Johns (1996) User Reviews (36)

Johns: Very realistic in its portrayal of the hardships of street life.

[Grand · 7/10 · 9 December 1998]

Johns quite accurately portrays the nightmarish life of "kids" on the streets of Hollywood. There are indeed bright spots in life for these social outcasts, rare people like the angelic "Homeless John" or Richard Kind's "Paul," the gentlemanly concierge, but the recurring theme of mistrust is "on the money," as we say.

Having lived and/or worked in the Hollywood area for decades, everyone here can also solemnly assure people who do not live in Southern California, that, yes, it CAN be blindingly bright, hot and sunny in December in Hollywood, and yes, that bright glare off of the white stucco walls REALLY occurs, and yes, it IS depressing! Our reviewer has compared the Los Angeles of johns to Oran in The Plague by Camus; visually, the comparison is apt. Morally and spiritually it is perhaps even more apt.

Home, Street Home ...

[majikstl · 6/10 · 4 June 2006]

I like to think of it as "the Goofy effect." It is when all the characters in a movie seem to talk and sound and act alike, like in the old Disney cartoons where Goofy played every single character. Even when it is done well, like in a Robert Altman movie where everyone usually natters in a similar semi-low voiced chatter about trivial things or in a Woody Allen movie where everyone tends to expound with the sophisticated cynical wit of a "New Yorker" arts review, it can get to be just a little bit annoying. It's not so bad in those films, because it usually underscores the comic intent of the dialogue. However, too often it is used to reinforce a cultural stereotype (southern bigots, poor blacks, middle-class Jews, etc.) even when such a stereotype isn't necessarily real.

In JOHNS, a film about street level male prostitutes, everyone speaks with a "Hey man, how's it hangin', man? What the f---'s happen, you m.....f....., man?" And so on. Well, some of them add a little bit of swishy oh-so homosexual lisp to the pronunciation, but basically it is as though all the hustlers took the same Berlitz course on how to sound like you are savvy to the sounds of the lean streets of Los Angeles. It would seem to me that the story would be better told by stressing just how different these guys are. Instead, the point of the film seems to be that they are awfully alike. Even the man character played by David Arquette is named John and he keeps running into other characters named John, some of whom are his johns.

Other than to deny the characters any sort of complexity, it is difficult to see just what the point of JOHNS is. I can't say the film has any great sympathy for the characters, even as it rather smugly traps them all in an atmosphere of impending doom. Resolutely downbeat, JOHNS not-so-subtly makes it clear that someone is going to die by the end of the film and the only suspense springs from trying to guess who. Is it Arquette as the optimistically foolish John or Lukas Haas as his foolishly optimistic friend, Donner? Let's just say that as soon as one of the characters starts talking about scoring one last john before he retires from prostitution forever, he might as well just crawl into a body bag because his fate is sealed.

Arquette's John spends Christmas Eve trying to hustle up or steal enough money to pay back $300 he has stolen from a drug dealer and to get quite a bit more so that he can spend Christmas Day, his birthday, in a luxury hotel. The Christmas angle and the suggestion that John is some sort of a Jesus figure hangs uneasily over the story like the pretentious subtext of a bad play. Indeed, the film's theatrical nature never quite jibes with its desire to seem street wise, leaving it all seemingly artificial and empty. And despite the milieu, the film isn't explicit on any level, having no nudity, only implied sex and even the violence is off screen. It is a remarkably timid film about a remarkably lurid subject.

As dull wittedly predictable as the film is, it is worth seeing just for the actors. Elliott Gould, John C. McGinley and Arliss Howard have their moments as various customers who pass through, and Haas' geeky charm serves him well as a teen whose been kicked out by his father for announcing that he is gay. But it is Arquette's film and, though he gives a very good performance, he isn't helped much by a shallow script by writer/director Scott Silver. Though he is the central character, we learn very little about John, other than that he is homeless, he identifies himself as being straight, he's not too bright and, well, that's about it. John is less a reality than a generic example. It says something when a filmmaker resorts to generic labels to identify his film and his characters. This John doesn't get a lot of respect, least of all from the film itself.

