john q movie review essay

Movie Reviews

Tv/streaming, collections, great movies, chaz's journal, contributors.

Now streaming on:

"John Q" is the kind of movie Mad magazine prays for. It is so earnest, so overwrought and so wildly implausible that it begs to be parodied. I agree with its message-- that the richest nation in history should be able to afford national health insurance--but the message is pounded in with such fevered melodrama, it's as slanted and manipulative as your average political commercial.

The film stars Denzel Washington as John Q. Archibald, a Chicago factory worker whose apparently healthy son collapses during a Little League game. John Q. and his wife Denise ( Kimberly Elise ) race the kid to an emergency room, where his signs are stabilized and then a cardiologist ( James Woods ) explains that young Mike's heart is three times normal size.

There are two options: a heart transplant, or optimizing Mike's "quality of life" during the "months ... weeks ... days" left to him. Joining the doctor is appropriately named hospital administrator Rebecca Payne ( Anne Heche ), who already knows the Archibalds have no money, and argues for the "quality of life" choice.

John Q. thinks he's covered by insurance, but no: His company switched to a new HMO that has a $20,000 ceiling, and since John has been downsized to 20 hours a week, he's lucky to have that much coverage. Payne demands a $75,000 down payment on the $250,000 operation, and explains the harsh realities of life for "cash patients." John Q. considers taking the kid to County Hospital, but is urged by a friendly hospital employee to stay right there at the ominously named Crisis of Hope Memorial Hospital.

The TV ads have already informed you that John Q. exhausts all his options and eventually pulls a gun and takes hostages, demanding that his son he put at the top of the list of eligible recipients. (He wouldn't be jumping the queue, because the Heche character explains that Mike is so sick, he would automatically be the first recipient--if the money were available.) The hostages are your usual cross-section of supporting roles: a pregnant mother who has "started to dilate!," a gunshot victim, a battered woman and her violent boyfriend, and so on. Plus Dr. Turner. The cops surround the building, and veteran negotiator Grimes ( Robert Duvall ) tries to build a relationship with John Q., while hot-shot police chief Monroe ( Ray Liotta ) grandstands for the TV cameras--displaying 16 stars on his uniform, four each on both collars and both lapels. Any more and he'd be Tinker Bell.

The underlying situation here is exactly the same as in " Dog Day Afternoon " (1975), an infinitely smarter hostage picture. What "John Q" lacks is the confidence to allow its characters to act intelligently. Chief Monroe is almost hilariously stupid. Consider this. A local TV station somehow manages to tap the police feed from the hospital's security cameras, and broadcasts live video and sound of John Q. inside the hospital. Monroe smuggles a sniper into the hospital who has John Q. in his sights. John Q. is in the act of having an emotional and heart-breaking telephone conversation with his little boy when Monroe, who is (a) unaware of the TV feed, or (b) too dumb to live, orders the marksman to fire.

Does John Q. die? That's a question you find yourself asking a lot during this film. To avoid spoilers, I won't go into detail, but there is a moment when the movie just plain cheats on the question of John Q.'s status, and I felt conned.

There are passages where the actors transcend the material. John Q.'s farewell to his son is one. Denise's relationship with her husband is well-handled. But in a sense special honors should go to Woods and Duvall for achieving what they can with roles so awkwardly written that their behavior whipsaws between good, evil and hilarious. Heche is deep-sixed by her role, which makes her a penny-pinching shrew and then gives her a cigarette to smoke just in case we missed that she's the villain. The Grim Reaper would flee from this woman.

Roger Ebert

Roger Ebert was the film critic of the Chicago Sun-Times from 1967 until his death in 2013. In 1975, he won the Pulitzer Prize for distinguished criticism.

Now playing

Christy Lemire

Late Night with the Devil

Matt zoller seitz.

Brian Tallerico

Simon Abrams

Asphalt City

Glenn kenny, film credits.

John Q. (2002)

Rated PG-13 For Violence, Language and Intense Thematic Elements

118 minutes

Denzel Washington as John Q.

Robert Duvall as Lt. Grimes

James Woods as Dr. Turner

Anne Heche as Rebecca Payne

Ray Liotta as Chief Monroe

Kimberly Elise as Denise

Shawn Hatosy as Mitch

Daniel E. Smith as Michael

Directed by

• Nick Cassavetes
• James Kearns

Latest blog posts

AMC's Interview with the Vampire Has a Different Flavor in Season Two

Female Filmmakers in Focus: Marija Kavtaradzė on Slow

It's Time To Give a FECK: Book Tour Dates Announced

The Unloved, Part 125: Mother Night

John Q: an Ethical Analys and Review

The film John Q provides a model for the analysis and demonstration of ethical principles of distributive justice as they pertain to healthcare and, more specifically, organ allocation in the face of scarcity. The film portrays the shortcomings of a managed care system as well as the pitfalls of a libertarian approach to allocation.

Here discussed are the ethical approaches of Eglitarianism, Prioritarianisn, Utilitarianism, and Libertarianism to organ allocation as they pertain to the film as well as the situational change in the plot if these approaches were considered.

The topics of hopelessness and helplessness experienced by the patient and family in a dire circumstances as observed in John Q is confronted in the context of the picture . Also provided is a brief ethical critique of the movie and a personal reaction to the topics addressed in the film

When dealing with the issue of scarcity and allocation of resources, the health care industry provides a controversial and ethically challenging model for working though dilemma scenarios such as making distributive decisions with respect to donor organs to the most appropriate recipient.

Scarcity is defined as a condition in which the demand for a resource greatly exceeds the supply of the resource, and the fact of the matter is there are many more people that need transplant organs than there are organs to be allocated.

This circumstance is well presented in the movie John Q, written by James Kearns. The main point made throughout the film seems to be that the process of organ procurement is not only difficult and trying on the patient and family, but can also be fraught with the dilemmas of resource allocation and providing healthcare using a Libertarian allocation approach that need be addressed by healthcare administrators.

Proficient in: Ethics

“ She followed all my directions. It was really easy to contact her and respond very fast as well. ”

Focusing on the theme of distributive justice, the film comes across to imply that care hould be made available to all regardless of their ability to pay and allocation be based on a Prioritarianistic “according to their need” distributive model rather than a Libertarian approach to allocation. In modern healthcare there is a constant struggle to provide the most and greatest healthcare to the greatest number of people in society. Fueling the debate over effective care allocation strategies, for decades the media has been filled with the echoes of socialized healthcare, and in recent decades multiple nations have adopted the model of a governmentalized healthcare system.

In the United States resides a mixed system supported by tax dollars as well as managed care model that is fueled by the desire to reduce cost and still provide necessary care to subscribers. To that end, the film depicts the short comings of a managed care system with seen in the lack preventative screening that might have led to the recognition a young boy’s heart condition at a time when preventative steps could have been taken to mitigate the situation observed in the film.

In the context of resource allocation and particularly organ allocation, at the heart of the ethical issue is the concept of scarcity. According to the University of Minnesota’s Center for Bioethics, there were approximately 83,000 people on the waiting list to receive an organ with an additional 106 (average) being added per day in 2003 (Ethics of Organ Transplantation, 2004).

When considered in relation to the 9,800 donors and the roughly 6,000 people that died in 2002 while waiting for a transplant, it becomes clear a point of equilibrium between supply and demand / necessity has yet to be reached (Ethics of Organ Transplantation, 2004). Summary In the 2002 film, John Q, John Q. Archibald, an American factory worker that has been the victim of a declining economy, and is faced with the difficulty of paying for medical services when his son is struck down at a baseball game with heart failure due to a congenital defect.

The boy suffers from an enlarged heart that went undetected so far. It was made clear that without a heart transplant, the boy would die. To further complicate the situation, the hospital administrator informed the Archibald family that their insurance had changed from a PPO to an HMO type plan and that the transplant surgery is considered an elective procedure and would not be covered by their insurance.

The insurance company issued by his employer informs John that the policy had changed and that only $20,000 of the required $250,000 will be paid under the claim. John Q then decided to take measures into his own hands and persuades the head of the cardiology department to find a replacement heart for the boy at gunpoint. He takes the cardiologist and several patients hostage and demands that his son be placed on the recipient list.

One of the predominant points made in the film is that the process of organ allocation is often unjust by the libertarian approach that is used when dealing with a managed care system that provides insufficient coverage for the terminally ill. The film implies that the decision making process of organ distribution id too greatly influenced by the recipient’s ability to pay for the treatment and does not sufficiently consider the patient’s deserving of the organ based on his life experience, usefulness and right to equitable treatment.

The effects of organ procurement can instill a sense of helplessness in those linked to the patient dying from a terminal condition. The picture illustrates the manifestation of this stress and emotional strain in irrational behavior of the father of a terminal child and seems to justify his actions by hinting at the unjust nature of the organ distributive process. Analysis

The depiction of a young boy falling deeper into the hopelessness of being rejected as an heart recipient and the helplessness of the parents as they watch their son’s condition continue to worsen because they are unable to provide the funds necessary to pay for the intervention successfully conveys the message that the results of allocative decisions are not always just and favor those with the ability to pay for the procedure.

In the context of the film, it is important to note the role of hopelessness and helplessness felt by the Archibald family as a result of the organ allocation process and decision. It is no secret that illness and bodily deterioration can adversely affect the mood and emotions of a patient by promoting feelings of helplessness and a loss of hope. But, frequently one might observe the emotions of family members be similarly affected when a grim prognosis is delivered sensing that the situation is beyond anyone’s control and this leads to a deep sense of helplessness.

This holds true especially for parents as in the case of the Archibald family. As a parent raises a child, benevolence and pleasing sacrifice are at the core of the parental emotional complex. So, when a child become ill, it presents as one of the few situations in which the parent is unable to offer more than comforting words of compassion and love. A parent that has devoted years of aid and care can become overwhelmed by a mood of desperation.

However, the film’s portrayal of an illicit act of perceived violence and deception as being one of heroism and justice serves only to further incite one with the discontent at the current system and justifies the use of such force to serve one’s own end, however desperate it might be, the justification of any sort of deception and manipulation, as Mr. Archibald deceived and manipulated hostages and hospital administrators as a means to his desired end, is in conflict with the familiar categorical imperative of Kantian Deontology.

This in itself is, by that theory, unethical and a deplorable action in the context of deontology. On the topic of the ethics of organ allocation, distributive justice can be described as the deciding how to fairly divide and allocate resources in the face of scarcity (Ethics of Organ Transplantation, 2004). In distributive justice, there are thought to be six major theories on how best to do this: to each an equal share, to each according to his need, according to his effort, according to his contribution, according to the merit achieved, and to each according to his ability to pay (Ethics of Organ Transplantation, 2004).

