Add a Review

  • I saw this film at the Berlinale film festival 2013, where I felt myself severely misled by the synopsis on the festival website. I saw a lot of meta-talk about cruising, about straight actors playing a gay role, about an actor being advised against getting involved in the project for the sake of his future career, and so on, with emphasis on "meta" and "about". And the bit of sex that was shown, was in a dancing atmosphere and not the traditional dark room. Maybe offensive for straight people but not very explicit, yet the festival website devoted a lot of attention to the revival of scenes deleted for fear for censors. Finally, I completely missed the insight in the film making process that was promised too. In short, an unnecessary film, not even a bit informative about this different universe we know nothing about.
  • This film is the behind the scenes of re-imagining and reproducing the unseen footage of a film called "Crusing".

    I am disappointed and I feel cheated after watching "Interior. Leather Bar.". The description says that it is the re-imagination of the lost 40 minutes of footage, too explicit to be shown in the cinema. However, it really is just a behind the scenes documentary of why James Franco wanted to make this film, then getting the actors to play it, then briefing the actors, the actors mingling, actors telling what they feel about making the film. That takes 50 minutes of the screen time already, and there is only 7 minutes of re-imagined scene in a leather bar. "Interior. Leather Bar." is marketed in such a misleading way, it's actually all sauce and no beef.
  • I like James Franco as an actor, and he seems like he'd be a cool person to hang out with. It's James Franco the writer/director/artist/poet/musician/provocateur that's a problem for me. Part of it is envy, I'll admit (I wish I had freedom and funding to indulge all MY creative whims), but a larger part of it is I suspect that James Franco the Multifaceted Artist is a total poser.

    "Interior. Leather Bar." doesn't dispel my belief that Franco is a poser, but it also re-enforces my belief that he'd be a cool friend. Val Lauren, the actor playing Al Pacino's character from the movie "Cruising," thinks Franco is a cool friend, Franco's involvement the primary reason he's agreed to participate in this project, even as his agent strongly advises him not to (his wife just wants him home in time for dinner). He seems more intrigued by playing a role originated by Pacino than Franco's and co-director Travis Mathews' stated thesis that the leather bars of "Cruising" represent a subculture that's fading away as homosexuals gain greater acceptance in mainstream society. (AIDS might also have had something to do with it but I guess that's too sad. Also: "Cruising" as a gay culture touchstone? Not sure about that.) When Lauren questions James Franco directly about why he thinks the missing 40 minutes from William Friedkin's "Cruising" needs to be explored, Franco says something about needing to confront the world of gay leather bars to challenge fears he has only because he was raised to have them. This seems like something that could be challenged by getting a trial subscription to any one of a number of gay porn sites, or while making all the gay-themed movies he's been a part of ("Milk," "Howl," "The Broken Tower"), but maybe he just wants to be sure he's been thoroughly challenged.

    But "Interior. Leather Bar." does more meandering than challenging. Actors, both gay and straight, spend most of their time wondering what's expected of them. Some of wonder if James Franco will be in the movie and if he will get naked (not really and no, respectively). Others wonder just how far they are expected to go. Pretty far, as it turns out: real, non-simulated sex takes place, though it barely makes up five minutes of screen time in the total ten minutes of leather bar footage. Consequently, the movie is labeled porn by some, though I don't think it is. In fact, one sex scene seems realer than most, and you actually sense an emotional connection between the couple involved. Pretty impressive when you consider they've got an audience — including an Oscar-nominated actor — circling them as they get busy on a sofa. It's not a surprise to learn immediately after that the actors are a couple off-screen. Though Lauren seems pretty shell-shocked by the action on set, he compliments the two men, telling them they appear to have a great relationship. For his part, Franco isn't a co-director so much as the project's instigator. Mathews does the bulk of the directing, with Franco shown leaving early, right after watching two dudes have sex. Make of that what you will.

    "Interior. Leather Bar." is presented as being the re-creation of the missing 40 minutes from "Cruising," but it's more like a glorified DVD extra accompanying a movie that was never finished. It's strangely fascinating but also frustratingly pointless.
  • safford9924 June 2013
    This film promotes itself suggesting it re-imagines the 40 minutes excised from the movie "Crusing". It is actually a contrived and boring "behind the scenes" making of 10 re-imagined minutes from the original movie and, as shown, I highly doubt they are what Friedkin would have actually filmed.

