|
Before
I go on, keep this in mind: Don't believe the critics on
this one! Many critics regarded this movie as melodramatic
and manipulative. Well, in this case they're the ones who
are manipulative. As I was watching the film, I tried a few
times to look for flaws--keeping in mind what the critics
said--but I got nothing! Well, mostly because I was too
engrossed in the story. But doesn't that mean the film is
doing its job?
As
Denzel said, his role as John Q. Archibald is like an apology for
his ruthless character in "Training
Day". In this case, he plays an average
Joe/working-class citizen/one of the nicest guys you'll ever meet. John
is like that friendly guy in your neighborhood who never
forgets to say hello and greet you with a smile as you pass
by. But he's pushed to the limits when his son passes out
during a little league game and needs a heart transplant in order
to survive. John and his wife don't have the money--or
sufficient insurance--to put their son on the top of the donor's
list for a heart transplant. Without the transplant he
can only live for months, weeks, maybe even days. Since the
employees at the hospital stick to playing by the rules, John
makes his own rules, taking a group of patients and a noted cardiologist
(James Woods) hostage. He won't release the hostages until
his son gets the transplant.
Thinking back, there are certain scenes that are quite
far-fetched, but gripping nonetheless. Movies are not meant
to be reality; they're meant to be depictions of reality.
And if you want the audience to be at the edge of their seats, you
have to exaggerate, you have to be a little aggressive and push
the limits of logic.
What makes
the movie really tick is the central character. Everyone can
relate to John Q. And these doctors and HMOs can be really
cold. Let's face it, many doctors are just interested in the
money. John did everything he could to try to raise money
for his son's operation, but he fell a little bit short. Big
deal! Ever heard of being a humanitarian? The film
does preach its message quite a bit, but it's efficient and
truthful and makes you want to preach along.
With a
cast like this--needless to say--the acting is topnotch.
Denzel, Robert Duvall, Ray Liotta and James Woods are all great.
All of those actors rank high on my list of favorite actors, so it
was a treat to see all four of them on screen.
If
there's any criticism I have, it's the score. Some of the
music does add unnecessary melodrama. But that's the only
element I felt was a little hammy.
The
theater was packed when I saw this movie. People were
applauding and cheering. This is a crowd-pleaser that never
ceases to please! I wasn't bored for one second.
Not once did I glance at my watch. This is a powerful,
first-rate, deeply compelling thriller that delivers the goods and
then some!
-- Matt
( 3 1/2 out of 4 pops )
Talk
about this film with other Popkorn Junkies |
|
Other Junkie's
opinions.....
Billy Ray ( 2 1/2 out of 4
pops )
"This
is a truly mesmerizing piece of cinema--one of the best films I have
ever seen in my entire life"----that's what I would be saying if I
had enjoyed "John Q" that much. I did not have that
luxury. Don't get me wrong--it was good, but not great.
Denzel Washington is fabulous as the father of the dying son and Robert
Duvall is outstanding as the hostage negotiator, but the real standout
performance comes from Ray Liotta as the camera happy police chief.
I always love Ray Liotta so much. With a cast like this--also
including Kimberly Elise and James Woods--you would expect this film to
be nothing short of powerful and exquisitely done. But, there are
several holes in the plot, and I couldn't help but feel like I was
watching the sequel to "Desperate Measures". This is a
moderately entertaining piece of film, so go and catch it if "In
the Bedroom" is sold out.
Patsy ( 2 1/2 out of 4
pops )
I
wonder, since when did political parties start making their own
movies? Maybe it's just me, but after seeing "John Q" I
felt as though I just walked out of a Democratic rally. Ok, ok,
ok. I don't want to get political-- I'm not really rooting for one
side versus the other-- but I just felt that the film reeked of
politics. Yes, I wish that every poor person in America (or the
world for that matter) could have access to adequate health care.
That would be wonderful-- I'm not against that at all. I am
against the idea that basically every person in the movie (with
exceptions) that represented medicine, government, and law was portrayed
a heartless evil monsters. I am against the idea that
a man-- for whatever reasons, good or ill-- touting a gun around is made
out to be a hero. It's like the message here is "If something
doesn't go your way just get a gun and threaten people until you get
what you want"-- and I'm opposed to that.
|
