Just so...so bad

Great visuals, story delivers no surprises

In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

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 *****

I suffered through this film, and I have read a lot of the comments by other viewers at this site--and I strongly second all the negative things anyone has said. In the first place, Arquette and Haas, the two lead actors, both look so scruffy and "unbuff" it is hard to believe that they would expect to sell themselves to any prospective customers. But maybe that is what the customers want! The film has a worn-out dirty look, the camera work is unimaginative, the direction--what am I saying?--there appears not to be any direction at all. Something in the way of good social commentary combined with a story that grabs the viewer might be done with this subject matter. After all, there have been some good movies about female prostitutes. So give the guys a chance! How about a remake of the old chestnut, Sadie Thompson, done once as Rain with Joan Crawford and later as Miss Sadie Thompson with Rita Hayworth? A good vehicle for such young actors as Gael Garcia Bernal!

Lukas Haas performance was outstanding and very believable.When he was cast off by his buddy John you could not help but feel his pain as well as at the movies tragic ending. The performances were all very human and portrayed the lifestyle in a "for real " manner. Really enjoyed the movie.

Only if you're a David Arquette or Lukas Haas fan will you really enjoy this movie. In fact, Lukas is very well cast as the black sheep of the family turned male prostitute. It drags in places but I think director Scott Silver set out to capture the sordidness and lonliness of your average L.A. hustler, so in that case it's very believable. But the film does call for a long attention span. One of the best scenes, and oddly touching was with Elliot Gould, terrific as always, as the client drawn away from his tête à tête with John to handle his family man duties. But other than that, the film seems rather pointless and to call it "Midnight Cowboy for the 90's" is really hyping it.