    The re-shot "Crusing" minutes are provocative and very sexually explicit, but they don't make up for the other 50 minutes where we watch the straight actor in the Al Pachino role trying to come to terms with taking on a gay-themed role.

    I thought the 60 minutes of this movie would never end.
  • In 1980, Exorcist director William Friedkin made yet another movie that found another great way to stir up controversy and etch itself onto the front page of newspapers. His directorial effort Cruising was a film about Al Pacino's cop character going undercover in seedy gay bars in order to catch a series of murders in the specific area. The film divided critics, enraged the homosexual community, who even held boycotts and sent Friedkin death-threats over the film, and the film forever lived with a looming cloud of infamy over its head, with more comments being made about its impact over its quality.

    As someone who has recently sat through Cruising, I fully understand why. It's an only adequate little thriller that is levied by the fact that it is such a curious piece of film history. There's not too much special about it other than a decently ambiguous Pacino performance and some well-photographed atmosphere, specifically inside the gay bars. Adding to the curiosity of the film, legend has it that forty minutes of the film had to be cut for it to achieve an R-rating rather than the ominous X-rating films were being stamped with during this time. The forty minutes are rumored to contain graphic gay sex as well as intimate scenes in the gay bars between its patrons.

    This brings me to Interior. Leather Bar., a sixty-minute film by the likes of James Franco and Travis Mathews. The film is a mockumentary, following the Franco and Mathews as they attempt to assemble, cast, and reimagine the lost forty minutes of Cruising themselves. From the way Franco acts and interviews, one can easily see he's intrigued on how actors create an image once they begin and how they go about enforcing or affirming the image throughout careers.

    Evidently, Franco has used his fascination for public personas and celebrity images as the basis for Interior. Leather Bar., a thoroughly intriguing and deeply-contemplative film that possesses lengthy dialogs on the public's perception of sex as well as mumblecore-esque aesthetics and structure. I walked in assuming I was going to see the full forty minutes from Cruising recreated to fit Franco and Mathews' idea of how the scenes were actually conducted. Instead, both men recreate the experience of working on the set of a film with graphic scenes of gay sex when a majority of the actors - at least the main ones - are straight males, many with wives and kids. We get the opinions of all the actors working on recreating this lost footage to Franco and Mathews' liking. This provides for a feeling of seeing unseen parts of a film without seeing the specific parts, if that makes even an inkling of sex.

    A masterful scene comes about halfway through the film, with Franco talking to the project's main star Val Lauren, assuming the role of Al Pacino's character from Cruising. Lauren is a longtime friend of Franco, willing to help him out even on the most uncertain and unpredictable project thus far, but is having a hard time going through with a lot of the heavily gay scenes. He also has a difficult time understand the project's significance and Franco has a hard time explaining it. When Lauren and Franco (who, I believe, is playing himself here) sit down to talk about the scene, Franco goes into a discussion similar to the one I've had many times about how in many pieces of media, even something as minute and as trite as a commercial for toothpaste or toilet paper, we see a man and a woman. When we do see two men or two women together, presumably in a relationship, it isn't uncommon for there to be some uncomfortable vibes oozing through, to which Franco (and myself) blame on our exposure to one particular lifestyle for much of our life.

    Franco then dives into a discussion about how censorship boards shiver at the thought of graphic sexual content but barely flinch when they see explicit violence on screen. 'So violence is natural but sex, something everyone does, thinks about, and even views, isn't?' is a question he asks Lauren. Franco basically settles on the idea that he is making this film to try and steer us away from the thought of one particular lifestyle, as well as breaking down his own personal apprehension and uncomfortableness around this kind of material.

    Interior. Leather Bar. also seems to be acceptable to view as a time capsule for how gays are portrayed in cinema. Cruising wasn't blatantly homophobic in my eyes, but did possess somewhat understanding apprehension and caution to the lifestyle it greatly involved itself with. Interior. Leather Bar. presents its club scenes (when we do get a chance to see them, though they make up less than ten percent of the film) and even one major gay sex scene with a beautiful tenderness that would be given to an explicit sex scene between two women. Franco and Mathews' depiction of gay sex is a harmonious and wonderfully raw approach and an experience that could very well emphasize the theme of equality in the regard of how gay sex and straight sex are depicted.

