Review of John Q (2002) by Matthew F — 14 Aug 2009

My low rating of John Q is not based on the acting, which was very good, most especially from Denzel Washington. I remember watching John Q around 2004 or 2005. When I watched it for that first time I was more enthralled with the acting and feel-good outcome than with anything else, and I probably would have given it a much higher rating that first time. I just recently watched it for the second time, almost five years later, and I now can't believe how irresponsible and manipulative the story is. I am one of the proponents of fixing the absolutely hypocritical and broken health care system in America. However, I (unexpectedly) found myself agreeing with Anne Heche's character that if they allow John Q to get a heart for his son because he's got a gun and holding people hostage, that would lead to more people around the country doing the same. I don't want to see people taking that route, not because I don't feel for them or think they don't deserve to get health care or that the health care industry is in the right, but because of the possible collateral damage and unintended misery that would be caused to everyone involved.

There are significant ethical and legal issues that John Q raises, however the director and writer present them and do not explore them. Instead, every outcome is pleasant and heart-warming. They're more interested in getting the audience to cheer rather than to think about the consequences. Because of the completely unrealistic ending, we are not shown the true consequences of John Q's actions, when he basically gets a slap on the wrist. Let me tell those of you who felt so good after watching John Q, that if you yourself were to take a gun into a hospital and demand anything (while also willingly holding hostages), I guarantee that you will not get the same treatment or outcome that John Q gets. That's why I think John Q's ending is so irresponsible.

Despite the best efforts of the actors, the director and writer dropped the ball in making this no more than a completely false feel-good story that was designed to warm the heart and not stimulate the mind. They end up cramming all of the political ramifications and musings on the whole situation into a 15-second clip of a collection of people like Jay Leno, George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton, Bill Maher (and others) talking about the very problems that the movie introduces but does not explore. Strangely, the only politically poignant clip is from Maher, but it comes at the end of the clip and starts to get drowned out. He says that the way to solve the health care crisis doesn't come from government, but from the people. But since the American people are so averse to even the most minor tax increases, health care will continue to get away with the terrible things that it does.

A movie like John Q should be poignant and relevant in these times, as the Obama administration fights a very valiant fight in order to solve the health care crisis, but sadly, the consequences and routes that John Q takes is a poke in the eye of trying to solve anything because it paints a rosy picture that simply would never play out in reality. The way to fix health care is not to storm hospitals and force them to treat us for free. I'm not standing up for the health care industry, I'm just saying the simplest solution is not force, but more akin to what Maher says in his little clip at the end.

One last thing that made me squirm when I watched John Q a second time was the time spent on the little girl who was probably not much older than John Q's son. The director put that in obviously to juxtapose how awful John Q's family will feel if their son dies and that John Q should do everything in his power to not make that happen. But why is his son any more deserving than that little girl, or any other child? John Q isn't asking for that, but the director didn't need to add that part in, because it raises that question. Why does one person deserve more to live (or have free health care) than any other? Conversely, why shouldn't rich or older people also receive the same? They're humans, just like John Q's son, just like the poor people that John Q (the movie) is trying to make a stand for. It's an uncomfortable question, and is yet another example of the director and writer starting something they were not willing to answer or explore more deeply.

John Q represents a movie that had tremendous potential to actually say something, but went the easy route far too many times throughout the film, and manipulated heartstrings rather than stimulated the brain.