It can be simplified further in that all six of these allocation theories can be summed up in four primary categories of thought: equality, favoring the neediest, utilitarianism, and rewarding social usefulness (Emanuel, Persad, Werthiemer 2009). First of these categories is that of equality. Treating everyone equally is known as the distributive justice theory of Egalitarianism. In this system, judgments are made based on objective factors ideally in the absence of any bias (Ethics of Organ Transplantation, 2004).

A classic example of this type of model at work is the first come first serve method (Emanuel et al. 2009). Ideally, these types of approaches are, with some exception, fairly good at eliminating selection bias, however, in doing so can ignore factors such as social standing, quality of life and issues of medical worthiness (Ethics of Organ Transplantation, 2004). In the scenario of John Q. , the utilization of such a system might have ensured the placement of the boy’s name on the transplant list. However, the odds that the boy would have received the heart would have actually not have ncreased.

Therefore, the situation of the enragement of John Q. Archibald would probably not have been avoided. In the model of Prioritarianism, the sickest and the youngest receive priority care over those less afflicted (Emanuel et al. 2009). This approach has the advantage of aiding those who are critical and serves to eliminate selection bias in response to factors of social and economic standing but rather bases allocation on the need and urgency of care considering the condition of each patient. Prioritarianism however also have its disadvantages.

One such is the need for a prognosis that must be estimated by human evaluation and is therefore vulnerable to persuasion and bias. Also, the allocation of organs parallels the preventative care of offered to the son of Michael Archibald in that the determination that treatment is necessary is contingent on the illness of the patient and thus requires the patient’s condition to deteriorate before the he or she is considered to among the sickest and eligible to receive the allocation of care and or organ that is required.

A system that favor the sickest inherently fails to account for those who will become sick if the treatment or organ is not received in their current state Rationalizing the youngest first approach is the thought that the worst off in this case are those who would perish with fewer years lived and would potentially have more years to benefit from the organ (Emanuel et al. 2009). Pertaining to the case of Michael Archibald, he would probably have gotten the heart with ample time for treatment and recovery and the hostage situation initiated by his father would have been avoided.

Third is the ever popular Utilitarian approach to the question of allocation striving to maximize the benefit obtained from each of the organs. This benefit is measures in life-years, that is, the number of years the patient would live beyond the number of years he or she would live if not granted the organ, adjusted with lifestyle and disability projected (Ethics of Organ Transplantation, 2004), (Donaldson & Mitton, 2004). This is one of the models in which the patient’s future is considered.

Using this approach and applying it to the situation of the Archibald family, it is irrefutably clear that the boy would receive nearly maximum benefit from the heart in both life-years and the ability to maintain a high quality of life throughout those years and would therefore be a priority recipient for the heart. To that end, there would have been no reason for John Q. to carry out his act of desperation. As the Utilitarian approach does not consider the ability to pay for the service as criteria for allocation, the financial and hostage crises would have been averted.

Finally, the use of social usefulness as a factor for determining one’s eligibility as an organ recipient is the most relative to the film. At the heart of social usefulness allocation is the idea of instrumental value, that is, that which shows promise of future usefulness (Emanuel et al. 2009). Most specifically pertaining to the film, this implies Libertarian distribution theory and the use of one’s ability to pay as a gauge of usefulness and ability to contribute back to the healthcare system, in this instance, the managed care system, and society as a whole.

By my rationale, if one is able to pay for, or has coverage that can pay for a procedure the individual is probably more able to make contributions to the market and thus society as a consumer, and might also have a higher probability of possessing the intellectual capacity and education level that is thought to enable one in providing the most useful contributions to society. Following that logic, it is natural to say that favoring those who are able to pay for treatment is in a way rewarding their perceived social usefulness.

It is because of this method of thought that the son of John Q. Archibald was denied the transplant that was necessary to prolong his life. Mr. Archibald’s inability to pay the $250,000 required for the surgery served as an indicator of his social usefulness when the healthcare administrators were confronting the dilemma of placing the boy’s name n the transplant list. The Libertarian approach to allocation of healthcare resources bases decisions on too few dimensions of the patient’s experience.

In the case of Michael Archibald the potential usefulness of a child, and even the policy holder for that matter, cannot be determined to degree of completeness that can be used to base decisions of organ allocation by using the parent’s ability to pay for the procedure as proxy to future social usefulness of the child. Even if it was, the perceived usefulness of a child can be viewed as less than that of an adult because it is not an autonomous being and lacks the investment of education and life experiences that shape autonomous adults.

To the same effect, the usefulness of the mentally ill or elderly can be perceived to be lessened because they have less years or intellectual contributions to make to society. It is for this reason that I feel that this model as it is portrayed in the film is insufficient for the determination of organ recipients. Ethically, to the question of how scarce resources should be allocated, there is no easy or definite answer. However, the four main categories mentioned can be combined in use to provide some insight on how to best fairly distribute organs.

It seems logical that to make determinations of allocation that ultimately prolong life and the human experience, it is necessary to take into account the factors that affect that experience such as quality of life and providing the maximum number of life-years from each organ. However, as organs are a scarce societal resource, it is also important to factor in the benefit to society that might be obtained by each scenario of the allocation of this resource.

In my personal opinion, I feel that the cost of providing healthcare warrants the use of some aspect of a model based on one’s ability to pay. However, I also hold that as a libertarian approach ignores several crucial aspects of the patient’s experience and the utility the organ might provide to the patient as well as to society, the utilitarian view of utility in adjusted life-years and that those who are sickest with the greatest chance for recovery and to make a contribution to society should be considered first.

Conclusion To all who have seen the James Kearns’s film, John Q, it is no secret that the ethical implications of resource allocation in healthcare can have emotionally devastating effects on patients and their families. The point is successfully made that the emotional effects of a perceived improper Libertarian system that only considers only one’s ability to pay to make distributive decisions can result in the loss of future productive members of society as well as the innocence and opportunity of youth.

The principles and theories of distributive justice that are used in the decision making process when attempting to discern the “best” way to allocate organs, in the face of scarcity can often ignore essential elements of the suffering and life experience faced by the patient and his or her family as well as provide insufficient approximations of the worth of the patient in the scheme of society.

For this reason, and the limited supply of organs and other medical resources, the denial of life sustaining interventions might ead the patient and family into a deep sense of hopelessness and helplessness when they come to the realization that there is nothing more they can do to aid themselves or their loved ones. In the case of John Q. Archibald this sense of hopelessness and despair was so great that it forced an otherwise rational and law abiding man to commit an act illicit and ethically reprehensible as a result of the denial of a heart for his terminal son.

Cite this page

John Q: an Ethical Analys and Review. (2017, May 12). Retrieved from https://paperap.com/paper-on-john-q-ethical-analys-review/

"John Q: an Ethical Analys and Review." PaperAp.com , 12 May 2017, https://paperap.com/paper-on-john-q-ethical-analys-review/

PaperAp.com. (2017). John Q: an Ethical Analys and Review . [Online]. Available at: https://paperap.com/paper-on-john-q-ethical-analys-review/ [Accessed: 2 May. 2024]

"John Q: an Ethical Analys and Review." PaperAp.com, May 12, 2017. Accessed May 2, 2024. https://paperap.com/paper-on-john-q-ethical-analys-review/

"John Q: an Ethical Analys and Review," PaperAp.com , 12-May-2017. [Online]. Available: https://paperap.com/paper-on-john-q-ethical-analys-review/. [Accessed: 2-May-2024]

PaperAp.com. (2017). John Q: an Ethical Analys and Review . [Online]. Available at: https://paperap.com/paper-on-john-q-ethical-analys-review/ [Accessed: 2-May-2024]

• Week 12 Poetry Terms "John Cougar, John Deere, John 3:16 Pages: 1 (286 words)
• An Ethical Compass in Early Childhood Education: Navigating the NAEYC Code of Ethical Conduct Pages: 2 (589 words)
• AP English - John Donne ~ John Milton Pages: 17 (4933 words)
• Ethical Movie Review: Blood Diamond Essay Pages: 12 (3359 words)
• A Review of an Ethical Issue Involving Volkswagen Pages: 4 (1047 words)
• An Overview of Organ Transplantation and the Moral and Ethical Principles Behind the Medical Process Pages: 4 (1033 words)
• Issues In Ethical Hacking And Penetration Testing Information Technology Essay Pages: 14 (3992 words)
• Ethical and Professional Issues in Psychology Pages: 8 (2286 words)
• Primark and Ethical Business.Doc Pages: 13 (3748 words)
• Ethical Values and Behaviour Essay Example Pages: 7 (1877 words)

Home — Essay Samples — Entertainment — John Q — The Movie John Q: Ethical Dilemmas

The Movie John Q: Ethical Dilemmas in a Healthcare Setting

• Categories: Ethical Dilemma Film Analysis John Q

About this sample

Words: 1600 |

Published: Aug 6, 2021

Words: 1600 | Pages: 3 | 8 min read

Table of contents

Introduction, john g: ethical analysis, the principle of maleficence, the issue of justice.

Organ transplant,Health care,Surgery,Medical ethics,Transplantation medicine,Physician,Morality,Nick Cassavetes

Works Cited

• Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2019). Principles of biomedical ethics. Oxford University Press.
• Cohen, L., & Schillinger, D. (2017). Principles and practice of transplant infectious diseases. Springer.
• Daar, A. S., & Reisman, A. (2017). Transplantation ethics. Taylor & Francis.
• Danovitch, G. M. (2015). Handbook of kidney transplantation. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
• Delmonico, F. L., & Martin, D. E. (2018). A history of organ transplantation. University of Pittsburgh Press.
• Elliot, S. (2017). Is there a duty to die?. Oxford University Press.
• Humber, J. M., & Almeder, R. (Eds.). (2017). Biomedical ethics reviews 2017. Springer.
• Rady, M. Y., & Verheijde, J. L. (2019). Ethical controversies in organ transplantation. Oxford University Press.
• Siegler, M., & Winslade, W. J. (2019). Clinical ethics: A practical approach to ethical decisions in clinical medicine. McGraw Hill Professional.
• Voo, T. C., & Goh, B. L. (2019). Handbook of transplantation. World Scientific Publishing Co.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr Jacklynne

Verified writer

• Expert in: Philosophy Entertainment

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

5 pages / 2217 words

4 pages / 1710 words

3 pages / 1291 words

1.5 pages / 750 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on John Q

Nick Cassavetes’ film uses the pentadic structure to establish meaning using the purpose approach. Agent, agency, act, and scene are still present; however, they are not the main focus of the story. John Q perfectly aligns with [...]

