Movie news on your iPhone today!
Advertisement
Sign in
Username   Password         Forgot password?
Wanna join? Sign up
Find movies you'll love

JimBell Blog

John Q

Under discussion:

John Q.  (2002)
John Q (2002) is a dramatic thriller with a message. When John Q’s young son collapses with a heart condition and needs a heart transplant, the HMO will not pay for the expensive procedure, so John Q takes things into his own hands. As with many recent films critical of the United States of America (in this case, its health care), many viewers disliked the movie because it was critical of their country, and many other viewers disliked it because it was blatantly critical of their country. In our postmodernist era, the tendency is to deal with such criticism by saying, “They’re entitled to their opinion.” However, I’d rather respond by asking, “Is the criticism in the movie not justified, and are the blatant criticisms not complaints about obvious wrongs?” I’m not saying I know the answers regarding the national health care issue, but I’d like to see criticism of the film’s position backed up with some evidence. What makes the movie “propaganda”?  The major problem with the film is that it is formulaic. Although it is supposed to be a thriller, almost every plot move is predictable because you simply have to ask what a Hollywood movie would do next. The formula affects not only the plot but also the characters. When John Q. (Denzel Washington) makes a farewell speech to his dying son, you already know pretty much what he is going to say. There are no surprises to make it real. Similarly, when a heart donor is wheeled into the hospital, she looks alike a beautiful Hollywood actress and a wonderful donor unencumbered by tubes and life support, yet she has been hit by a truck, is brain-dead, and kept “alive” by machines.

posted on Monday, July 16, 2007 12:09 PM by JimBell


Was this review helpful?
Yeah Yeah Nope Nope



Comment    Email me new comments.




Advertisement