    What a beautiful film Interior. Leather Bar. is, centering its sights on conversation and emotion rather than basic shock and awe. I'm still not one-hundred percent show I know what to make of it, but to speak fairly, I don't believe Franco really is either. However, I believe he has made something that he will likely look back on as one of his most audacious and daring films ever, which says a lot for an actor in his thirties who, judging by some risky choices recently, is just getting started.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    After watching this video, I feel like I've been cheated. This is neither excellent nor awful. But a complete waste of time.

    Just like everybody, I thought this is a movie 'made' by James Franco and Travis Mathews. But this is not a movie. This is not even a documentary. Surprisingly this is not even 'behind the scenes' of a movie. This is just a video of a 'supposedly' behind the scenes of a movie never made by James Franco and Travis Mathews. The whole reference to Al Pacino's 1980 movie "Cruising" is completely irrelevant, misleading and a lie. This is just gay porn which does not include James Franco. He is just either filming it or watching it. Which is kind of funny. LOL. I think his involvement in this movie is to make this main stream and attract large number of audience.

    There are explicit gay sex scenes which are nice(wink). Which is the message of this Video. This is "Art Porn" as described by the cutest guy in the cast. About the cast, there are only four guys we see a few times in the movie, the rest are seen in the beginning introductions and again in the end during credits.

    The so-called lead 'Val' is fine, but what's disappointing is that he 'almost' looks into the camera, sometimes, during the so-called behind the scenes, when none of the supporting cast does that.

    During these behind the scenes conversations, James Franco and Val, always have a 'refraining smile' on their faces. Which is horrible.

    I don't recommend this, but this isn't even an hour long. So go ahead.
  • How this 60 minute piece of drivel ever got made, or was released, is beyond comprehension. It is nothing more than an extremely tedious version of what used to be known as "vanity press". Franco should be ashamed of himself. Why he, his collaborator, and the "actors" in this piece of garbage thought they had anything constructive to say about "rumored" cuts made to a 50-year old film, borders on the incredulous. Anyone can "imagine" what those phantom 40 minutes of sex in a leather bar might actually have shown. I imagine it would be a whole lot less boring and painful to watch than this waste of film (or tape). Anyone who had anything to do with this dreadful enterprise should be forever banned from film-making!
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I don't know where to start with this piece of rubbish.

    I had read about the controversy surrounding the "film" (??) and thought it would be interesting to see what the fuss was all about.

    First we sit through auditions of gay men "cruising" into the camera, which is just unbearable to watch. Then we see everyone questioning why this is being made, what's the purpose, what's the point?? James Franco says that gay sex should be shown, as sex is a beautiful thing. Unfortunately we don't see gay men have sex. We see one man have his penis sucked and one man lick shoes.

    The end. Pointless.

    James Franco was trying to be daring and controversial, instead to me it has come across as completely vain and boring.

    James Franco - clearly a bisexual man, just wanted to grab some attention. He hasn't got the guts to come out of the closet, yet wants to gain attention from the gay community. Vain - yes. Creative - not at all in any way.

    If you need to see a great gay film, watch "GBF" or "Another Gay Sequel" these REAL films are creative, colorful, fun and would have been made on much smaller budgets than this piece of utter garbage.
  • "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 porn 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.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    This film takes as inspiration the 1980 film Cruising, which I've only seen clips of (e.g. in documentaries about film), and the idea that there's 40 minutes or so that was destroyed in order to achieve a more favourable rating. (I'll assume you know all about Cruising because you can look it up here on IMDb).

    Yet this film is not a replacement of those supposed 40 minutes, nor is it a documentary about how Franco and Mathews attempted to re-imagine them. Instead, they play fictional versions of themselves, so doing. So they get two shots at re-imagining those 40 minutes.