A Night Of Ease And Comfort

[bkoganbing · 6/10 · 31 January 2009]

Johns is a bargain basement version of Gus Van Sant's classic My Own Private Idaho, a story about two gay prostitutes trying to get enough money so that one can fulfill his fantasy of a night stay at a five star hotel with all the fringe benefits of room service. By the way that particular plot device dates all the way back to Paramount's If I Had A Million where Wynne Gibson gets that million dollar check and the first thing she does is register in a swank hotel where she served as a fringe benefit just for a night's sleep alone.

Johns even begins the way My Own Private Idaho ends where some people stole the shoes off of a sleeping narcoleptic River Phoenix. In this case David Arquette is sleeping in a park and someone robs his lucky Puma sneakers off his feet. They're more than good luck to him, he keeps his money there.

The footwear get replaced, from his next client Arquette steals a pair of golf shoes that the client had in the back of his car. Making that money back won't be so easy as Arquette owed a drug dealer as well.

David Arquette is the veteran street kid and new to the scene is Lukas Haas who as too many are in real life, kicked out of his house because he came out as gay. Lukas is kind of crushing out on David. Arquette likes him well enough, but like Keanu Reaves vis a vis River Phoenix in My Own Private Idaho, he's a hard case who can't let anything that will soften him insofar as dealing with the mean streets and those who walk them.

Johns is a decent enough film, that rises and succeeds on the performances of leads Arquette and Haas. The two are appealing on many different levels.

This is not a feel good movie, but a rather stern look at an underside of gay life that we don't want to acknowledge. But if someone sees it who is prevented from disowning his child because of his or her sexual orientation, the film will have been worth being made.

Arquette is brilliant

[monsterflick · 5 September 2003]

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.)

Johns: A Raw Tragedy

[rumiwomack · 7/10 · 18 April 2024]

'Johns' centers around a hustler named John (David Arquette) and the young hustler he took under his wing Donner (Lukas Haas).

Though 'Johns' may seem cliche and unassuming on the outside, I can assure you that this film is anything but cliche. In fact, I'd argue that 'John's' is a highly raw and emotional film that tackles the world of hustling almost perfectly, compared many of the other hustler films (Pretty Women, My Own Private Idaho, etc) that more or less glorify the act of hustling, rather than show the dark consequences that come with the practice.

I would highly recommend checking out this film! It is definitely some of David Arquette best roles to date!

Well-intentioned but very unsatisfying.

[xavrush89 · 4/10 · 1 June 2004]

The good acting by David Arquette surprised me, I'll admit. Too bad he and Lukas Haas' efforts in this film go unrewarded by a meandering script and barely developed secondary characters. The portrayal of life on the street was intriguing, but the turns of events didn't go anywhere, yet at the same same time the film's conclusion is inevitable. It's as if the director had Point A and Point B and called in some favors to get some name actors to improv scenes. It's sad that even in a modestly budgeted independent film like this, they filled the bill with heterosexual actors who got to be gay as a dramatic exercise, then went back to their heterosexual lives, while we can still count on one hand the number of openly gay actors working in movies and TV combined. You'd think a small film like this might have been an opportunity a gay actor or two. But noooooo, we already have our quota of openly gay actors on the lower rungs of the Hollywood ladder.

But even not taking that into account, the film is just okay at best. Not enough of a story, and even barring that, the dialogue in unmemorable. The only reason to watch is to see David Arquette in a new light, otherwise skip it.

very intense!

[pooh- · 9/10 · 19 November 1998]

I just saw the movie as part of a gay and lesbian film festival and I found it extremely intense, very authentic and genuine. There is great cinematography, great acting and a story that lets you see just how hard hustling in Los Angeles is. You get a chance to empathize with the main characters and see things from their point of view. It's not a funny movie (although it has funny moments) but rather one to watch and reflect about. David Arquette and Lukas Haas deserve great praise for doing this movie, as does the director. It's not a feel-good movie, but it's definitely worth seeing.

how in the name of terrible gay hustler films did this rate a 6?

[jinx5000 · 1/10 · 8 July 2004]

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.

Not the johns that I imaged.

[Hunky Stud · 4/10 · 6 April 2001]

So we know that this is a movie about male prostitution. There could be so many ups and downs in their lives. This movie only showed one day's life of two male prostitutes. Is it really that easy just to pick out customers for those two johns? They don't even have to talk to those people, as soon as someone stopped his car right next to them, they just know that they have customers.