In the film John Q, the Archibald family faces a tragedy when their son is found to be diagnosed with critical heart issues. However, the institutions within the movie provide an ethical dilemma, while reflecting the reality [...]

The controversy surrounding Brett Easton Ellis's American Psycho and Anthony Burgess's A Clockwork Orange relates primarily to the central themes that are explored in both books. Nevertheless, the brutality and explicit [...]

"The woman looked at the tree: the fruit would be good to eat; it was pleasing to the eye and desirable for the knowledge it could give. So she took some and ate it; she also gave some to her husband and he ate it. Then they [...]

Anthony Burgess’s A Clockwork Orange is a novel pervaded by a multifaceted and intrinsic musical presence. Protagonist Alex’s fondness for classical music imbues his character with interesting dimensions, and resonates well [...]

Following the publication of his most notable work, A Clockwork Orange, Anthony Burgess commented on the function of literature in a mutable society. There is not much point in writing a novel unless you can show the possibility [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

• Skip to main content
• Skip to quick search
• Skip to global navigation

Michigan Family Review

• Submissions
• Call for Papers

Reflections on "John Q": Simple Message, Missing Perspectives

Permissions : This work is protected by copyright and may be linked to without seeking permission. Permission must be received for subsequent distribution in print or electronically. Please contact [email protected] for more information.

For more information, read Michigan Publishing's access and usage policy .

This article is a critical reflection on the film John Q (Burg & Cassavetes, 2002). The author explores the public perception of current U. S. health care, the distinction between medical care and health, and the ethics of health care decisions.

Key Words: Health care, health insurance, medical ethics, film criticism.

  When working parents discover that their son needs a heart transplant, they turn to the insurance provided by the husband's employer. The astounded father can only say "But I have insurance," in response to the news that the critical transplant is not covered. His next panicked move is to convert virtually all of the family's saleable assets to cash to meet the hospital administrator's requirement of an up-front deposit to assure a place for the boy on the transplant list. The amount of cash raised falls short of the mark, and time is running out. Prompted by his wife's plea that he "do something," John Q arrives at the hospital Emergency Department ready for action. He gains control with a gun (Later, we learn that it is unloaded), pulls chains from a duffel bag to padlock the doors, and makes it known that in exchange for the release of hostages, the administration is to grant permission for his son's heart transplant. In the end, the near-sacrifice of John Q's life and the apparent threat to other lives—coupled with administration's eventual willingness to put the son on the transplant list—create an improbable resolution that permits the boy's survival.

For movie watchers able to suspend their disbelief, identify with the human dynamics of the story, and tolerate a one-sided caricature of health care—particularly with respect to HMOs—John Q provides suspenseful entertainment. In response to its absence of thoughtful critique on the shortcomings of the of the U. S. health care delivery system (arguably, not the task of this movie), viewers may wish to consider the central issue of the movie from a more ordered perspective. The plot revolves around the struggle of parents to provide extraordinary medical care for their child—a task that seems nearly impossible in the current U. S. environment. The purpose of this reflection is to provide a more nuanced context for viewers who want to think in greater depth about family responsibility for health care.

A fundamental question that must ultimately be answered is Who is responsible for the health of John Q's son Michael? The movie at least introduces the likely players: parents, employer, government, and the health care system. A second dimension of this question quickly becomes apparent. When treatment for a health threat is as costly as a heart transplant, exercising responsibility for the child's health is immediately coupled with the practical reality of ability to pay. No family of modest means could withstand the cost of a catastrophic adverse health event such as heart transplant surgery. Paying for services as individuals (private pay) becomes unrealistic for any but the wealthiest in society. In the absence of a national health care program, the options for payment for services are therefore reduced to employer-paid health insurance and government programs for the indigent. Although responsibility for arranging for treatment theoretically might be assigned to the family of the person in ill health, the practical reality is that high-cost treatment is inaccessible to most families.

In the U. S., health insurance—for those covered by it—is employer-based. The basic premise of insurance is that people are grouped into heterogeneous risk pools based on something other than their state of health, such as their place of employment. The cost of the uncertain risk of illness is spread across the group: Some group members will be in good health; others will experience poor health. Underwriters determine the charge to employers for their employee subscribers, based on risk factors. By specifying whether conditions and services are covered or excluded, employers further protect themselves from catastrophic cost in individual cases. The heart transplant that Michael needs happens to be excluded by his father's insurance contract. So, in the case of John Q, although the family is insured, there is no funding for the transplant because the insurer has excluded it as a covered service. After that fact emerges, the father then explores coverage by government programs and possible donation of services by the hospital. It is only when neither of those is available, that the father takes on the system in order to force provision of the transplant.

• Who is responsible for the health of our children collectively?
• Who decides how health care resources are allocated? To what extent are employers responsible for the health of their employees?
• In a society that allows employers to assume responsibility fo r health care coverage, what accountability is appropriate? Is the employer's role gratuitous?
• Government takes only a partial role in provision of health care. What is its responsibility?
• Do those in society who have access to greater resources and greatest capacity to absorb risk have greater responsibility to assure health benefits?

In order to begin thinking about these questions, some basic distinctions are helpful. As a starting point, are we thinking about medical care as a right or as a commodity? If we view it as a right, then health care can be thought of as analogous to public education. In that case, each citizen has the right to a certain amount of education/ medical care. Free public education up to grade 12 is provided for those who wish to attend and because of its importance, it is mandatory up to age 16. When medical care is seen from that perspective, public policy would have to determine the limits of "basic medical care." What would be comparable to "grade 12"? The amount or type of service available to each person becomes difficult to determine, since all citizens do not start out in life with equal amounts of health.

A related consideration is the distinction between medical care and health. What consumers want is health; what is available is medical care. There is no way to avoid or completely control the risk that medical care, even when delivered flawlessly, may not result in health. People who receive poor or no medical care are sometimes healthy; others who receive the very best medical care die. In considering medical care as a right, then, one basis for determining how much of it should be available to members of society might be equity. An equity approach relies on the judgment that the system would be fair or equitable if criteria based on individual need determined the amount of care available to each citizen (Aday, Begley, Lairson, & Slater, 1998). Although many complex ethical issues arise from these thoughts, the core idea appeals strongly to common sense: Different people have differing medical needs. At some point, however, whatever the basis for distributing medical care, it is likely that available resources cannot stretch to cover all of society's medical needs. When medical care is seen as a right, the inevitable public policy decision is how much medical care do people have a right to? In John Q, the answer to this complex consideration is simplified—as it would be in any individual family situation—to the assumption that each of us has a right to all the medical care that would be helpful. In reality, the thoughtful writings of ethicists and a national public policy debate have yet to bring our best collective thoughts to that answer.

Returning to basic distinctions, what additional perspectives must be considered if we were to take the opposite position and think of medical care as a commodity, rather than as a right? From this point of view, purchasing medical care is analogous to purchasing a new queen-size bed. If a consumer prefers the bed to other available goods and services in the marketplace and has the resources to purchase it, the sale results and the bed is delivered. The consumer maximizes his/her utility because the new bed is part of the ideal bundle of goods and services that matches this consumer's taste or desire. Collective preferences of consumers with respect to queen-size beds result in market demand for this item; supply and prices adjust accordingly, guided by the invisible hand described by economist Adam Smith over two centuries ago.

However if medical care is seen as a commodity, it is certainly a unique one. For example, the issue raised earlier applies: the intention of the buyer is to purchase health, but only medical care is for sale. Demand for some medical care services is highly inelastic: consumer demand changes very little in response to increases in price. That may be because the consumer prefers the medical care at any cost to the perceived alternative of ill health or death. It might also be because the consumer does not pay the full price for the medical care; in many cases the consumer payment is only the co-pay portion of total cost after an annual deductible is met. Insurance protects the consumer from the full impact of the cost, thwarting to some extent the market-regulating action of the "invisible hand."

• Who is responsible?
• Who decides?

The seriousness of this misalignment can be seen when we consider the value of what is at risk and the extent to which each key player is willing to pay to prevent that loss. The parents who are most invested in the outcomes of the health needs of their child are most powerless to address them, given the expense and complexity of the transplant. For the gain of his son's healthy normal life, the father would give his own life. To assure the same gain, the employer would do nothing. The employer's general insurance coverage agreement, forged with no particular child or family in mind, says that no life is worth the cost to this insurance plan of a heart transplant. Because the employer pays, it exercises the role of decision-maker in this situation. The unaddressed third issue is whether or not the employer has responsibility for the child's medical care at this complex and costly level. From the perspective of self-interest, would an employer lose less in productivity and gain more in employee loyalty if workers do not suffer the loss of their children?

In addition to the employer, how does the society value the life of the boy? No timely exception to the rules about lack of coverage is made available by the social worker with whom John Q speaks. Would it be different if Michael were not African American and lower middle class? A study released in March 2002 by the Institute of Medicine reports that racial and ethnic minorities receive lower quality care than whites even when insured (Smedley, Stith, & Nelson, 2002), suggesting that racial disparities influence availability of care to minorities across economic strata. What would the government give to save this child's life? More importantly, what is the perceived loss to the community if this child dies? The film is silent on such issues.

Economics defines the basis for some of our collective decisions about the availability of health care resources for those in the collective societal family. Basic microeconomic theory suggests that each consumer uses his/her wealth to pay for the goods and services of greatest utility to him/her. The societal supply or demand curve is simply the aggregate of all consumer utility curves. Ms. Anderson may value a new hairstyle more than she values a co-payment for a cholesterol-reducing drug; Mr. Johnson, may prefer a carton of cigarettes to his blood pressure medication. Their choices will figure into the collective picture that affects the supply and demand of pharmaceuticals, hairstyles and cigarettes. Self-interested utility is the force behind the "invisible hand" that Adam Smith describes as the regulator of an economy beneficial to society as a whole.

Another perspective that holds promise for modifying the dynamics described in John Q is an alternative view of consumer utility. In The Economics of Health Reconsidered , Tom Rice (1998) describes a consumer whose utility is realized when others in the society have their need to receive medical care met. An example of this broader definition of utility is the willingness of people to recycle, a commitment that does not seem to be in their self-interest, yet benefits society as a whole. Some people realize satisfaction (an intangible form of utility) from enabling others to receive care. Members of the human community that understand "the common good" realize that they do benefit individually from efforts that positively affect all of us. The source of this non-individualistic form of utility is related to the understanding that as members of society we have access to certain benefits and also have certain responsibilities (Mooney, 1996).