    On the simplest level, there is the scene of actor Val playing Al Pacino's character Steve from the film Cruising, which to me seemed entirely believable, and could have fit into the original film. Then there are more sexual scenes, including scenes of oral sex between men. Together, these form a vivid re-imagining of what might have been shot and destroyed. Maybe.

    But the story is where the actual re-imagining is. Val (the character) is straight, like Steve in Cruising. Through his work, he is put into an in-your-face gay sexual environment, and overcomes initial hesitation, to become comfortable with the people in that environment. (I can't compare further with Cruising, not having seen it).

    I think there's a third layer, which is the audience who is also taken to a place cinema doesn't usually go to. The film doesn't interact back with us, but it's a sense of what Val and Steve experienced.

    In the film, James makes some interesting points regarding the explicit sex, and there's no doubt that's the big discussion topic for this film. I think he might be just a year too late to be correct about what audiences watch, but still his point that intimate love and sex should be shown without timidity in film, including same-sex, is correct.

    An earlier film that I really liked was 9 Songs (2004). A large portion of that film is the leading man and leading woman making love together. But it told a story about the course of that couple's relationship, and I don't think it could have been done any other way. There should be room for this kind of film in cinema, so these stories can be told without being dumped in with the porn, and then overlooked.

    But specifically regarding explicit gay sex in the telling of a story, it's already happened, via Shortbus (2006). Other audiences have seen I Want Your Love, a short and then a feature-length film by director Mathews (of this film) and including explicit sex between men. And the recent Palme d'Or winner at Cannes, I'm told, includes explicit sex between women. So this film is a bit late to break truly new ground.

    But more generally (and in stark contrast to television) cinema, and even this film oddly, has been afraid to show much in the way of male couples having the anal sex everyone thinks they're having. I don't think since Brokeback Mountain (2005) there has been a major male film star do this until this year's Kill Your Darlings. Hollywood ought to be able to do a lot better than that. Everyone is already thinking it, so just show something appropriate to the film.

    On the theme of missing same-sex film scenes, a (much, much tamer) scene from the film 54 (1998) was recently leaked online showing a kiss filmed between its stars Ryan Phillippe and Breckin Meyer. So apparently old footage does sometimes find its way to audiences.

    Part of the experience of seeing this film, I think, is the locale in which you see it. Much as I never expected to see a Bruce LaBruce film series at a mainstream festival in the middle of 1999 Dallas, I wouldn't have expected to see this in Windsor, Ontario. That's how it should be seen.
  • As many reviewers have noted, this movie does not aim to capture the 40 suppressed minutes of "Cruising," even though it was billed as such. It's not clear what's behind that mismatch. Did the movie's intent shift while it was being made? Whatever the reason, it's hard to understand who benefited from the misleading marketing of the movie.

    We learn what the movie's about as we watch. James Franco explains his desire to overturn cultural conventions against explicit sex, which he finds odd because sex is constantly in the forefront of our consciousness. Porn, however socially unacceptable, is popular.

    Val Lauren plays a straight man in two senses: he's a straight guy in a gay movie, plus his questions give James Franco an opening to explain the purpose behind the film. As Val notes toward the end, the explicitness was there all right, but it wasn't nearly as big a deal as our minds had conjured it up to be.

    Whether or not this is someone's cup of tea, Franco reveals a refreshing degree of honesty and understanding. After all, most of the characters in the movie, in comments by them or by their family about the goings- on, are dubious to negative about the merits. That's what most of us probably think as well. The film is supposed to challenge that thinking.
  • hjames-9782221 April 2015
    Warning: Spoilers
    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 porn go get the real thing for free. Then come home to a really good movie.
  • bobb3331026 October 2014
    Warning: Spoilers
    This is pure crap. A group of amateur actors/producers/directors, whatever they are, talking about the craft and their ideas and frankly going nowhere.

    They barely touched on any aspects of the original film which, although dated and not shocking by any stretch in 2014, has been re-mastered.

    This 'film' does the original injustice. It does not compliment Cruising by any means. It actually mocks it however inadvertent that may be.

