This HMO thriller is not exactly killer

 JOHN Q. (2002)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

(Original review from 2002 screening)

"John Q." made me angry, but for all the wrong reasons. "Do the Right Thing" made me angry but that film was honest about racism and race relations in ways that few films ever are. "John Q." pretends to be interested in the corruption of HMO's and medical professionals who do not provide the medical
care that people need. It is a ripe subject for cinema, but it is told with such artificiality and dishonesty that one may think they are seeing a provocative statement on justice and nobility. Hogwash.

Nobility is John Q. Archibald's strongpoint (played by Denzel Washington). His hours at the factory have been cut because the factory is downsizing. His wife, Denise (Kimberly Elise), is getting annoyed with John's lack of money (what the heck, their car is towed away for nonpayment). The only happiness
centers on their enthusiastic son who loves to strut and plays Little League. One day, their son collapses while playing baseball, and the panicky parents rush him to the emergency room. Apparently, the kid's heart has grown three times larger than it should have and his only salvation is a heart transplant. Sounds easy enough but John Q.'s medical plan and insurance does not cover such an expensive procedure. He needs to make a down payment of $75,000 for a $250,000 dollar operation, but his HMO had been switched without his prior knowledge. To make matters worse, John's son has had the
heart problem for a long time but no doctors ever made mention of it, again due to minimal insurance for a high-risk operation.

If you have seen the previews for the film, you know that John Q. takes the law into his own hands and holds everyone at the E.R. room hostage, demanding that his son's name be put at the top of the priority list of heart transplants. In this day and age, all it takes is a gun and an attitude and you will get what you want, not to mention endless media coverage. In other words, the same old song, long preceded by Sidney Lumet's "Dog Day Afternoon" in 1975. But be advised: John Q. is not really going to use his gun or hurt anybody - he just wants his son to be saved. Does he not realize that his actions may hurt more than help his son? When the hostage negotiator (Robert Duvall) and a haughty police chief (Ray Liotta) consider the pros and cons of killing John Q., you know you have entered a simplistic movie that refuses to acknowledge its subject matter, not a full-blooded portrayal of the moral implications in taking people hostage and staging a crisis for the sake of a heart transplant.

As written by James Kearns, "John Q." doesn't make pleas or moralize as much as deliver an antipathy against all medical professionals, whether they are cardiologists or hospital head administrators. The movie says they are all scum, botching the system to make a fast buck and depriving the poor because
they lack the necessary medical coverage. There may be a lot of young kids who need heart transplants, but this movie does not seek to find alternatives. A gun and an attitude is all it takes. Fine, but why make the character so noble? Is John Q. not at fault here as well? Has he not seen enough TV shows to realize that if a hospital administrator finally gives in and puts his son's name on the list, it doesn't mean it actually is on the list?

"John Q." is manipulative, saccharine nonsense, designed to make the audience cheer for the lead character's supposedly justifiable actions because, after all, HMO is evil for not helping the poor when in need (or is it former president Bill Clinton's fault?) John should have listened to what the negotiator tells him at one point: "Nobody cares John. People will forget about you the next day." Exactly.