If health care economic policy in the U. S. were redefined with that theory as its basis, the plot of John Q would be drastically altered. The goals of the hospital administrator, employer-paid insurance company and social services agencies would be aligned: providers, insurers and custodians of the welfare of the society would marshal their extensive resources to aid the child and his parents, propelled by the realization that the children belong to all of us and the loss of any of them is a loss to the whole human family.

Aday, L. A., Begley, C. E., Lairson, D. R., & Slater, C. H. (1998). Evaluating the healthcare system effectiveness, efficiency and equity . Chicago: Health Administration Press.

Burg, M. (Producer), & Cassavetes, J. (Director). (2002). John Q [Motion picture]. United States: New Line Productions.

Mooney, G. (1996). A communitarian critique of health (care) economics . Vancouver: International Health Economics Association.

Rice, T. (1998). The economics of health reconsidered . Chicago: Health Administration Press.

Smedley, B. D., Stith, A. Y., & Nelson, A. R. (Eds.). (2002). Unequal treatment: Confronting racial and ethnic disparities in health care . Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

FILM REVIEW

FILM REVIEW; If Arguing Won't Move Insurers, Maybe a Gun Will

By Elvis Mitchell

• Feb. 15, 2002

This country's sad state of health care for the poor and disenfranchised is a great movie subject. Until that film comes along, we'll have to endure ''John Q.,'' which will leave most audiences in dire need of medical attention, though it would be hard to say if that need will come from the painful collection of plot clichés or Aaron Zigman's assaultive soundtrack. ''John Q.'' is a remarkable document, so ham-fisted that it sabotages its own worthwhile arguments.

Denzel Washington, who just received a well-deserved Oscar nomination for his work in ''Training Day,'' finally does the kind of well-meaning everyman-fighting-the-power turn he's been accused of in the past. He's John Quincy Archibald -- yes, the film's title is literal -- a man who's struggling to keep his beleaguered family together. John's factory job has been reduced to part time; he's told he's overqualified for a second job he applies for; his car is repossessed; and then his luck really goes bad.

His young, affectionate son, Mike (Daniel E. Smith), is struck down while running the bases at a softball game. This movie is so heavily moralistic that you'd almost think that little Mike's heart seizes on him because he stole second instead of earning it with a hit. That's not the case, though, because Mike grabs his chest in one of the several instances of extended, don't-miss-the-obvious slow motion to be found in ''John Q.''

Because John's company has switched to an HMO, and John is working only 20 hours a week, he finds his insurance won't cover his son's rapidly swelling medical costs. John and his wife, Denise (Kimberly Elise), have to scrounge to pay for Mike's care, which will eventually have to include a heart transplant.

The movie becomes ''Dog Day Waiting Room'' when John takes a group of people hostage at the hospital that's threatening to throw out his son. (The ''John Q.'' editor, Dede Allen, who also cut ''Dog Day Afternoon,'' deserves an Oscar just for showing up to work on this movie.)

Robert Duvall, who leads an impressive supporting cast that has signed aboard for this creaky voyage, arrives as Lt. Grimes, a seasoned police officer and hostage negotiator who apparently picked up his Chicago accent by listening to the hammy chatter Dan Aykroyd used in ''The Blues Brothers.''

Ray Liotta is Chief Monroe, Grimes's press-hungry supervisor, who plays right into the hands of the opportunistic television crews. ''The camera's right out there,'' Grimes, a straight shooter, tells his boss. ''Should make you feel right at home.'' But Grimes's attempts to resolve the situation peacefully are ruined by Monroe's blood lust.

None of the police incursions, however, alter John's basic decency. He's so considerate of the hostages -- all stereotypes -- that he could probably run for mayor of Chicago, especially since his plight is being beamed live on television.

Mr. Washington manages to be fittingly morose without losing his powerhouse quality. His formidable skills can't be questioned. He uses his long jaw and lower lip effectively, playing John as a man without guile. It's that integrity that keeps John's wife around, although it's not enough to avoid the unstated tensions, which Mr. Washington and Ms. Elise admirably convey, in a marriage undermined by money troubles.

''John Q.'' has the feel of a picture developed to work every heartstring. It never seems to have occurred to its makers that the movie would be far more interesting if the family's life weren't such a stockpile of secondhand bits: John and Mike get along swimmingly, and John is so saintly that he never takes out any of the financial pressures on his family. Rather, Denise is made a bit of a harpy because she rides him, though Ms. Elise is talented enough to blunt the coarseness of this conception.

The director, Nick Cassavetes, who has given much care to the actors in his previous films ''Unhook the Stars'' and ''She's So Lovely,'' is the wrong man for an action melodrama so lacking in shame that it finally seems laughable. Once it becomes unintentionally funny, ''John Q.'' doesn't really need the light relief provided by the comedian Eddie Griffin as one of the hostages. He's so essentially playing himself that he might as well have a microphone and stand before one of those fake brick walls found mostly in HBO comedy specials.

This is a movie whose idea of nuance is to have the cold hospital administrator (Anne Heche) shed a tear while she watches the ugly hostage situation on the local news. (Based on the accents of much of the ''John Q.'' cast, though, that locale must be Chicago, Ontario.)

Mr. Washington and Mr. Cassavetes were probably attracted to the material because a movie needed to be made about the black hole that this nation's public health care is being sucked into. But after the climax -- arrived at through a contrived coincidence -- the film weaves in a series of real-life personalities, including Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, urging stronger national assistance in health care. (Peculiarly, the clips include the director Ted Demme, who died of a heart attack last month.)

Somehow, at this late stage, the filmmakers think it's possible that viewers might have missed their point.

''John Q.'' is rated PG-13 (Parents strongly cautioned) because of strong language, violence and graphic surgical scenes.

Directed by Nick Cassavetes; written by James Kearns; director of photography, Rogier Stoffers; edited by Dede Allen; music by Aaron Zigman; production designer, Stefania Cella; produced by Mark Burg and Oren Koules; released by New Line Cinema. Running time: 110 minutes. This film is rated PG-13.

WITH: Denzel Washington (John Quincy Archibald), Robert Duvall (Lt. Frank Grimes), James Woods (Dr. Turner), Anne Heche (Rebecca Payne), Eddie Griffin (Lester), Kimberly Elise (Denise Archibald), Shawn Hatosy (Mitch), Ray Liotta (Chief Monroe) and Daniel E. Smith (Mike Archibald).

• Undergraduate
• High School
• Architecture
• American History
• Asian History
• Antique Literature
• American Literature
• Asian Literature
• Classic English Literature
• World Literature
• Creative Writing
• Linguistics
• Criminal Justice
• Legal Issues
• Anthropology
• Archaeology
• Political Science
• World Affairs
• African-American Studies
• East European Studies
• Latin-American Studies
• Native-American Studies
• West European Studies
• Family and Consumer Science
• Social Issues
• Women and Gender Studies
• Social Work
• Natural Sciences
• Pharmacology
• Earth science
• Agriculture
• Agricultural Studies
• Computer Science
• IT Management
• Mathematics
• Investments
• Engineering and Technology
• Engineering
• Aeronautics
• Medicine and Health
• Alternative Medicine
• Communications and Media
• Advertising
• Communication Strategies
• Public Relations
• Educational Theories
• Teacher's Career
• Chicago/Turabian
• Company Analysis
• Education Theories
• Shakespeare
• Canadian Studies
• Food Safety
• Relation of Global Warming and Extreme Weather Condition

Movie Review

• Admission Essay
• Annotated Bibliography
• Application Essay
• Article Critique
• Article Review
• Article Writing
• Book Review
• Business Plan
• Business Proposal
• Capstone Project
• Cover Letter
• Creative Essay
• Dissertation
• Dissertation - Abstract
• Dissertation - Conclusion
• Dissertation - Discussion
• Dissertation - Hypothesis
• Dissertation - Introduction
• Dissertation - Literature
• Dissertation - Methodology
• Dissertation - Results
• GCSE Coursework
• Grant Proposal
• Marketing Plan
• Multiple Choice Quiz
• Personal Statement
• Power Point Presentation
• Power Point Presentation With Speaker Notes
• Questionnaire
• Reaction Paper
• Research Paper
• Research Proposal
• SWOT analysis
• Thesis Paper
• Online Quiz
• Literature Review
• Movie Analysis
• Statistics problem
• Math Problem
• All papers examples
• How It Works
• Money Back Policy
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• We Are Hiring

John Q Assignment, Movie Review Example

Pages: 2

Words: 586

Hire a Writer for Custom Movie Review

Use 10% Off Discount: "custom10" in 1 Click 👇

You are free to use it as an inspiration or a source for your own work.

John Q is a 2002 movie produced by Nick Cassavetes and stars Denzel Washington and John Quincy Archibald.  The moral of the story is one of compassion, self-sacrifice and the love of a parent for his son. It portrays the depths of despair and the lengths that a parent would go to save the life of their child.  The film also deals with the irony of tragedy, how one persons misfortune may ultimately benefit the life of another and as such the frailty of our existence in the balancing process.  The film cleverly interweaves the death of the young women in the car accident and how her tragic and needless death somehow comes to reconciliation in the saving of John Q’s child.

The film centres on the inadequacies of the US Health system and the reliance upon adequate health insurance to cover major surgical events.  How the state fails to provide adequate support in such circumstances and the desperate plight of a Father to save the life of his son.  Unable to raise the required funds for the operation John enters the Hospital emergency room and starts taking hostages. During this time the hostages get to know one another and the plight in which John is faced.  They soon start to empathise with his situation and he steadily gains their support.

Later as the story unfolds the Chicago Chief of Police tries to take John out with a sniper, but the sniper fails and is himself captured by John. Ultimately negotiations take place and John demands that his son is brought to the emergency room for treatment.  He gains support from the crowd when saying ” I am not going to bury my son, my son is going to bury me”.  The police agree to his demands with the release of the SWAT team sniper.

The point of the story is the demonstration of paternal love between Father and Son and the extreme lengths a parent will go to protect the life of a child.  This contrasted to the lack of care and ultimate disregard of the state to its constituents.  The fact that John is ultimately prepared to make the final sacrifice of his own life to save his son is again contrasted to the disregard of the young woman’s life by reckless driving and the ultimate loss of her life.  Even after all this ordeal John is arrested and taken into custody.  He is ultimately convicted of kidnapping and given a custodial sentence.  The moral here being that no individual is above the law and regardless of circumstances can take the law into their own hands.  The fact that the police sniper may have killed John further re-enforces the level of despair and tragedy between the legal entanglements here.