Also most male prostitutes work at night, and sleep at day. So does this movie really reflect the actual life of a male prostitute? I don't know if the director, writer, screenwriter actually consulate with any real male prostitutes.

In order to make the movie more dramatic; one of the characters was beaten to death by his customer. However, the customer appears to be weaker than the prostitute is. That was clearly a bad cast by the casting director. Of course, every movie has to have an end, but by making the character dead, that doesn't really appear to be real.

To me, this movie is below average, because it failed to show the real life of any male prostitute.

Sad and powerful

[mermatt · 25 August 1999]

This is a metaphorical story about people's dreams as they

search for themselves and some meaning to life. There are

interesting symbols throughout the movie: Camelot as a

mythical, far-away perfect place; Christmas as a time of

birth and rebirth; the painted mural of the 10 Commandments as the "writing on the wall"; looking for a

room at the inn (the hotel); the wounds and the tattoos of

a tear and a heart; and the gaining and loss of time (watches).

The performances are convincing and powerful. The theme

seems to be in the song that Homeless John sings towards

the end about how the "world treats you mean" but there is

hope in rebirth. The movie is an odd use of all the symbolism to give a sad picture of street hustlers who,

like all people, seem lonely and in search of something

more meaningful in life.

I am not a prostitute.

[film-critic · 2/10 · 30 March 2006]

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 *****

If Gus Van Sant & Larry Clark had a love-child, this film would be it!

[shadowsonthewalls · 10/10 · 3 April 2008]

Like some other people posting here, I caught "johns" randomly on cable one night. The great acting and storyline totally captured me within 2 minutes, and I could not take my eyes off of the television. I also have to admit how surprised I was of David Arquette's ability to take on a more serious role --I'll be honest, at first I was skeptical, but as I became sucked into this film, I actually grew to respect David Arquette as an actor, if only for his role in this title.

This is not a trashy sex film; it's great for lover's of the indie craft and resembles, in my opinion, a mixture of Gus Van Sant and Larry Clark, with a dash of Greg Araki's Mysterious Skin.

A great film, full of heart and sentiment without leaving behind a nasty taste in your mouth.

Grim, dreary, depressing, confusing and dull

[preppy-3 · 4/10 · 16 August 2004]

The life of a male prostitute (David Arquette) on Christmas Eve--one day before his birthday. His best friend and lover (I think--played by Lukas Haas) wants him to leave the town with him--but he owes a psycho named Jimmy $3,000 and Jimmy intends to collect...

The movie looks dirty (as it should) and with the sole exceptions of Haas and Elliott Gould it's VERY well-acted (especially by Arquette who's just incredible) but the story is vague, the dialogue is awkward and I gradually got very bored by it. The constant depressing tone does wear you down and the ending was (to me) telegraphed. Almost worth seeing for the acting....ALMOST.

I'm sure there's a good movie to be made about male prostitution but this isn't it. A huge bomb on its release in 1996. It bombed so badly in California and New York that the distributor pulled it from release completely! It was scheduled to play in Cambridge MA but never made it! A definite must-miss but, because of the acting, I give this a 4.

A sad, sometimes funny, often sobering and underrated sleeper

[Woodyanders · 8/10 · 22 December 2005]

I'm actually a big fan of this movie and consider it to be quite underrated. By now anyone who bothers to read these reviews knows the plot, so I won't waste your time with yet another synopsis. Instead, I'll just explain certain aspects of this film which make it in my book a genuinely solid and touching picture.

First off, the emotional rapport between David Arquette and Lukas Haas is just lovely: loose, natural and totally unaffected, the chemistry between these two is very credible and engaging. Moreover, the supporting cast all turn in bang-up performances. Elliott Gould was extraordinary in his brief, yet startling appearance as an in-the-closet married gay man with a wife and kids. You don't know whether to laugh or cry at the sight of this pathetic guy; it's this peculiar complexity Gould projects which makes his cameo so striking and unforgettable. Richard Kind as a compassionate hotel clerk brings a truly sweet and appealing warmth to his part. But the real revelation here is Keith David as a kindly and protective "angelic" homeless man. Usually cast in intimidating tough guy parts, David gets a rare chance to show a more soft and sensitive side that I especially enjoyed seeing. And to hear David sing a forlorn gospel song in that magnificent liquid bass during the ending credits constitutes as a substantial extra treat! Arliss Howard turns in a thoroughly creepy and compelling characterization as a man whose severely repressed homosexuality manifests itself as pure psychotic rage.

