Interior. Leather Bar.

Interesting take on recreating the 20 or so minutes of excised footage (now lost onbthe cutting room floor)- that earned “Cruising”, starring Al Pacino an X rating. The original movie, about a cop assigned to go undercover in the Leather/SM community in order to catch a serial murderer in 1970s NYC, has a limited appeal, with a few graphic shots. But it’s a good movie based on true events, downplayed at the time by the media.

For anyone thinking that this "project" is about recreating the supposed missing 40 minutes of film cut from the classic movie CRUISING, you are sadly mistaken. Don't waste your money. Instead go buy the delightful documentary "BEEFCAKE", the story of photographer Bob Mizer and his AMG/Athletic Model Guild company. This "INTERIOR. LEATHER BAR." dvd is a major disappointment on so many levels. All this really is, is a one hour trailer for a non-existent film on the missing 40 minutes. For one hour you have to sit through numerous complaints by James Franco and the "cast" about how they don't know what they are doing, they don't know the point of this, they don't know why they are involved, etc. They mention several times that there is no script and not once ask why. If you like wasting money watching a group of confused people with a camera pretend to shoot a backroom porn, then hell go to any porn store and buy a $5 no-name porn company dvd for that. Attaching James Franco's name to this "project" was so they could sell it for more than $5. I was fooled into thinking after an hour of senseless crap they were then going to show 40 minutes of the recreated missing scene. But no. That's was it. During the 1 hour you get just 30 seconds here and there of snippits of what is just rehearsals for scenes that are never actually filmed. So what was the point? There wasn't any. James Franco's fascination of the "gay community" isn't explored here. I'd suggest he go date/sleep with some gay men and finally end his curiosities once and for all. He will never get his answers by asking others to do it for him.

The film was great. Hats off to Franco, closeted as he is, he shows such promise for future endeavors along the same lines. He should have staring role. Actually, considering the content of Interior: Leather Bar & watching the original "CRUISING" more than once since I first saw it in theater in Boston right before it was confiscated & banned. They did the same to CALIGULA too. On another note, the seller was more than helpful & downright wonderful. This experience was all around a good one. Fifty Shades of Grey can't hold a candle to this & the original movie. I could go for a good remake of it along the lines of Franco's acting & directing.

This film may suffer from its advance buzz, but I found little here to provoke or stimulate. So with those expectations set aside what, if anything, does this short (pseudo?)documentary have to offer? The question frequently voiced by the film's participants (I hesitate to call them actors and directors) is "what are we trying to say here?" And Franco's usual response is "I don't know. Let's find out." One thing I think the film shows is that thirty-some years after the controversial making of the movie "Cruising," Americans (even downtown artist and Hollywood types) are extremely uncomfortable with man-on-man sex (to the surprise of dozens). But judge for yourself. At least this film defies categorization (genre-bending if not gender-bending).On the other hand, the DVD includes a very interesting short film by Franco's co-director Travis Matthews, "In Their Room SF". It has all the pathos of "Grey Gardens" but none of the campiness. Pathos, but not defeat. Don't overlook this "extra" if you buy the DVD.

What an intriguing premise! Too bad it was left in the hands of filmmakers so consumed with telling us rather than showing us. Yes, it's preachy....in fact, it's far preachier than it is sexy or daring or controversial. The filmmakers seem to think that showing a few seconds of male on male oral sex and bootlicking makes this film edgy but when the rest of the film is full of boring self-absorbed dialogue and laughable discussions of how important the film is, this film may go down as the the most snore worthy sex film in the history of Hollywood. Thankfully, it's all over quickly...these sorts of self-absorbed people who live off of their perceived importance are not the kind with whom you want to spend too much time. I came away thinking the filmmakers wanted to push buttons but I didn't feel pushed. I didn't feel entertained. And with a film so shallow, I certainly didn't feel educated. Perhaps Mr. Franco believes that showing a few seconds of gay sex is better than creating art where gay people aren't summed up by their body parts or sex acts. But maybe it was simply easier as no one seemed to be willing or able (or even cared about) anything other than showing gay oral sex in a "mainstream' Hollywood movie.