In conclusion the audience derives the following knowledge from the movie:

• The compassion and sacrifice between a parent and their child
• How despair leads to panic and desperate situations
• Contrasts and sense of irony
• The lack of concern of state institution to the general public, not transcending to individual levels and extraordinary circumstances
• The perils of dangerous driving and personal disregard for safety
• Fate! how one persons demise saves the life of another person
• The rule of law. No individual is above the law regardless of circumstance

The story is aimed at making the audience realise how easily you could be in the place of John and how would you behave under these circumstances? It aims to bring home the moral dilemmas of the situation and get you to ask the question ” how can this be?”

Stuck with your Movie Review?

Get in touch with one of our experts for instant help!

Major Challenges HR Professionals Face, Essay Example

How Personal Can Ethics Get, Essay Example

Time is precious

don’t waste it!

Plagiarism-free guarantee

Privacy guarantee

Secure checkout

Money back guarantee

Related Movie Review Samples & Examples

The globalized world, quiz example.

Pages: 11

Words: 2954

Economic Sanctions, Research Paper Example

Pages: 10

Words: 2872

The Descendants, Movie Review Example

Words: 416

Catheter- Associated Urinary Tract Infection Prevention, Term Paper Example

Pages: 7

Words: 1819

Children of Men, Movie Review Example

Words: 558

Deviance and Social Control in Stand and Deliver, Movie Review Example

Pages: 5

Words: 1351

Notice: All forms on this website are temporarily down for maintenance. You will not be able to complete a form to request information or a resource. We apologize for any inconvenience and will reactivate the forms as soon as possible.

• DVD & Streaming
• Drama , Mystery/Suspense

Content Caution

In Theaters

• Denzel Washington as John Q. Archibald; Kimberly Elise as Denise Archibald; Daniel Smith as Mike Archibald; Robert Duvall as Police negotiator Frank Grimes; James Woods as Dr. Turner; Anne Heche as hospital director Rebecca Payne

Home Release Date

• Nick Cassavetes

Distributor

• New Line Cinema

Movie Review

John Archibald lives between a rock and a hard place. A factory worker who cares profoundly about providing for his family, John gets the short end of the stick during a production slump. His hours are cut back to part time, and he can’t get a second job. Money gets so tight that the family station wagon is repossessed and his wife Denise is forced to take a job at a grocery store to help make ends meet.

Life looks like it can’t get worse—so of course it does. John and Denise’s nine-year-old son, Mike, collapses in the middle of a baseball game and is diagnosed with severe heart disease. Bottom line: If Mikey doesn’t get a new heart, he’ll die. And here, John finds out just what a tight spot he’s in. Because he is only working part time, he no longer has full health benefits. But because he’s employed, he can’t fall back on welfare and Medicaid. From hospital administrators, to doctors, to HMO reps, the healthcare world slams its door on him. Face the facts, John, your son is going to die.

But John Q. won’t stand for it. On the day Mike is to be discharged from the hospital to die at home, John forcibly takes over the emergency room, demanding that his son be put on the recipient list for a new heart. He says he’s willing to do anything—even put his own life and the life of innocent patients in danger—to see Mike get a heart. It’s up to seasoned negotiator Frank Grimes to talk an impassioned father down from a very high ledge.

positive content: John Archibald is a man among men when it comes to his family—his commitment to them is strong and beautiful. He and Denise love each other deeply, though they’re not unrealistically happy. John regularly tells Mike that he loves him, and shows it in both big ways and small. He talks to his son about what’s important in life (“Listen to your mom. . . . Tell her you love her every day. Treat girls like princesses. Be a man of your word. . . . Don’t smoke. Be kind . . .”). He takes an interest in bodybuilding and baseball because those are Mikey’s loves. And more than that, he’s willing to lay down his life for his son. Mikey has apparently learned well. When things get financially rough, he volunteers to give up the allowance money he’s saved, telling his dad, “We’re a family. We gotta stick together.”

While John is desperate enough to hold up a hospital, he’s human enough to show compassion for E.R. patients, letting the husband of a woman in labor go free with her and seeing to it that those with life-threatening illnesses are treated, regardless of their financial situations (“This hospital’s under new management now. Free healthcare for everyone”). Regrettably, violence accompanies a selfish, abusive boyfriend’s comeuppance, but the group who administers “his punishment” clearly loathes his terrible actions.

spiritual content: One line contains dubious theology: “That’s what faith’s all about—believing what you don’t want to believe.” But in touching contrast to the heartless hospital director (“There is a limit to our generosity”), the Archibalds’ church rallies around them to provide as much as possible for Mike’s hospital expenses. A priest is shown giving last rites to a dying girl. And Denise makes a point to ask her husband, “Are you prayin’ for [Mikey]?” (She also sneers at the hospital director, “I would tell you what I think of you, but I’m a Christian woman.”) An E.R. hostage tells John, “Sometimes you gotta just let go and let God.” John admits that he’s not sure if his plot will work and says that he’s “waiting on a miracle—waiting on an act of God.”

sexual content: The abused girlfriend wears short shorts and tight clothes.

violent content: A woman in a car carelessly passes another vehicle and is broadsided by a huge truck. A man threatens to kill himself and puts a gun to his own head several times. An open chest cavity is shown during a surgery scene. A man in the E.R. is missing the tip of his finger, another is admitted with gunshot wounds. John holds a gun to a security guard’s head and threatens to start offing emergency room hostages if the hospital won’t put Mike’s name on the heart recipient list. One captive stabs John’s shoulder with a scalpel. John head-butts him, making his nose bleed. Hospital chemicals are used twice as mace. A police sniper takes a shot at John.

crude or profane language: John Q holds itself to a PG-13 by having John’s blue-collar buddies use words like “friggin’” and “screw you” rather than their harsher counterparts. Still, several dozen mild profanities, nine s-words and two f-words litter the script. Both God’s and Jesus’ names are misused repeatedly.

drug and alcohol content: John’s friend Jimmy smokes cigarettes.

other negative elements: Moviegoers are led through a maze of moral dilemmas and situation ethics. In an otherwise heartwarming and positive conversation with Mike, John tells his son, “[When you grow up] make money if you get a chance, even if you’ve got to sell out once in a while. Everything is so much easier with money.” Throughout the negotiation process, public officials lie—to John and to each other—in order to expedite what they think will be the best solution. Policemen are more concerned with public image than the loss of human life. As a kidnapper in a hostage situation, John is painted in such a sympathetic light that even his captives like and respect him. That portrayal will surely cause some to view his actions as “righteous retribution” or even an admirable example of devotion and love for one’s child. It’s heartrending, but the ends (in this case, saving Mike’s life) simply don’t justify the means (threatening to take other lives).

conclusion: John Q jumps on several social soapboxes: the healthcare system, the mistreatment of the working poor, political posturing, media exploitation. Unfortunately, the movie can’t decide which cause it really wants to champion. So it meanders among blatant stereotypes and flat characters. Classist cliches get a heavy workout ( Nobody , no matter how wealthy they are, wears an ascot in the hospital, in the daytime. But one of John Q ’s rich patients does). Hospital administrators are painted as completely heartless, barely human individuals. And the liberal politics of state-run healthcare get more than one plug. This film’s not exactly clear on what its agenda is, but it wants you to know it definitely has one.

In contrast to all that, Denzel Washington is just what we expect him to be—a convincing father who cares deeply for his dying son and leads audiences to do the same. Which, in this case spells trouble, because it means John Q can’t just be written off as second-rate storytelling. Viewers will be pulled into John’s moral and emotional dilemma, and some will emerge with the conclusion that John’s actions are justifiable. They’re not. Worth discussing? Yes. Worth embracing and/or emulating? No. And though the movie gives a nod to consequences and justice (many of John’s actions are explained away by a plot twist, and for the rest he gets a couple years in prison), the overall emotional effect is to make the viewer root for a guy who’s flagrantly breaking the law and quite possibly trying to play God. That, along with foul language and the constant threat of violence, makes John Q a dicey prescription for families.

Lindy Keffer

Latest reviews.

The Idea of You

We Grown Now

The Long Game

Love Lies Bleeding

Weekly reviews straight to your inbox.

bestessayhelp.com

Review of John Q – Essay Sample

John Q is an emotionally-packed movie that surrounds the unfortunate medical circumstances of John, played by Denzel Washington, and his son.  The purpose of the film was to raise the many issues surrounding poor health care in the United States, and even less empathy from hospital administration and insurance companies.  After John’s son collapses at a baseball game, the doctors diagnose him as having a heart that is too large for his body and declare that he must receive an immediate transplant to survive.  Quickly, the hospital administration informs John that his insurance plan does not cover such an operation and an immediate payment of $100,000 must be made just to get his son’s name on the donor list.  There are multiple issues surrounding the problems of John and his family, and through the use of cinematic techniques the director, Nick Cassavetes, brings these issues to life and sparks a national discussion on health care.

The movie contains multiple scenes of close-up camera shots, highly emotional scenes and the use of poignant music to emphasize the heightened emotions of the situation.  In many scenes where John is speaking with his sick son, the camera is zoomed in to show the particular facial expressions of the characters.  As the actors and actresses begin to shed emotional tears of fear and joy, the audience is able to experience the heightened emotional pull on the importance of the scene.  The quality actors are able to act in a way that makes the audience believe in the magnitude of the situation.  Washington convinces viewers as he immerses himself in the role and communicates an exceptional believability through communicating with the doctors, administrators and even his own wife.  Finally, the director utilizes the power of music to express the heightened emotions surrounding the situation.  For instance, in the first scene classical music is playing in the car of a woman as she performs dangerous turns in her car while driving.  Quickly, the audience is able to understand that the woman’s death has a higher purpose in the overall story and her imminent death is preceded by the poignant, emotional music.

The overall goal of the movie is to communicate the importance of health care reform and the problems surrounding the current health care system with employer-sponsored health insurance.  Within the first half hour of the movie, the villain becomes clear: “it’s all the fault of a healthcare system that caters to the rich and well-insured middle classes while denying quality care — or even life itself — to the uninsured and to poor people” (Lockard).  This villain becomes magnified through the events of the plot; whereby, the employer has changed John’s insurance plan without notification and the hospital administrators and doctors are unsympathetic towards the pleas of the family.  Through the use of and excellently written screenplay, John Q is able to explain the goal of the movie.  The audience is educated from the hospital administrator, played by Anne Heche, “that over forty million Americans do not have health insurance, and many more have inadequate insurance” that increases morbidity and mortality rates through insufficient health care (Lockard).  Part of the goal of this movie has been to begin a strong nationwide discussion for changes in the health care system, including the potential of moving towards a universal health care system.

