JOHN Q

Denzel’s new flick “John Q.” tries to tackle an issue which needs to be addressed in this country: the lack of national health insurance. Washington stars as a blue-collar father who discovers that his son has a rare heart defect and that his insurance won’t cover the cost of a life-saving heart
transplant. After failing to qualify for financial assistance from the government, his bank, and various agencies and learning that the hospital plans to release his son, he takes everyone in the hospital’s emergency room hostage, demanding that his son be operated on.

Washington imbues his character with the right amount of earnestness and desperation to make us sympathize with him. It’s beginning to seem as if it’s impossible for Denzel to turn in anything less than a stellar performance, and very often he saves the movie from descending into unnecessary melodrama. Robert Duvall and Kimberly Elise are also good as the crusty hostage negotiator and suffering wife.

At times the story becomes preachy, and while there is no question that the movie makes goods points for a more than worthy cause, it could have been done without some of the sermonizing that takes place. This certainly makes for crowd pleasing material but it also oversimplifies what is a very complicated issue. On top of that, the characters are presented in an elementary good and evil fashion and only exhibit some change when the script requires them to.

At the end of the day, “John Q.” is not so much a gripping drama that seriously confronts the problem of medical coverage as it is an entertaining though somewhat manipulative hostage movie which uses a pressing matter to coax a compassionate reaction from its audience.

COLLATERAL DAMAGE

Remember Arnold Schwarzenegger in the 1980s? The invincible one man army who pounded foes into
submission? Well, the times have changed and audiences don’t seem as thrilled by the “big man with big guns” phenomenon as they used to be. Furthermore, as tough as it may be to admit, Arnold’s getting up there in age.

“Collateral Damage” is the third movie in a row that was supposed to be Arnold’s “comeback” and unfortunately the results are mixed. Made before Sept. 11th, the movie’s original October release date was delayed until now due to the storyline which involves terrorists and bombings on American soil. It certainly is uncomfortable to watch specific scenes which are reminiscent of the events of past months, but one of the fundamental problems is that the movie has no sense of thrill to it. Regardless of the current social climate, the seriousness of the story doesn’t make for a very rousing experience.

Rather than a fearless, indestructible warrior spouting one liners with the traditional charisma, Arnold plays a sullen fireman-of-few-words. It’s understandable: his actions are driven by a need to avenge the deaths of his wife and young son by slaying the terrorist responsible for the bombing which killed them. However, this
doesn’t make for a memorable or exciting screen hero, and Arnold stays quiet for most of the film. When fight scenes do come they’re muted and burdensome.

Plagued by lackluster action scenes and implausible plot holes, the mediocre “Collateral Damage” is not quite sure which movie it wants to be: an explosive spinetingler or a grim thriller about the nature of revenge. It’s not that it’s impossible to make a successful blend of the two, but when the results prove to be this tedious why bother?