The fact that I am still thinking about how this project will mean something different to each viewer I think is precisely the point.When Val and James are having a conversation in private about James' point in making the project, I think that is an excellent take away. James is angry that he's been socially conditioned to feel a certain way.Don't watch the film if you don't know what it's about. Watch it with purpose because that's why it was made.

ma d'altra parte come tutto quello che fa James Franco

買わなければよかった、と後悔してます。DVDデッキでは見れませんでした。普通のデッキで見れないことも書いてて欲しかったです。星もあげたくないです❗

La película tardó más de un mes desde que la pedí hasta que llegó a mi casa. Ayer intenté verla, pero resultó imposible. Aunque se llama "Interior Leather Bar (Reino Unido)", es imposible verla en la zona 2, a la que pertenecen el Reino Unido y España. Un cartel advierte al principio que no es posible verla en la zona a la que yo pertenezco. En fin, Amazon me ha estafado. Ahora ya sé que no debo utilizar nunca más sus servicios. ¡Qué desastre!

as Cruising is one of my old favourite ever movie [ an iconic first watch imprinted in my mind forever] I was desperate to see this . Ok it isn't actually an attempt to recreate the lost footage , more a vanity project by James franco in which he considers censorship and depiction of sex in movies [ especially when porn is so mainstream now ] . There are some fun naughty bits but this is more something to watch . listen and think about rather than a late night hottie . Its more like a behind the scenes of say a Shortbus rather a recreation of the leather club.

This film is eye-wateringly complex for a host of reasons that are really complicated. It's a really complicated film. It's unclear what the filmmakers set out to achieve, but they achieved much more than the several stated purposes.The title is taken from the allegedly deleted 40 minute scene in the script of William Friedkin's Cruising (1980) starring Al Pacino. It is supposed that censors could not bear the depiction of sexuality that took place daily at that time in gay leather bars. Pacino's character is there on the hunt for a serial killer who appears (in Cruising) to be part of this community. There is no evidence that the deleted scenes were explicit or anything — and the whole story may be apocryphal.So the missing footage is "re-imagined" by Franco and Mathews in this film. They do actually shoot the forty minutes of film, and much of it is presumably stronger sexually than the supposed missing scene. But the film is about the filming of the filming of the allegedly missing scene.Actors recruited for the reconstruction are clearly identified as gay or straight, and their range of discomfort (from being filmed with a hard-on, to the actor playing Pacino's character's heterosexual horror) become part of the narrative. It's very much like the later Herzog documentaries, where "real" people are directed to "act" to accomplish the effect.And they made the film to be a self-reflective, organic construction. As the actors are instructed about the scenes that take place half an hour later in the film, the director asks, "How do you feel about this?"James Franco appears in the film, but as the director interacting with his apparently heterosexual star actor who is playing the character also played by Al Pacino. He coaches the actor about discomfort in one scene, and later unleashes a blurry philosophy about filmmaking and censorship.Franco lives a public life as heterosexual, but this project, Howl, and another short film included on the disc obviate the question of his identity. I don't care one way or the other. His journey is not important to this film.In the last decade it was easy to identify post-modern art. This is taking that self reference to an entirely new level. It references the original film and Al Pacino, and Al Pacino's character. It references all the cultural values that reflected that role. It goes into the censorship of sexuality (Franco has a great moment of clarity about this in the film), and it looks at the social constructs of the gay community and all the absurdities that emerged along side.It looks at film making, at acting, even at being an actor's agent. There is commentary on Hollywood, on censorship, on first amendment rights, and on profitability.As I said at the top of this review, this is a very complex film, and I love it for that. Rather than being the subject of hatred, it is discovered as an environment with the potential of love and rational interactions.