The other thing in the movie that warrants additional kudos is the stupendous blues score by noted blues musician Charles Brown; it perfectly captures the downbeat tone of film and exudes a sense of bleakness and despair that's in itself very powerful. The gritty, no-frills, washed-out cinematography likewise accurately pegs a deep-seated feeling of grungy sordidness and hopelessness as well, although those constant fades to black struck me as a rather annoying stylistic flourish that's jarringly at odds with the basic gritty realism. The somewhat telegraphed ending may be predictable, but it's still very devastating. Furthermore, I give the film bonus points for having the strength of its own bitter convictions; there's no fake "everything works out" Hollywood happy ending. And the occasional moments of darkly funny humor are neatly incorporated into the overall film; they add some much-needed levity and stop the movie from becoming too unbearably depressing. All in all, "Johns" sizes up as a sound indie picture that warrants a second look and reappraisal.

Midday Cowboy

[PaulLondon · 4/10 · 18 May 2001]

So, unfortunately, this film does draw comparisons to both "Midnight Cowboy" and "My Own private Idaho" because of the subject matter, male prostitution.

The main problem with these comparisons though is that it shows up what an average film "Johns" is. Not as flashily entertaining or as funny as "Midnight Cowboy" or as bleakly beautiful as "Idaho" it probably is a victim of its own lack of ambition. If you want a more cutting film about hustlers look to some of Paul Morrissey's far more "out-there" Warhol films (try "Trash") "Johns" isn't a bad film-though Arquette just doesn't convince and some of the writing seems painfully contrived. Indeed there are more comparisons with Idaho; Arquette is as weak as Keanu Reeves is in the latter and the scripts of both have contrivances which simply don't work. But, Idaho is a strangely dreamy film that frequently soars off into moments of aching beauty whilst "Johns" trots arounds the streets of LA without offering much insight or interest in these young mens lives. Its an OK film and one which may make a few people think about society's hypocrisies but it doesn't really cut it as a great film

A LONG LONG Christmas Eve in the life of a Male Prostitute

[wc1n3xx · 12 November 2001]

It's Christmas Eve and Arquette a Male Prostitute has a plan in mind for Christmas day; his plan involves luxury and fantasy. This means he has to catch a few extra punters and be a little more daring than usual to achieve his goal - which is quite simple - unless you have the life of Arquette.

Most of the film is set on one boulevard befamed for 'pick ups'. It may help a little if you are gay or know of the gay culture. But having said that whatever your persuasion you can't help but like Arquette as he trys to get enough dollars together for his plan.

Throughout the film we meet his clients, his friends, his enemies, and we are a voyeur to the problems he faces in his line of work. He's a likeable chap, and as someone has already mentioned it's almost played out as a Shakespearian Tragedy - especially as we frequently return to the 'set' and more or less get to know our way around.

At one point he gets it together, but tragedy strikes, in a weird kind of way, at some points of the film you really feel like sending him the extra dollars he needs, as his dream is so innocent and quite pure.

In parts, the film is quite deep as it explores a couple of the characters he interacts with, and although he's naturally streetwise, there's a vulnerablility that keeps you on his side, and you really do feel like fighting for him, but the character John (Arquette)is strangely proud, and his pride is built from street level up, with a coating of fantasy and imagination.

There's also a guy looking for him to settle a debt, which turns a bit sour - with the help of a well-meaning friend.

The day is sooooo long in the film, yet John's shortage of the stuff keeps up the tension and sympathy, especially as he allows himself to take bigger risks, and the viewer knows it, as the camera indicates visual clues as to his possible next chapter in the day.

Although fairly old (in terms of rent boy/prostitute, he carries it off very well, as he goes through the usual motions of the belly rub and boyish stance.

