hjames-97822 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.

norman-dostal 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.

Gordon-11 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.

David Massey 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 (www.popculturebeast.com)