Interior. Leather Bar.

ilb

Interior. Leather Bar._720p(480P)

source: Interior. Leather Bar.

This is the first time I rate something with 1 star, there's nothing remarkable about this, it feels unfinished. Having seen the original film and having read about the controversy sorrounding it I was excited to see this, even more so knowing James Franco made it. But there's absolutely nothing, not even some information about that lost footage, how it got lost, what sort of things it contained, studio decisions that led to that, William Friedkin's opinion, no nothing, just people talking and talking about gayness I guess. James Franco also talks about how he wants to do this to sort of fight ''straight-normativity'' because in every commercial, every love story is always a man and a woman. Well, the reality is the world will always be ''straight-normative'' because the vast majority of the world is heterosexual and will always be. I am tired of hearing this hetenormative BS as if it was the greatest evil in the world. Besides, showing this hyper sexualized and promiscous side of gay culture is not the best way to ''fight'' that. It is no recreation of the lost footage, it's just backstage stuff that feels like a youtube vlog, wasted opportunity to make an informative and interesting documentary.

I don't think this film fulfilled its brief of showing that sex/*/etc should be allowed in films as they are all part of life, which is a very good idea. I believe that we are passed the censorship of the Mary Whitehouse days. People are so blazae about things anyway and even kids are numbed to any shock factors from years of playing Call of Duty and Grand Theft Auto, before they're even 10. I generally love any film where you see some male full frontal nudity, but this just didn't do it for me at all. It all seemed very false including and especially, the docu part of it. I didn't buy that Val was not comfortable. Another one to put back on eBay.

Just as the title suggests, this film is not what I expected--I expected to the see the bar/Leather atmosphere only. I wasn't there, as I didn't embrace my Leather self for another 2 decades. That said, I think a lot of the low reviews on this film are bitter Betties who ween't there, either; by that, I wonder if they are giving this film a fair shake, or are they letting their nostalgia rule their thoughts. No, Franco et al weren't there, but why would they need to be? No, Franco doesn't give us exactly what some want, and it's clear that this is more about the head-space of some of the actors. But Franco's debate with the Al Pacino lead is PRICELESS. You name me one other movie from our heterosexual brothers that is dealing with things on this level. NAME ME ONE! It's immature in places, but people going through this internal debate are immature. The Pacino stand-in is whiny and has friends who don't get him, but I can imagine that's what happens in the real life situations of heterosexual men. Our experiences are not the same. I applaud Franco for showing us this side of himself. As he did with his portrayal of Allan Ginsberg, he does here. I actually give it a 6.5. There's nothing to compare it to, so I guess time will tell.

I, too, was expecting something else, but although this is weird, choppy, and appears to have no point on the surface; I like how Franco (please just come out already) casts the point-of-view from the perspective of the straight guy who is new to all this and just got dragged into it and so on. Franco's point (to him, and to the viewer) is just because something (in this case, gay sex) is not only outside your experience, but something you have been programmed to hate, does not necessarily make it so for the people involved, hence the loving gay couple. Basically I got to see it for free on Netflix, an hour of time I could have spent watching the violence he is railing about. I don't mind the hour, would recommend it to somebody who's seen a million movies and willing to try something different. And if you're a little pervy there isn't much, but there is some nice flesh on display here. (check that one butt shot) lol