There's lots of comedy in the film, but you don't really want to add to his troubles, making the direction manipulative and 'classic' in terms of human tragedy.

Meet John and his friends and foes alike, and you'll find that empathy is drawn from you as you watch this unique, almost surreal film unfold.

If you find yourself alone over Christmas, it may be worth a look at somebody who's got it a bit worse than you, with just a few more complications.

My Own Private Missouri

[wes-connors · 5/10 · 18 August 2008]

David Arquette (as John) is an aspiring actor. Lukas Haas (as Donner) is a gay youth tossed out of his home, by an intolerant father. Both wind up hustling, on Santa Monica Boulevard. Since Mr. Arquette arrived first, he has taught Mr. Haas the tricks of the trade, beginning with the most important dating question: "Are you a cop?" This is a shorter version than the one posed by Arquette; but, it's quick, effective, and easier for the trick to understand. Hass falls in love with Arquette, and wants to take him to "Camelot", where the two would be lifeguards. But, Arquette is reluctant to go; he wants to spend his Birthday in an expensive hotel room.

Scott Silver's "Johns" has a very realistic set-up; the unrequited love between the two young men, and their reasons for being where they are, certainly ring true. But, the film's premise becomes a tired, unrealistic cliché. If tricks were as bad as they are herein, the Boulevard would be deserted. The actors play their parts well; they, and Mr. Silver, make you care about them as individuals, and wish for a happy culmination. The conclusion offered by Silver is as predictable as the sunset; however, it is infinitely less satisfying (and leaves a bad taste in your mouth).

On the other hand, Silver has some good moves, and is able to assemble quite a good cast and crew, for a first directorial effort. Among the supporting players, Richard Kind's beautiful portrayal of an understanding hotel clerk is most outstanding. Even the other hotel customers seemed enchanted.

There is a lot of Christian religiosity… this is, arguably, a re-telling of the so-called "greatest story ever told". Don't miss that Christ-like, barefoot Arquette's "John" is given a "crown of thorns". And, also note that Haas' deerly named "Donner" has a Judas-like moment. And, remember, Haas told Arquette he doesn't celebrate Christmas because, "I'm Jewish."

Great, Scott. What's the message?

***** Johns (1996) Scott Silver ~ David Arquette, Lukas Haas, Richard Kind

A prostitute born on Christmas Day

[somehope · 8/10 · 19 February 2008]

For many, David Arquette is just a smart guy acting stupid in films like the "Scream" trilogy or the AT & T TV spots. In this film, he proves he has humor with acting chomps.

His character, Donner, is a male prostitute, but there is very little sex involved in the film, and perhaps only one person does care about him -- even though he can't let people into his emotions. The film is centered on Christmas Eve, his birthday, a day where he hopes to spend entirely in a fancy hotel just to relax, and not work on the streets to barely eat.

It doesn't matter if he is straight or gay: he is both and he is neither. He survives by "entertaining". He has a young apprentice out on the Hollywood streets and mentors him in street life, a life he really can't stand, and a life that he is afraid of leaving even at the last second.

Supported by Terrence Howard as a pimp; Richard Kind as hotel clerk who sees through Donner's lies but wants him to have the room because he sees Donner as a good person; Keith David as an angelic homeless "john"; and Lukkas Haas ("Witness") as an openly gay teen who loves the man who cannot love himself, this film works because of what is said and what we miss for those people the world forgot outside Hollywood.

Falls Way Short

[sfc · 4/10 · 11 June 2000]

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.

It's really about friendship

[moggy-4 · 8/10 · 18 June 2000]

Luckily, I came upon this on tv and started watching it before I knew the title. If I had seen the title, I would have dismissed it as another dreary sex film and that it is not.

It's very watchable, the characters sympathetic, including small parts- the man, John, who gives one of them a sandwich, and especially Paul, the reservations clerk at the hotel. Since most viewers are young, esp. for films like this, for the record, my kids are older than the lead characters, and I enjoyed this moving film.

Absolutely pointless.

