you do it." ?
Our "current sociopolitical and economic systems" allow for plenty of ways to help people in third world countries. It allows for people from those countries to become educated and economically viable. But then again, you'd probably just call that imperialism, wouldn't you?
I'd venture to say that nobody reading this, you and I included, would be doing as well as we are, living where we live, able to read, with access to decent medical care, had it not been for some act of charity or kindness by someone who didn't have to do it.
Attitudes like yours are a disgrace.
-- My Weblog.