As a gay man I find this thing to be insulting, patronizing and, worst of all, mostly boring. There is as much creativity going on here as you'll find in a jar of generic mayonnaise. Why is James Franco wasting his life and someone's money on this. Why is he wasting ours? I see basically 3 broad types of viewers who may find this interesting: 1. People who think James Franco is a great actor in or (mostly) out of his clothing. This only proves there's someone for everyone. If you are one of these people, you would probably watch a film about James Franco shoveling dirt. And you think Kristen Bell is an actress. 2. People who have no real sex life of their own and live it vicariously through films like this. You also probably think Stranger By The Lake is art and that Shortbus is an Uber car. 3. People who enjoy looking at train wrecks, horrible auto collisions and the remains of people who have taken their own life. This film is just a horrible, pornographic piece of junk trying to be taken seriously. It is unbelievable to me that there are viewers who will actually sit around counting the butt shots in this nonsense. A final note. Regardless of whether you are gay or straight or somewhere in between, this work is not representative of the gay community. You can always find some people stupid enough to participate. If Franco's name were not on it it might not even have been made. And now that Sundance has become the septic holding tank for a considerable number of garbage nudie sex films, there will be a place for them. But stop trying to con people and tell em it's "art." Do yourself a favor. Skip this waste and go to the internet and look up a link to Michael D. Akers' 2012 gay themed indie "Morgan." It's a knock out film. The stars Leo Minaya and Jack Kesy bring their very real gay men to life so beautifully you could weep. Yes, there is some nudity but it is tasteful and amazingly intimate. They all draw you into their lives and make you a real, living extension of this wonderful screenplay. Franco and so many others like him just relegate you to sitting in their peanut gallery to wait for the next moan or thrust. There is so much good work being done out there in gay cinema, you don't need this. If you want * go get the real thing for free. Then come home to a really good movie.

I am not sure if the road was paved with good intentions or not, but travel on this road led only to a cul-de-sac of inanity. I believe the intent at its origin was bold. Comment on the censorship of "Cruising" at the time in which it was made accompanied by faithful reproduction of censored scenes could have resulted in a powerful film. Well made, this film could have planted seeds (pun or not) for further assessment. Particularly useful would have been elaboration upon male nudity and sexuality and how it is ... and isn't ... portrayed in the West. However, the result here is simply a self-congratulatory hedonistic indulgence. There is no enlightenment here, just as there is no skill. This work is not even titillating, it is only pathetic.

"Interior. Leather Bar" shouldn't have been made. It didn't need to be made. Only the reigning poseur king of "art" filmaking James Franco and his idiot director friend Travis Mathews would have thrown this sixty minute hairball up on any screen. Yes, William Friedkin's "Cruising" was controversial. The bad press it received before and after being made and released effectively killed it. It was pretty much forgotten by everyone, even those gay men who arrived in the life long after it was made and rejected. The stories that sprang up around "Cruising" are more interesting than the film itself, i.e. the crowds of LGBT activists picketing and disrupting the actual filming, the disclaimer Friedkin was forced to add to the credit sequences which stated the film was not a blanket condemnation of the entire gay community, and the "lost" sex scenes filmed at actual NYC leather bars. As it is now known, there never were explicit sex scenes filmed. It's an urban legend. "Interior.Leather Bar" is a sham from beginning to end. Nothing looks correct, the music is wrong, and let's not get started on the eyeshadow being applied to the men in their borrowed leather gear. Franco and Mathews simply wanted to make an "important statement" buried under gay * so they hitched their exploitation horse to an antique cart full of actors (both gay and straight) who were never actually there during the leather heydays of the late 70s. Everyone is acting and discussing their motivations in the spaces between filming. You know there's going to be trouble when the camera searches actor Val Lauren (who's pretending to be Al Pacino) driving to the shoot and listening to his phone messages. The first call from his wife or girlfriend establishes his heterosexuality and the second is from an unknown man who dismisses Lauren's decision to appear in "Franco's f*ggot movie". Lauren agonizes for an hour about the sex that may or not happen and tries to find his inner Pacino. He can't find it and comes across as both whiny and pretentious, as if his involvement in this project is beneath him. Leather bars are a dying institution. Their function was derailed by the AIDS crisis and more recently by the tsunami of "normalization" for LGBT people over the past decades. The raw acting out of men who played games without rules has been traded for SUVs, parenting, and PTA meetings once a month. Franco's soggy pretend leathermen can all be found waiting tables at any West Hollywood restaurants. The exposure and decline of the leather and backroom world began with "Cruising" and deserves a better, more fitting eulogy than this stupid mess. Two stars for the exposed dicks and at least one actor who actually looks like he stepped out of the 70s onto the floor of the Mineshaft NYC. This ridiculous twaddle was made only to pad the resumes of Franco and Mathews, who think they're really saying something about sexual freedom. It's disingenuous in the extreme and not worth losing an hour of your life to view it.