[CriticsVoiceVideo · 1/10 · 13 November 2020]

Absolutely nothing happens...at all. A movie about male hookers in LA and all they do is walk around.

worth a rental

[Barton-13 · 25 November 1999]

Chances are if you're reading this,that you've seen the film.Therefore you will know that it is not a movie about toilets.It's not a film that you stumble across,its one that gets recommended to you by a mate. Obviously a mate with good taste.It has a number of things to recommend it,including an early performance from Arquette,which is very good,a directorial debut from the soon-to-be-massive Silver,and Elliot Gould being gay.If you like that kind of thing.Johns is not a pleasant film,it does not re-affirm your faith,but then why should a film about homeless L.A male prostitutes be life affirming ? At times it shocks(Arquette with a condom round his mouth,ready to earn his breakfast)and is commonly unpleasant,but it still finds room for a sensitive humour,particuarly the deranged ramblings of fellow hooker Eli.John has a dream,to spend the first night of his 21st life in a local hotel,and while this dream may seem within easy grasp for the rest of us,for a homeless gigolo,it means putting himself through potentially dangerous situations with his clientele. Watch Johns if you can find a copy,its the one that got away.

Long Johns

[NoDakTatum · 4/10 · 30 September 2023]

Lukas Haas, the little kid from "Witness," was all grown up and taking some serious adult roles. "Johns" is his film, and he does a great job here. David Arquette plays John, who will be turning 21 on Christmas Day. He is a hustler who is looking to stay on his birthday in a fancy L. A. hotel. Haas is his best friend, the new guy working the street. His father is a doctor, but kicked him out for being gay. Most of the film concerns John's efforts to collect money he owes a drug dealer. His shoes are stolen in the opening moments of the film, and we find out that was where he stashed his cash. This opening also sets up a failed surprise ending that is really forced. The film's sparse plot meanders through John's encounters, some with other men named John, hence the film's title, until the end. Haas and Arquette are ready to leave for Branson, Missouri on a bus but Arquette wants to do "one last date." You can probably see where that is going.

The film has enough quirky characters to make a "Northern Exposure" fan drool. Richard Kind is a kind hotel clerk. Keith David is a mysterious homeless man. John C. McGinley is a Hollywood producer. Arliss Howard is a stuttering Bible beater who becomes Arquette's last date. Elliott Gould plays a rich client of Arquette's. Arquette's drug dealing nemesis cannot add and subtract. All of these actors have little quirks and tics that I think the film maker wanted us to find endearing. You only have sympathy for Haas, so I felt the film wasted too much time showing us all the other scenes. Arquette is five years too old for this role, and except for Haas, everyone goes through the motions of a story that liberally borrows from "Midnight Cowboy." The film wants to make a moral point, but try to have fun doing it at the same time, and this does not work. Silver's direction is better than his script, and you have to give him credit for coming up with one of the most eclectic soundtracks I have ever heard, but eventually "Johns" fails both Haas, and us. If you want to see a real film about street children, watch the documentary "Streetwise." That film makes this look like "Sesame Street."

A movie worth a second look.

[johndunbar · 8/10 · 28 August 2000]

Reading the various user comments by viewers makes me wonder if there is more than one movie called `Johns' with the same cast. I can't help but think that the negative reviewers never really watched the movie, or did so without any experiential background that would help them tune in to the movie's pathos. While I never was a hustler myself, I've known many and seen something of this world in Toronto. The point is that everyone on the street is looking for something in the wrong place and hence, not suprisingly, they never find it. Hustlers are looking for the sense of personal worth (reflected through others), for respect, for love, for pride of accomplishment and, most of all, for all these things to happen in a real community of folk, some of whom accept, love or reject their presentations. This movie brilliantly and realistically captures this pathos of impossible efforts to achieve normalcy. It is no wonder that Donner, brilliantly played by Lukas Haas, considers himself an `entertainer'. He knows that what others see in him in not a human being to relate to but an object of amusement. Oddly, and realistically, enough he does not realize that his efforts to attach to another in this context are equally futile. His desired object of attachement is unreceptive in this street world. His `love buddy' only wants to act out his fantasy of normalcy by spending Christmas (the quintessential time of naive, childhood joy) in a fancy hotel room. There are many things to admire in this movie but one cannot brand it `phony'. Bringing a portrayal of this kind of futile world populated by largely unfulfilled people requires a deft directorial hand, an understated script and some sensitive acting. We get all these things in `Johns'.