Colibel Terrible acting, screenplay and direction.

ChanBot i must have seen a different film!!

Numerootno A story that's too fascinating to pass by...

BelSports This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

Woodyanders 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.

xavrush89 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.

Hunky Stud 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.

frosty-26 This is a small film, but one with a lot of life in it. It attracts My Own Private Idaho comparisons, but the similarity is superficial. I thought this was more believable, and more watchable. It's sort of contrived and raw at the same time, quite a bizarre feat. It also has a fairly light tone, which makes the ending all the more gut-wrenching (I doubt I'm giving anything away here - people only ever read the user reviews after seeing the film anyway). The blues soundtrack is wonderful too.