    Watch Cruising and leave this indulgent little piece of money waste on the shelves. You won't be disappointed and will definitely not miss anything.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    In 2013, James Franco sets the gold standard for self-indulgent Auteur and on a scale that rivals even Andy Warhol. 'Interior. Leather Bar.' (Co-Directed with Travis Mathews) is just one of many Franco-projects that I've found myself viewing this past year (see also: 'Child of God', 'This is the End', 'Oz The Great and Powerful', 'Lovelace', 'Maladies', 'Tar', 'Spring Breakers', 'The Iceman' - and those are just the ones I managed to catch at various festivals). Looking forward to 2014, the man has an entire lifetime of projects (for some actor/directors) in varying stages of production. My take on his absolutely madding and eclectic trajectory; Franco has found a new type of celebrity excess and, be it a creative excess or not, I can't really purport its value to anyone except Franco himself. The films vary from insightful to entertaining, slow & introspective to over-the-top and self-aware. There is not a solid through-line to this career but there is no denying that Franco has an unquenchable thirst for experience and you gotta love him just a bit for sharing it with us. Experience has to have been the impetus for the documentary 'Interior. Leather Bar.' which followings a film crew (Franco included) as they attempt to reimagine the 40 minutes of footage censored by the MPAA from William Friedkin's 1980 film 'Cruising'. The film stared Al Pacino as an undercover cop and follows his investigation of a series of murders in New York City's gay underground. 'Cruising' explores the darkest corners of gay culture: anonymous cruising for sex in public parks and notorious S&M clubs with names like the Eagle's Nest, the Ramrod, and the Cock Pit. It's unclear what footage was actually cut from the original film as it has never been viewed publicly but the general assumption is that it consisted of actual gay sex shot in explicit detail as was true to life in these pre-AIDS-era clubs. The set up for 'Interior. Leather Bar.' is a desire by Franco to expose this suppression and to face what it is that's considered subversive in our culture and explore why it is taboo. After speaking to a number of different people at the Polari Film Festival after party (at Austin's best attempt at a leather bar), I gather that few people actually believed that the film achieved this; I, myself, being one of the skeptics. Instead of placing himself in the Al Pacino role – the straight man posing as gay in the most salacious environment imaginable – Franco recruits long-time friend and acting colleague Val Lauren ('The Salton Sea' / 'Live from Baghdad'). Lauren struggles with the content (which his agent outright refers to as pornography and begs him to decline involvement for the sake of his career), he is given no script, and only the slightest direction as he is plunged into a darkly lit set, surrounded by men in the throes of passion, punishment, and partying. Franco makes appearances, gets up close with his camera, and we get a few asides with him and Lauren as they step away from set and try to come to terms with what they are doing and why; there is a genuine sense that both are disturbed by what they've accomplished and, for Lauren, this single-day shoot might be a life-changing event. Here lies the crux of this film - Franco seems to have a legion of pseudo-sycophants at his disposal who are willing to indulge his every whim. 'Interior. Leather Bar.' seems to be nothing more than one such whim with Lauren as his proxy, playing out the experiences that Franco is too frightened to touch. Alternately, this could be a truly elaborate practical joke directed toward Lauren for reasons unknown – or, perhaps, for no reason but as a salve for Franco's boredom with his own normality. Regardless of its intention the film is an exciting experiment in documentary filmmaking and as mixed as my feelings are concerning the filmmaker, he has accomplished something truly intriguing.

    -David Massey (
  • Warning: Spoilers
    This was truly terrible. Franco wanted to make gay porn and made up a reason to do it, cloaking it as "art". It is more aptly described as "Fart" because it stinks. The film is basically 45 minutes of talking about shooting the "missing 40 minutes" of Cruising then actually showing about ten minutes of film inside a gay leather bar. Having just watched the actual movie, I can tell you that this piece would not fit into the film. Didn't look right in terms of color or atmosphere. And the guy playing Pacino? A chubby unattractive man? No. There is explicit gay sex-an actor gives oral sex to another guy and everything is shown. It's just porn-nothing more. Franco looks like a strange freakshow, almost drooling while saying "I wish I wasn't brought up in such a hetero normative world". The biggest problem here is that Franco claims that he is bothered that gay love isn't shown as fully as straight love, but then he shows 5 minutes of a man sucking another guy. Its exploitation in its worst form.
  • pmarcher9824 September 2015
    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
  • Warning: Spoilers
    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.