Good idea, poorly executed

I liked the movie, but I must concur that the lack of drug use among the male hustlers in this movie was very unrealistic. In most urban areas like this, prostitution (male and female) and drugs go hand in hand.

You raise a good point about the drugs. It's been a bit since Ive seen this. I dont recall any explicit use, but I thought there may have been an implication or two of it being used.

I dont agree with your assessment, though. David Arquette may not have been Oscar-worthy, but I liked his performance, surprisingly tender at times, and overall this movie was a pleasant surprise for me. I expected it to be typical indie "B movie" style, but this felt very "A movie" to me. I thought it was well made and though we can all agree the ending was no shocker *spoiler alert* at least the shoes aspect of it, I thought it was a well-told, intriguing story.

Lastly, Lukas Haas was really great in this, and going in with a negative impression of him (seemed like he had a good rep despite not doing much), he changed my view of him entirely. Also, no more documenteries. Please

Well,there was some drug use. Don't forget "Mr. Poppers" - he crashed the van. And why did John owe money to Jimmy and Popeye? Could it have been for drugs?

I think David Arquette over-acted to the extent that the character required it. John was never fully in control of his life. He was always acting, he never had a "real" self. We clearly understand that within the first 30 minutes because Arquette was over-the-top. He did this so that no one really knew him.

But Lucas Haas was divine! In later roles, he got sexier, boyishly muscled on a wire-thin frame, smooth and still cute as the dickens. Love that hair!

I don't think the idea was poorly executed at all. I saw it in a theater when it was released, and I've had the DVD for several years. I wonder what format was originally used? It would be nice to see it in a BD release. Some scenes are a little dark on the DVD.

i didn't think about that. the film tried focusing more on the homeless ppl than drug usage. only saw it once & was intrigued,certainly wouldn't mind seeing it again.

***
i got that Justin Bieber please believe it

I think you are missing the point of this; it was meant to be a "light film," despite the rough subject matter. Someone attempted to make a sweet, somewhat optimistic movie about prostitution, and they succeeded for the most part. I thought Arquette was very good, and quite believable, and Haas was likewise convincing as an awkward guy secretly in love with his straight friend. That relationship was the sad main theme in this film. The 'B' movie look/feel to it I'm sure was intentional, and also expected, if you look at it's budget; both in budget and theme, "Johns" was every bit an independent film. As far as the drug theme goes, the story only focused on a few characters. One of the prostitutes was obviously a tweaker, although they didn't show him using meth. By the way, they are called "hustlers" everywhere...not just in LA. And wow, did LA look nightmarishly ugly in this movie..

"IMdB; where 14 year olds can act like jaded 40 year old critics...'

Oh.