Interesteg
What makes it different from others?
ManiakJiggy
This is How Movies Should Be Made
WillSushyMedia
This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.
Bob
This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.
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.
preppy-3
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.
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.