Many individuals place blame on the entire health care system in the United States as being flawed and based solely around putting more money in the pockets of doctors and medical or insurance companies, rather than providing quality health care.  Some individuals even claim that if the United States had universal health care, such as the system found in the northern neighbors in Canada, John Q and millions of other individuals would not experience nearly the headaches and heartaches.  Unfortunately, universal health are poses its own problems for John Q, as explained by John Vincent from the Objectivist Center.  First of all, the Canadian government has total control over paying for the health care system and makes all decisions on the wait lists and treatments that can be provided to all people.  In other words, similar care would have been provided to John Q and his son in Canada, and would have likely reached the same diagnosis.  However, the government becomes responsible for placing his son on the donor list and the government also decides if and when the patient will receive the surgery (Vincent).  Therefore, the financial problems for John Q and the insurance struggles would no longer be the concern, instead the Canadian government would become the villain and John Q’s son may never receive his transplant, even with John Q’s decision to take hostages – it is out of the control of hospital administrators and doctors.

The road to success is easy with a little help. Let's get your assignment out of the way.

30 John Q (2002)

John Q vs. The System

by Michael St Clair

Navigating the healthcare system in the United States often feels like you’re running through an endless obstacle course filled with bureaucratic hurdles and walls of paperwork, not to mention the extremely high cost. Many complex dynamics find their way to the forefront – the power dynamics between the patient and medical establishment, institutionalized discrimination, and intersectional differences. No film demonstrates these dynamics better than Nick Cassavetes’ 2002 film John Q . The film follows the story of a man called John, who becomes desperate to save his son after news of a terminal diagnosis. After exhausting all his resources and options, John takes drastic measures to ensure his son gets the medical care he needs to save his life.

Our protagonist, John Quincy Archibald (played by Denzel Washington), is a working-class black man who earns a modest living. The issue of class difference is raised after finding out his son needs a heart transplant that his insurance will not cover. Tragically, this scenario is far from novel. According to a 2010 study by the American Journal of Public Health, “Those with the lowest income and who were least educated were consistently least healthy, but for most indicators, even groups with intermediate income and education levels were less healthy than the wealthiest and most educated.” (Braveman).

In one notable scene that conveys working-class angst, John has just finished rushing his son to the hospital and must go through the check-in process. After answering all the basic information about his son, he is faced with a vexing question – he is asked to produce his insurance card. The background noise of the bustling hospital fades and the camera slowly zooms in on John’s troubled face as he stares at the receptionist in silence for a few long seconds. Encoded in this scene is that socio-economic status can be a barrier to life saving health services, prompting viewers to decode the implications of a healthcare system that promotes class-based discrimination.

John quickly finds himself in a disempowered position. The film’s mise‐en‐scène does an excellent job of displaying this power dynamic. There are a multitude of relatable scenes where John is at the mercy of the system, waiting in long lines, filling out large piles of paperwork, and becoming frustrated while waiting on hold for hours on end. After selling all his valuable belongings to fund his son’s surgery, John makes his final plea to the hospital’s head of cardiac surgery, Doctor Raymond Turner (played by James Woods). The scene starts with Raymond talking warmly with a wealthy patient who has received top level care. John interrupts and politely asks him to talk alone. The scene then cuts to a wide shot of a broad hallway with a double door at the end, and the two men step out center shot to talk mano-e-mano. John desperately attempts to convince the doctor to do the surgery for his son on credit, but the doctor declines. In this film, the protagonist flips the power dynamic when he uses a gun to take the hospital and the staff hostage. In real life, however, power is not so easily shifted. This is, at least in part, due to institutionalized discrimination.

According to the book America on Film , “Just as a single person can be a bigot, those same biases can be incorporated into the very structures of our “free” nation: this is known as institutionalized discrimination.” (Benshoff & Griffin). John Q shines a spotlight on the issue of institutionalized discrimination within the healthcare system. The film concludes with a montage of soundbites from famous comedians, political commentators, and talking heads, all of which have a lot to say about the inequities and institutionalized discrimination prevalent in the healthcare system. This scene is presented to the viewer in low resolution and scratchy sound quality, similar to watching a video recording of a TV screen playing a film. The montage features a spectrum of well-known figures from various political and cultural backgrounds sharing their thoughts on John’s case, creating a sense of relatability that can be decoded by viewers from all walks of life.

The film does an exceptional job in creating a feeling of relatability through literary design. The title of the film (and name of the protagonist) was not chosen by chance. “John Q” is a colloquialism for the common man, or ordinary person. John Q. Citizen, John Q. Taxpayer, John Q. Public – these are all generic terms for a hypothetical member of society. This deliberate choice in vernacular is designed to speak to a diverse audience and create a sense of familiarity. John Quincy Archibald serves as a paradigm of the average American citizen and his (or her) typical experience navigating the healthcare system.

The cinematographic choices in John Q encode messages in a way that is enjoyable and relatable for most viewers. Of course, the film is not everyone’s cup of tea. According to one scathing review by film critic Neil Smith of the British Broadcasting Corporation, “The woeful state of healthcare in the United States is a pressing concern (for Americans, anyway), but manufacturing such a patently absurd scenario is hardly the best way to address it.” (Smith). He goes on to comment that the film “doesn’t so much need a heart as a brain transplant.” Although Mr. Smith is not a fan of the film’s plot, he cannot disagree that the film draws attention to the arduous issues of healthcare in America.

The American healthcare system does have glaring flaws that urgently need to be addressed, however it is not without some redeeming qualities. It has historically been the world leader in medical research, advancement, and innovation. It has a highly skilled and diverse workforce employed by world class medical institutions and hospitals. Comparatively, the average wait time in the emergency room is 58 minutes as opposed to Britain’s 3-hour average (Trudeau). In many instances, these averages can be accurately extrapolated into other areas of medical care that require urgent and complex treatments, such as a heart transplant.

John Q is more than an entertaining film about a father’s unwavering devotion, it’s an indictment on the issues of power, discrimination, and intersectional differences within the United States healthcare system. As the viewers decode these messages, it becomes clear that the barriers to life saving healthcare services are rooted in these systemic inequalities. We the people must come together and find a solution that provides socially and economically equitable medical care to patients without sacrificing the high-quality standards that the United States is known for. These issues transcend all distinguishing factors among us. We must push for reforms that align with the principles of justice and equality in healthcare.

Benshoff, Harry, M. and Sean Griffin. America on Film . Available from: VitalSource Bookshelf, (3rd Edition). Wiley Global Research (STMS), 2021.

Braveman, Paula A, et al. “Socioeconomic Disparities in Health in the United States: What the Patterns Tell Us.” American Journal of Public Health , U.S. National Library of Medicine, 1 Apr. 2010, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2837459/

Smith, Neil. “Films – Review – John Q.” BBC, BBC, https://www.bbc.co.uk/films/2002/04/18/john_q_2002_review.shtml. Accessed 22 Nov. 2023.

Trudeau, Noah. “Across the Pond: A Comparison of Healthcare Systems in the US and UK.” Choate Public Health, 24 Sept. 2019, publichealth.choate.edu/across-the-pond-a-comparison-of-healthcare-systems-in-the-us-a nd-uk/

Difference, Power, and Discrimination in Film and Media: Student Essays Copyright © by Students at Linn-Benton Community College is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• Movie Reviews

‘John Q’ (2002) Movie Review and Ending, Explained

‘John Q’ (2002) Movie Review and Ending, Explained – Have an optimistic attitude and a strong heart. That is the lesson from the 2002 medical thriller kidnapping film ‘ John Q .’ at the end of the crisis. The story is given a sombre urgency by actor-director Nick Cassavetes. What starts out as a simple hostage situation quickly escalates into a national humanitarian crisis.

The plot follows John Q , who holds multiple hostages in Hope Memorial Hospital’s emergency room, praying for a miracle. He requests a heart for his son, which appears absurd to law enforcement and hospital officials at first. Denzel Washington leads a cast that is sentimental, passionate, and reactionary in this film. However, the movie leaves the audience with various thoughts.

Let us help you if you’re having trouble remembering the ending.

Recommended: ‘How It Ends’ (2018) Movie Ending Explained

‘John Q’ (2002) Movie Plot Synopsis

With his wife Denise and son Michael, John Quincy Archibald leads a generally fulfilled lower-middle-class life. He is an ideal parent and spouse because he always makes the family laugh, even when they are going through a difficult period. To their dismay, John and Denise go to Michael’s school baseball game, but Michael collapses on the ground during a run.

Michael is sent to Hope Memorial Hospital. Following preliminary examinations, the physicians admit Michael to an intensive care unit, while John and Denise speak with the authorities.

The hospital director, Rebecca Payne, informs Michael’s family that he requires a heart transplant. Michael would not be able to live a healthy life without a new heart, despite the fact that there are other ways to extend his life. However, John’s insurance will not cover the treatment, and the hospital will charge a high fee of $75,000 merely to get Michael’s name on the transplant list.

John is hoping for a miracle with his back against the wall. Meanwhile, John takes a bold measure after receiving a distressing call from Denise. He enters the ER with a gun, holding people hostage, and causing a ruckus.

‘John Q’ (2002) Movie Review

The title of Nick Cassavetes’ film John Q makes it apparent that the protagonist, John Q. Archibald (Denzel Washington), is actually John Q. Public, the All-American Everyman. The film is about a blue-collar worker who cracks under the strains of the current crisis, and its immediate aesthetic inspiration, one assumes, is Michael Douglas’ explosive film Falling Down, about a white-collar worker who goes insane under the strains of the times.

As if to bolster this notion, Robert Duvall plays the same character in both films. John Q is a hardworking, cash-strapped Chicago-area engineering craftsman who is unexpectedly faced with a cherished 10-year-old kid who would die without a heart transplant. The problem is that the hospital requires a 30% deposit on the $230,000 procedure charge, and John Q’s employers have moved to a cheaper insurance programme without telling him because he’s on temporary leave. His maximum benefit has been set at $20,000.

The first half-hour or so is compelling and a useful source of fury at the system’s injustice, as John Q and his badgering wife do everything they can to raise the money. Then John Q blows out and takes over the hospital’s ER section during a weekend slowdown, holding the chief cardiologist ( James Woods ) , a handful of interns, and a slew of colourful patients as hostages.

A siege ensues, with a sympathetic hostage negotiator ( Robert Duvall ) clashing with a callous, politically motivated police commander ( Ray Liotta ). With time for debates about the inequity of medical provisions, the film evolves into a decent enough action film. But it quickly devolves into unbelievable melodrama and sentimental bathos.

Denzel Washington reverts to his saintly mode after his evil vice officer in Training Day, for which he earned an Oscar, and the film, in typical Hollywood manner, loses sight of the crucial issues of politics and principle it initially raises.

