Pornography

"Pornography: A Thriller" starts off as a story about Mark Anton (Jared Grey), a porn star trying to get out of the biz, whose last gig turns out to be the last time he's seen, ever. Fifteen years later Michael (Matthew Montgomery), a writer working on a history of gay porn, and his boyfriend, move into a "New York City" apartment that becomes less and less fabulous as Michael uncovers clues—like "old" camera mounts that just happen to fit modern camcorders— that link it to Mark Anton's disappearance. Things get really spooky until—cut to Los Angeles, where present day porn icon Matt Stevens (Pete Scherer) is determined to make "The Mark Anton Story," surprised to discover Anton was a real person when the whole story came to him in a dream. Weird! Things get weirder as the movie goes into production and Stevens becomes unhinged. One of his stars mysteriously disappears. He starts seeing things. Reality and fantasy become blurred. Will re-enacting Mark Anton's end also be the demise of Matt Stevens? Would some full-frontal nudity help?

Writer-director David Kittredge had some promising ideas for three possible movies. Unfortunately, he failed to finish any of them and tried to cover it up by imitating David Lynch. Several actors occupy dual roles, most prominently Walter Delmar as Michael's boyfriend and Stevens' co-star/lover. Michael receives mysterious photos in the mail, the same photos that were taken by Anton, who was studying photography at the time he disappeared. Then Michael receives photos relating to Anton's murder, and after that, photos of himself in his apartment looking at these photos. There is a ring with a symbol on it, a symbol that links to some underground snuff film producer that may or may not be real. People spout lines of dialog that I'm sure were meant to be profound—like Anton saying he likes doing crosswords because puzzles "have no ambiguity"—but comes off as pretentious horses---t. Viewers will also see nods to David Croenenberg's "Videodrome" and more than a few scenes reminiscent of "Saw."

Many of the people involved in making "Pornography: A Thriller" were also involved in the gay sci-fi/horror "Socket." By comparison, "Pornography" has slightly higher production values—and I emphasize slightly—with stronger acting and some moody cinematography, though much of it looks flat and cheap. Truth be told, there are actual porn videos made with more finesse, which left me wishing Kittredge and crew just collaborated with, say, the folks at Raging Stallion or Titan Media, making an experimental porn video instead of a rambling "art" movie. At least a porn movie would have a climax. Several of them, in fact.

My review will be short. The low ratings of this movie have nothing to do with homophobia. In fact, had the characters been heterosexual it still would not cure what ails this movie.

The issue with this movie is the narrative. It is ostensibly three different shorts held together by a plot based on an urban legend.

As another review mentions, the movie starts really slow, you have to stick with it. It then transitions into the 2nd act which is quite interesting in part because the actors , well, they can act and hold the viewers attention.

Unfortunately, the 2nd act ends in a disjointed an unsatisfying way and leads into the final act that also features some descent acting but poor storytelling.

This movie could have been great. Several times I felt that this movie could become at least a cult classic but the director blew it.

Don't be fooled. This movie isn't too high-brow,far from it. There is one, and only one reason to watch and that is to see how badly the opportunity to make a very good movie was squandered.

Okay, I love psychological thrillers. I love gay cinema. I watched this movie and couldn't figure out what in the hell was going on.

First, I couldn't tell who was who. The movie was so poorly lit that I found myself squinting to see what was going on. All of the main characters looked the same - I guess it was to link the three phases of the movie together to show the different dynamics of the same issue, but good Lord. Turn the lights up so I can distinguish between the leads.

The story was so full of holes and there was nothing intertwining the different stories. It was like they couldn't figure out what direction the movie was going in. I felt the movie should have ended 5 times before it was truly over.

I feel like hours of my life were sucked away and I will never get them back. It wasn't even a movie that was so deep that I reflect on it later. I watched it until the end and all I could say was, "What in the hell was this movie about?"

While I normally enjoy pornography of all kinds when it is done in a documentary way; it is not palatable when one adds a plot which does not have a way of telling a complete story. This is that kind of film. The writer/director, apart from having an obvious love for film and its techniques and auteurs by the dozens, he only picks bits and pieces from some of his favorites, and then writes a story that should have been storyboarded, in order to even play homage to his most often used,enigmatic and "surprise/plot" directors. Hitchcock would have thought this the longest trailer in history......as a matter of fact, the movie IS a long trailer. I yearned for reason, as well as reason for casting, for lighting, for a clarity, and for ONE interesting character. What a bunch of bores the writer wrote. Who the hell cares? It sounds homophobic, but gay films must learn to realize that the serious subjects are always going to deal with "gay" and its problems, and MUST not try and take itself seriously. Lesbian films succeed because they are willing to take chances with honesty and anti heterosexual subjects.

Slow and boring — a badly told story: are the two objections reviewers here reiterate in different ways over and over. And yet, the film I saw couldn't be more enticing. PORNOGRAPHY: A THRILLER is methodical, character driven, but certainly not boring; and considering its ambitious three part narrative, I'd say this seamlessly rendered film ends up being the engaging puzzle it was intended to be. Writer/director, David Kittredge has clearly thought about his subject long and hard, for the kind of cubist back and forth he's cooked up brilliantly exploits thriller hooks to explore the relationship between hardcore sex acted for the camera and the imagination of those who get off on watching it. Even with the ghost of David Lynch in obvious attendance, Kittredge's thriller plot does not seem stolen or manufactured, as others would have you think; it reflect the artist's ambiguous relationship to the subject. The film is saying that pornography arouses us, body and mind, with temptation and dread; two sides of the same coin. Here's a gay film that truly challenges its audience to think. No gay bar clichés, no stupid, camp posturing pandering to a marketable demographic. If someone says this is boring or not well done, it means the film went over their heads.