"John Q" takes on an issue that is as serious as necessary: the lack of a national health insurance in the American health system, where the health of citizens is left on the hands of the insurance companies that treat people who need medical attention like a business. Despite the great possibilities this issue offers for a film, the screenplay does not know how to convey it and instead makes "John Q" what it is: an overwritten and over dramatized film. A gallery of forced and artificial situations. A film that is insultingly simplistic in the way it conveys its themes and ultimately, a collection of the most pathetic Hollywood clichés. All this under a cinematography that is dramatically mundane.
Once Denzel Washington's character has taken a hospital's emergency room hostage we have the hostages supporting his cause and later on, a crowd standing outside the hospital cheering at John Q's cause whilst the police are treated like the bad guys. Can a drama be more unrealistic than this? Contrieved and artificial to me. I am aware that in real life it is possible to have people who supported Jon Q's acts but the way the film shows it only serves to hero worship his persona and take away the realism. In a lot of movies the characters are easy to describe. Take for example Washington's character Alonzo Harris in "Training Day". He is a stereotype, the embodiment of a corrupt police officer who does things by his own methods. But the difference between a character like Alonzo Harris and the ones in this film is that whilst Harris is a stereotype, he does not seem like one whereas in "John Q" everybody is portrayed as a stereotype due to the screenplay's insulting simplicity in its dialogue. John Q the good father forced to take justice on his own hands, Rebecca Payne (Anne Heche) the medical director with no heart, Robert Duvall the detective who sympathises with John Q's plight and on the other side Gus Monroe (Ray Liotta), the police officer with no sympathy who feels Q should be eliminated without further negotiation and on and on... Consider dialogue like "I'm not going to bury my son! my son is going to bury me!" Sure it sounds good but it also deems the film as totally contrived and again, far too simplistic with little regard for the audiences intelligence. The screenplay should have done the more challenging and better thing of allowing us to judge John Q on our own rather than telling us what to think of him and giving little argument from the opposition's voice (those that are not capable of seeing a lack of a national health insurance as an injustice). The film also tries to deal with the sensationalism in the media when tragic events occurs but it's focus is too thin and lacks conviction.
As a thriller it is a poor and predictable one where when a scene is just getting interesting, the screenplay adds a situation, a dialogue or a character that is pathetic. Denzel Washington does a wonderful job but I was kind of uneasy when I asked myself: how could he accept to lend his enormous talent to such a weak screenplay? The performances can not be criticised but the characters all seem to be what they are: supporting actors supporting Washington. In the end "John Q" is a noble attempt to denounce a social injustice. It just lacks the skill to do this correctly.
Once Denzel Washington's character has taken a hospital's emergency room hostage we have the hostages supporting his cause and later on, a crowd standing outside the hospital cheering at John Q's cause whilst the police are treated like the bad guys. Can a drama be more unrealistic than this? Contrieved and artificial to me. I am aware that in real life it is possible to have people who supported Jon Q's acts but the way the film shows it only serves to hero worship his persona and take away the realism. In a lot of movies the characters are easy to describe. Take for example Washington's character Alonzo Harris in "Training Day". He is a stereotype, the embodiment of a corrupt police officer who does things by his own methods. But the difference between a character like Alonzo Harris and the ones in this film is that whilst Harris is a stereotype, he does not seem like one whereas in "John Q" everybody is portrayed as a stereotype due to the screenplay's insulting simplicity in its dialogue. John Q the good father forced to take justice on his own hands, Rebecca Payne (Anne Heche) the medical director with no heart, Robert Duvall the detective who sympathises with John Q's plight and on the other side Gus Monroe (Ray Liotta), the police officer with no sympathy who feels Q should be eliminated without further negotiation and on and on... Consider dialogue like "I'm not going to bury my son! my son is going to bury me!" Sure it sounds good but it also deems the film as totally contrived and again, far too simplistic with little regard for the audiences intelligence. The screenplay should have done the more challenging and better thing of allowing us to judge John Q on our own rather than telling us what to think of him and giving little argument from the opposition's voice (those that are not capable of seeing a lack of a national health insurance as an injustice). The film also tries to deal with the sensationalism in the media when tragic events occurs but it's focus is too thin and lacks conviction.
As a thriller it is a poor and predictable one where when a scene is just getting interesting, the screenplay adds a situation, a dialogue or a character that is pathetic. Denzel Washington does a wonderful job but I was kind of uneasy when I asked myself: how could he accept to lend his enormous talent to such a weak screenplay? The performances can not be criticised but the characters all seem to be what they are: supporting actors supporting Washington. In the end "John Q" is a noble attempt to denounce a social injustice. It just lacks the skill to do this correctly.