John Q Ending Explained

Michael has a heart that is about three times larger than typical, which produces pulmonary edoema, as Dr. Raymond Turner tells John and Denise in a conference. Because Michael’s heart isn’t purifying enough blood, it gets caught in the back of his lungs like a sponge. Cardiomegaly refers to an enlarged heart in medical jargon.

Heart enlargement may be induced by another health problem rather than being a disorder in and of itself. Patients with cardiomegaly may be able to live with drugs, but Michael’s heart is about three times the size of the typical, necessitating surgery.

However, as instructed by Health Maintenance Organizations, replacement operations are optional (HMOs). As a result, even though Michael may die without a decent heart, the surgery is ruled elective. Furthermore, because it is an optional operation, it is not covered by insurance.

Furthermore, these procedures are invasive, and an incorrect match could result in death. As a result, the hospital has a policy of only accepting cash payments from individuals undergoing such treatments. Because of the financial difficulties, John feels obligated to abduct the doctor.

Whose Heart Is It That Michael Gets in the ‘John Q’ Movie?

When all else fails, John is resolute on ending his life in order to save his son. Despite the fact that he is not an expert on the subject, he is aware that he shares the same blood group as his kid — B+. John claims that his tissues are the same as Michael’s. As a result, John has requested that Dr. Raymond Turner undertake the procedure and donate his heart to his son. Although the hostages are in a state of partial astonishment and wonder, John is more concerned with Michael’s recuperation than with his own survival.

Dr. Turner accepts John’s offer to conduct the procedure, despite his initial scepticism. To prevent legal difficulties, John will need two witnesses. Julie and Max, a security guard, arrive to save the day. In the Emergency Room, he bids Michael farewell while imparting some important life lessons. John unhooks the rifle and reveals that he only has one bullet. With the one-shot, John plays Russian Roulette with himself on an emergency bed.

Doctors at another institution, on the other hand, discover a functional heart that originally belonged to the woman who died in the early vehicle crash, credited only as “Beautiful BMW Driver.” Payne sends the fax to the hospital doctor, who hurries to tell John the good news. Rebecca, on the other hand, contacts Denise to inform her that they have a heart. Denise dials John’s number, who is on the verge of committing suicide. Denise’s call is terminated by John, but the doctor gets the message to the ER.

As a result, John releases the hostages while remaining at Michael’s surgery. The surgery goes well with Dr. Turner in charge of the scissors and scalpels. Meanwhile, Lester Matthews, a good man, acts in for John and smiles his way to the police station. All save Grimes are unconcerned by the incident, and Grimes confronts John with handcuffs outside the operating room.

What is Going to Happen to John at the End of the Movie?

While Michael is alive, the hostage incident sends shockwaves across the country, with public opinion leaning with John. Rather than blaming John, many are questioning the broken healthcare system. Above all, the story vividly depicts how 40 million Americans (as of 2009) do not have health insurance, as John’s desperation exemplifies.

Nas, the famed rapper, even shows out to offer his support for the cause. With all of the public support and a police blunder (which could kill John), he cannot possibly face a life sentence. Lt. Frank Grimes leads John to the courtroom in the last scenes of the film.

Because his gun had no ammunition and he tossed the sniper’s gun away on public display, the jury finds John not guilty of attempted murder and armed criminal action. John, on the other hand, has been convicted of kidnapping and false detention and faces a term of three to five years in prison.

The court adjourns the hearing, and we don’t know what his penalty will be, but John’s lawyer promises him that she will try to negotiate a two-year term. Denise, on the other hand, is affectionate and supportive of John. As the story comes to a close, we might assume that John has finally performed a miracle.

You can stream full ‘John Q’ (2002) Movie on Netflix , HBO Max , and Amazon Prime .

Must See: Silverton Siege (2022) Movie Review and Ending Explained

Related articles more from author.

Night Swim Movie Review: Is it Worth Watching?

Is Joe Rantz in ‘The Boys in the Boat’, Based on a Real Person?

“The Boys in the Boat” Filming Locations: Where Was It Filmed?

Latest news.

Starz ‘Mary & George’: Is Sandie Inspired by a Real Person?

Portuguese Horror Movie ‘Amelia’s Children’ Review

Are Sarah Ann and Jeramey From ‘Love is Blind’ Still Together?

‘Indigo’ Film Summary and Ending Explained: The Devil’s Sinister Plan

Masters Of The Air Episode 6 Recap and Ending Explained

Is Crime Series ‘Poacher’ Based on a True Story?

Editor picks, popular posts.

Top 10 Most Frequently Asked Keto Diet Questions And Answers

Big Brother Season 23 Episode 13 Release Date & Spoiler

Tom Cruise is selling Colorado Ranch for $ 39.5 million |...

Popular category.

• TV News 861
• Crime Mystery 635
• Netflix 447
• Investigation Discovery 426
• TV Recaps 235
• True Crime 148
• Reality 125
• Terms Of Use
• Privacy Policy

There are few things I dread more in life than reviewing a truly great movie. I can only come up with so many things to say with any variation - "Great cast. Beautiful direction. Witty writing. I'm sure the catering was excellent." - and so on and so forth. Luckily (in a backwards sort of way) John Q. has me writing the exact opposite kind of critique. Ladies and gentlemen, strap in tight - we're going for a near-total pan. Prepare for some heavy use of negative language.

First of all, I'm glad to see some parts of Hollywood have totally given up their respect for the viewer's intelligence. I was wondering when that other shoe was going to drop, and drop it has. For example, the trailers completely and totally give away the plot of the film. You've probably seen the trailer. I don't even watch TV ("Buffy" excepted) and I've seen it at least 3 times. Great, so you know too much of the plot...desperate dad John Q. Archibald ( Denzel Washington ) holds an emergency room hostage to try to force the hospital into giving his dying son a needed heart transplant that he can't afford and that his HMO won't cover. Fine. Trailers do this all the time. We deal.

However, John Q. raises it a notch, by practically giving you the ending of the film in the first five minutes, by opening on a totally unrelated incident that you know will tie up all the loose ends in under two hours time. Maybe this was some kind of warning that the audience could safely walk out now, knowing that things turn out a certain way, and you don't really have to even bother with the swill that follows.

Or, maybe, screenwriter James Kearns didn't know what the hell he was doing when he tried to write a movie, because he manages to tie in my three C's of bad scripts (convolution, cliché and conceitedness) into one awful little flick. It's just full of sudden, contrived happenings, characters that walked out of the Beginner's Guide to One-Dimensional Caricatures, and Big Important Speeches that talk down to the audience as if they couldn't possibly understand what was happening in their own country. Plus, I kept on thinking how truly excellent the situations in Airheads were by comparison.

You see, the movie has a beef with HMO's, as expressed in a very long and very poorly delivered speech given by Kevin Connolly (as a hostage intern). It's understood that HMO's are a corrupt system... It is possible for a movie to make that point without a dissertation written and blathered out like a high school freshman's oral report. Plus, it sends a message that if you have a problem with the way things work, a gun is the very best way to solve it.

Director Nick Cassavetes is still not his father John, which is a damn shame, because it probably could have helped this movie. John Q. is filled with long ponderous shots, and forced bits of sentimentality. At one point, when John is asked if he has insurance, the camera pauses on him, announcing "Crucial Point in Plot" quite loudly (and you can just tell that Denzel did not want to make that interruption in the flow). Every single point in the film where Kearns' script starts to dip into banality, Cassavetes is right there to give it a good tug downward.

Plus, not only are a good load of talented actors wasted - some of them give the worst performances possible. I expect more from James Woods (playing a single-note asshole cardiac surgeon) and I certainly know that Robert Duvall (as the hostage negotiator) can do better. Ray Liotta is similarly bad, and Anne Heche is damn lucky she has an alternate outer space personality to fall back on, because the human being she plays here has no meat whatsoever. Three young where-have-I-seen-them-before actors (Ethan Suplee, Shawn Hatosy, and Connolly) are easily the worst, though... All of them were very difficult to watch.

If John Q. has any redeeming qualities whatsoever, they reside in the charismatic lead. Denzel commands the screen, and does what the script and director cannot - give the character an existence. He doesn't yell desperation. He doesn't need to. You can see it in his eyes; that, and the love he holds for his child. Every time Denzel was alone on the screen, I cared. Really I did... It's just that the pesky co-stars tended to get in the way, and they do it a lot. Say what you want about Great, Oscar-worthy performances. I think it shows real acting ability to be able to do anything with your craft when everything else about the film is so insanely awful. This is probably going to go down as the most embarrassing film on his resumé (and I'm counting The Siege ), but that doesn't mean he doesn't give it his absolute best.

I think that the most damning thing I can say about John Q. is that it is the only film that I have ever wanted to get up and walk out of. It quite literally offended me as a movie-goer. I expect to be treated with a small modicum of respect by the filmmakers and they put a dunce cap on me, sat me in the corner, and explained to me How Things Are in very small, one-syllable words. I don't deserve that, and neither do you. Don't waste your money.

The First Film 32 For Great Directors

The Best Sexy Horror Movies Of All Time, And How To Watch Them

The Good Doctor Cast Richard Schiff's Real-Life Daughter For Dr. Glassman's Latest Story, And I'm Already Nervous

Most Popular

Common Sense Media

Movie & TV reviews for parents

• For Parents
• For Educators
• Our Work and Impact

Or browse by category:

• Get the app
• Movie Reviews
• Best Movie Lists
• Best Movies on Netflix, Disney+, and More

Common Sense Selections for Movies

50 Modern Movies All Kids Should Watch Before They're 12

• Best TV Lists
• Best TV Shows on Netflix, Disney+, and More
• Common Sense Selections for TV
• Video Reviews of TV Shows

Best Kids' Shows on Disney+

Best Kids' TV Shows on Netflix

• Book Reviews
• Best Book Lists
• Common Sense Selections for Books

8 Tips for Getting Kids Hooked on Books

50 Books All Kids Should Read Before They're 12

• Game Reviews
• Best Game Lists

Common Sense Selections for Games

• Video Reviews of Games

Nintendo Switch Games for Family Fun

• Podcast Reviews
• Best Podcast Lists

Common Sense Selections for Podcasts

Parents' Guide to Podcasts

• App Reviews
• Best App Lists

Social Networking for Teens

Gun-Free Action Game Apps

Reviews for AI Apps and Tools

• YouTube Channel Reviews
• YouTube Kids Channels by Topic

Parents' Ultimate Guide to YouTube Kids

YouTube Kids Channels for Gamers

• Preschoolers (2-4)
• Little Kids (5-7)
• Big Kids (8-9)
• Pre-Teens (10-12)
• Teens (13+)
• Screen Time
• Social Media
• Online Safety
• Identity and Community

Explaining the News to Our Kids

• Family Tech Planners
• Digital Skills
• All Articles
• Latino Culture
• Black Voices
• Asian Stories
• Native Narratives
• LGBTQ+ Pride
• Best of Diverse Representation List

Celebrating Black History Month

Movies and TV Shows with Arab Leads

Celebrate Hip-Hop's 50th Anniversary

Common sense media reviewers.

