Delight
Yes, absolutely, there is fun to be had, as well as many, many things to go boom, all amid an atmospheric urban jungle.
Andy (film-critic)
This was a sorry, pathetic excuse of a film. Nothing, from the opening title sequence, to the characters, to even the paper-thin story, was worth redeeming or recognizable as value. Several reviews have argued the point that perhaps director Scott Silver (of The Mod Squad fame) should have done a bit of research on the life of a male prostitute instead of just allowing David Arquette the freedom of just jumping around and screaming to show the hardships of "reality". I couldn't agree more. I felt cheated and confused as I watched this elongated 24-hour period erupt chaotically into several convoluted themes and unsecured elements. There was never a moment in this film to feel for our characters. There was never a moment in this film for us, the audience members, to feel what living on the streets of LA involved. There was never a moment in this film for us to see the pain that Arquette or Haas experienced on a daily basis. Why was there never a moment? There was never this moment because Silver was too busy using cliché elements to force us to like Arquette as a character. Silver continually forced Arquette's empathy and tribulations onto us thinking that seeing a Hollywood actor playing a gruff street urchin would immediately force us to break into tears and bow at the mercy of this flawed character. How pathetic.What should have unfolded during the course of this film was a chance for us to see the underbelly that LA attempts to hide. There should have been more hardships aimed toward Arquette that would have developed into sympathetic moments. A tragic character allows audience members to connect freely, while a forced character, like the one seen in Johns, makes us fall asleep, feel apathetic, and overly pressured. It nearly seemed that during the course of this film Arquette could have run for Mayor of the homeless if he would have pushed himself a bit further. Arquette's final version of his character reminded me of an annoying politician instead of a homeless person. He was shaking hands with everyone, becoming a stronger part of the street's culture, whether the street wanted it or not. Never was it apparent that he was upset with his current living situation. It was never made apparent that he wanted to escape the life that he had created. So, when the unstructured ending finally occurred, it boggled my mind. Arquette, or maybe it was Silver, made his character do things that I believe he would not have done in real life. John (Arquette's character) would have not fallen asleep as shown in the beginning of the film once he had his birthday money in hand. John would not have easily thrown his dream into the trash, as stated, but instead worked throughout the film to make it a reality.Silver's inclusion of Donner (Lucas Haas) into the script only brought the story further into the dismal zone. Donner is a random target. Silver makes Donner stronger than John and I do not think that is a fair assessment. Whatever Donner wants, he gets, no matter how that hurts John. Donner is not the "good friend" that we all assume throughout the course of the film. In fact, I believe that we could have done without this "friend" and just watched the course of John in this one day period. Donner takes John's heart, his dreams, and nearly places him in trouble, and we are to assume that Donner was about to save him from this disappointing life? I didn't buy it. Secondly, did anyone else have trouble with the fact that Arquette and Haas were the two worst male prostitutes ever filmed? Not that I have any experience with male prostitutes, but it felt as if each time either of these two "professionals" got into cars with clients, they had quite a "no" mentality. This led to my impression that these two characters were not just weak, mismatched, and underdriven, but also lazy. Silver successfully created two of the laziest male prostitutes to ever grace the silver screen. I guess we cannot knock him for completely failing in this film.Finally, I would like to say that Silver had a boatload of opportunity with this film. The talent (perhaps outside of Arquette) was present on the screen, sadly, they just didn't do anything. Keith David, Nicky Katt, Terrance Howard, Elliot Gould, and even John C. McGinley kept this film watchable, but with the counterpoints leading back to Arquette it only worsened the overall feeling of the film. Even these independent heavy-hitters couldn't save this little ditty of a production. We needed emotion and heartache instead of the suppressed anger we felt when dealing with the stereotypical generalization of these characters. Silver didn't create an original body of work, but instead took cliché moments from other cinematic features and called them his own. Throw in a spaz-tastic lead, and you have what I like to call a little film named Johns.This was not worth the DVD it was printed on. I normally don't mind general independent films being made to tell a story about the hardships of living in America, but what I do mind is when they cast decent actors and give them horrible parts, or surround them in a horrible story, or just do not allow them to blossom. Arquette hurt this film by not fully embracing the character or the realism of the life that follows these certain individuals. Lukas Haas completely embodied this film with his character. Poorly developed and randomly tangent. This was a poor film and I do not recommend it to even the novice of cinema fanatics.Grade: * out of *****
jinx5000
There must be more Arquette family members out there then I thought if this flotsam got over a 2. This is film is not just garbage but the kind of garbage that leaks that nasty melange of trash water whose brackish color denotes a mixing of foul condiment bases. Haas and Arquette (two actors whose stand-ins should get higher billing) play gay prostitutes who dream of saving enough scratch to make it out of LA for the dream factory that is Branson, MO!? As many wads as the two of them have no doubt taken in real life I swore I thought this was a comedy for the first fifteen minutes given their innate lack of talent. But then the clichéd writing and amateurish directing kicked in and I began laughing out loud as this cinematic abortion lurched to its trite "shocker" of an ending and I realized that "Johns" took itself seriously. No, don't go on that "last date" John! Don't go on this date at all. And don't get me wrong, it's not the subject matter (Chuck and Buck is a personal, if creepy as all get out, favorite) it's the execution-which speaking of, if you can hear me God, please put Arquette down like the dog this movie is.
monsterflick
The film is rough and gritty, yes, but also a little corny and cliched. The best reason to see it is for the acting. Lukas Haas is great, as usual. But David Arquette is downright brilliant. When I first saw this film, I felt like I was watching a young Marlon Brando. I was convinced Arquette was going to be the Next Big Thing in Hollywood. Then he yucked it up in the wonderful "Scream" films, making a bigger splash as a comic charicature. And then came his 1-800 AT&T commercials, and all his talk show appearances in oversized zoot suits, and his marriage to Courtney "Friends" Cox. The poor guy may be Hollywood's biggest untapped talent! Check out "Johns" if you want to see a side of David Arquette you've never seen. (I just hope his performance isn't ruined by your memories of those phone commercials.)
sfc
I like David Arquette and Lukas Haas, but this movie was neither moving or shocking. Oooh, David Arquette has a condom in his mouth! The worst part for me was near the end. ::SPOILER:: It's obvious that something bad is going to happen to John on his last "date". When the client starts crying I knew right away he was going to kill John because he couldn't deal with his gay feelings. Egad. David's acting was sub-par the entire time as well. As someone already mentioned, you could just see him reading the script. People have mentioned "My Own Private Idaho". While this movie is completely different, it did have some weird connections such as "Popeye" and the sneakers. I gave this movie a 4/10.
