shadowsonthewalls 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.

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.

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.)

johndunbar 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'.