Thought-provoking. Too intense for young teens.

A Lot or a Little?

What you will—and won't—find in this movie.

A father resorts to criminal behavior in order to

Violence limited to short scenes or moments.

Some foul language.

Some product placement.

Parents need to know that this is an intense film that deals with themes of death and failures of the medical system. These might be a lot for some kids to handle, particularly since a young boy's life hangs in the balance for most of the film. Violence and foul language are sporadic, limited to short scenes or…

Positive Messages

A father resorts to criminal behavior in order to get medical attention for his dying son. Criminal behavior does have consequences.

Violence & Scariness

Did you know you can flag iffy content? Adjust limits for Violence & Scariness in your kid's entertainment guide.

Did you know you can flag iffy content? Adjust limits for Language in your kid's entertainment guide.

Products & Purchases

Parents need to know.

Parents need to know that this is an intense film that deals with themes of death and failures of the medical system. These might be a lot for some kids to handle, particularly since a young boy's life hangs in the balance for most of the film. Violence and foul language are sporadic, limited to short scenes or moments. Fighting, stabbing, gunshots, attempted murder, and attempted suicide are featured in the film. To stay in the loop on more movies like this, you can sign up for weekly Family Movie Night emails .

Where to Watch

Videos and photos.

Community Reviews

• Parents say (4)
• Kids say (9)

Based on 4 parent reviews

Speaks Volumes

What's the story.

When John (Denzel Washington) and Denise's (Kimberly Elise) son Mike (Daniel E. Smith) is diagnosed with a fatal heart condition, the parents are put in a tight spot. As working class parents, their health care will not cover the cost of the necessary transplant operation. So they do all they can to raise the $250,000 needed to save their son's life. But when the hospital decides to discharge Mike, John decides to take matters into his own hands. So he holds an emergency room hostage, his ransom being to get his son on the donor list for a heart transplant.

Is It Any Good?

While predictable, JOHN Q is gripping on a number of accounts. For one, the current state of the health care system is put on trial in this film. Make no mistake, this film is social commentary. And the message it states is loud and clear. Despite its preachiness, John Q is entertaining and features an especially fine performance by Washington, whose portrayal of a father's desperation is very palpable.

Talk to Your Kids About ...

Families can talk about John's actions. Are they justifiable? This film presents a perfect opportunity to talk about the status of the health care system in the United States. Is the current system fair? Should medical care be tied to ones ability to pay for it? Why or why not?

Movie Details

• In theaters : February 15, 2002
• On DVD or streaming : July 16, 2002
• Cast : Denzel Washington , James Woods , Robert Duvall
• Director : Nick Cassavetes
• Inclusion Information : Black actors
• Studio : New Line
• Genre : Drama
• Run time : 116 minutes
• MPAA rating : PG-13
• MPAA explanation : violence, language and intense thematic elements
• Last updated : December 24, 2023

Did we miss something on diversity?

Research shows a connection between kids' healthy self-esteem and positive portrayals in media. That's why we've added a new "Diverse Representations" section to our reviews that will be rolling out on an ongoing basis. You can help us help kids by suggesting a diversity update.

Suggest an Update

Our editors recommend.

Remember the Titans

Antwone Fisher

Common Sense Media's unbiased ratings are created by expert reviewers and aren't influenced by the product's creators or by any of our funders, affiliates, or partners.

• Cast & crew
• User reviews

• John Quincy Archibald takes a hospital emergency room hostage when his insurance won't cover his son's heart transplant.
• John Quincy Archibald's son Michael collapses while playing baseball as a result of heart failure. John rushes Michael to a hospital emergency room where he is informed that Michael's only hope is a transplant. Unfortunately, John's insurance won't cover his son's transplant. Out of options, John Q. takes the emergency room staff and patients hostage until hospital doctors agree to do the transplant. — Anonymous

It looks like we don't have any synopsis for this title yet. Be the first to contribute.

Contribute to this page

• See more gaps
• Learn more about contributing

More from this title

More to explore.

Recently viewed

• Environment
• Information Science
• Social Issues
• Argumentative
• Cause and Effect
• Classification
• Compare and Contrast
• Descriptive
• Exemplification
• Informative
• Controversial
• Exploratory
• What Is an Essay
• Length of an Essay
• Generate Ideas
• Types of Essays
• Structuring an Essay
• Outline For Essay
• Essay Introduction
• Thesis Statement
• Body of an Essay
• Writing a Conclusion
• Essay Writing Tips
• Drafting an Essay
• Revision Process
• Fix a Broken Essay
• Format of an Essay
• Essay Examples
• Essay Checklist
• Essay Writing Service
• Pay for Research Paper
• Write My Research Paper
• Write My Essay
• Custom Essay Writing Service
• Admission Essay Writing Service
• Pay for Essay
• Academic Ghostwriting
• Write My Book Report
• Case Study Writing Service
• Dissertation Writing Service
• Coursework Writing Service
• Lab Report Writing Service
• Do My Assignment
• Buy College Papers
• Capstone Project Writing Service
• Buy Research Paper
• Custom Essays for Sale

Can’t find a perfect paper?

• Free Essay Samples

John Q: The Movie

Updated 18 October 2023

Subject Movies

Downloads 36

Category Entertainment

Topic Film Analysis

John Q. Archibald: The Plight of a Father

John Q. is a movie that features Denzel Washington as John Q. Archibald as the main character. He works in a company in Chicago and has a wife and a boy child. During a baseball game, the son collapses and John and his wife Denise (Kimberly Elise) rush him to the hospital for treatment. His condition is stabilized and after examination, the cardiologist explains that their son's heart is three times the normal size. The parents are given two options which include optimizing the child's life for the remaining days he was to be alive or have a transplant of the heart. The hospital administrator knows the Archibalds' well and she is aware that they are not in a condition to pay for a transplant; she calls for the boy to be put on optimization of his life. John thinks that he has health cover insurance but to his surprise, it was scrapped of when he was demoted to a part time worker. This means that what he is covered for cannot be enough to take care for a transplant for his son. The message in the movie revolves around the richest nation being unable to provide medical cover for its citizens. Some of the other themes highlighted are parental love and the plight of employees in the hands of their employers.

The Struggle for Healthcare

John's son needed a transplant and the amount needed for the same was $250,000. There was to be a down payment of $75,000 before the son was booked for an operation. John though he had an insurance cover but realized that his new HMO was not enough to cover for such a medical procedure; it could only cover up to $20,000 at maximum in any health service. This was a cover for someone who worked 20 hours a week for the company. Considering the services provided with such a worker, the cover was not enough and the company was exploiting John - exploiting his services while giving minimum compensation for the services he provided. Another subject of discussion here is the policies held by hospitals to this day. They value money at the expense of the well being of patients. The hospital insisted that John had to pay a down payment before his son was booked for an operation. This was despite the administrator knowing that such an amount was too high for this family to raise. The hospital should have allowed the procedure to continue on humanitarian grounds and let the family find a way to foot the bill later on. Insisting on them paying an amount that was way above their means was an injustice to them.

A Desperate Father's Actions

From the actions of John, we can see parental love and the extent a parent can go to ensure the wellbeing of their child. He realized he was not able to raise the amount required but had to use other means possible to ensure that the son was attended to. He takes a gun, matches into the hospital and takes hostages and vows to kill them if his demands are not mate. His main demand is for the son to get an operation and his plan involves him taking away his life and having his heart given to Mike who is his son. The hostages he has understand why he is doing this and occasionally help him out. John also allows the hostages to be attended to by the doctors because he meant them no harm but only wanted his son to be operated on. The negotiator understands this and offers him what he wanted but insists he should let the hostages go. Interesting to note is the fact that the gun he had was not loaded amplifying the assumption made earlier that he did not want to harm anybody at all.

The Incompetency of the Police Force

In addition to this, the incompetency of the police force through its leadership is also highlighted in this film. The police in charge of the mission, Chief Monroe is portrayed as an incompetent officer. During the hostage situation, a local TV channel manages to tap into the security feeds of the hospital and relays the situation live to the audience. The chief officer smuggles a sniper in the building and commands him to shoot john not knowing everything was live on TV. This is despite the negotiator having done a good job of reasoning out with john who had no intention of harming a hostage. This proves that officers at times kill innocent people who have little motive of crime (Rush, 2011). Criminals should not be shot to death unless they are posing a life threat to people around them. They should be arraigned in court and let it determine their crimes. The policy in essence should not act as the judge, jury and executioner in cases. Their job is to arrest alleged criminals and present them in court for examination by the judiciary.

Portraying Social Injustices

The hostages John takes are a representation of other social injustices in the American society. There is a pregnant woman who is dilating with no man in site. This is an indication of the irresponsible nature of some men in the society. Another one is a victim of a gunshot which shows the nature of the gun violence on the streets of America. The other is a woman who has been battered by the boyfriend but chooses to hide it until she is pressurized to say the truth. This shows that domestic violence is a common practice in America and women choose not to speak about it because of fear. These hostages play supporting roles to the theme of social injustices in the society. They prove that there are many social injustices that happen in America that need to be addressed by the administration.

The Message of John Q.

The film John Q was successful in articulating its message to the audience. Some of the themes that are covered in the movie are parental love and social injustices in the American society. John, after realizing he could not raise the money needed for a transplant, chose another method to ensure his son received the treatment. He was even ready to take his own life to ensure that his son got a heart so that he could continue living. Other injustices highlighted are the inability of companies to have a sufficient health cover for their workers, hospitals caring more about money than the well being of their patients, domestic violence, irresponsibility of male parents, and gun violence. All this contributes to highlighting the main theme of the movie which is the inability of the richest nation in the world to have a health insurance cover for its citizens.

Rush, Curtis (10 December 2011). "In tailspin after police shootings, former SWAT team leader lifts veil on post-traumatic stress syndrome". Toronto Star.

John Q. Film (2002)

Deadline is approaching?

Wait no more. Let us write you an essay from scratch

Related Essays

Related topics.

Find Out the Cost of Your Paper

Type your email

By clicking “Submit”, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy policy. Sometimes you will receive account related emails.