A plot that doesn't sustain any of its premises, and, some artificial, trivial, and, rather unnecessary assemblage of so called 'controversial' situations, we can hardly bare enough to care, before even completing to watch just the first half of this disjointed film. Here, we are never even close to an auteur film's atmosphere, or that of a Lynch's type of 'narrative construction',rather, we are closer to the likes of some lurid tale, confusingly and quickly put together,and, bragging some pretentiousness! And, this is unintentionally(i hope!)carrying the responsibility to cheat even more audiences over the meanings of a truly inspired,and, inspiring, highly artistic, personal piece of film work, with, in this case, whatever preposterous mix of Gay sub culture and wrecked psychological over tones, you may regret trying to follow in the lousy developments,and, dialog, infesting this movie and its lack of firm direction or basic film rules,featuring just some acting that drags performances into almost juvenile portrays,bringing most players down to such a misleading, unfocused state where indicated acting may just come as handy,as it is indeed,the over all,general confusion, and, profane misinterpretation of the failed intents of this production! I can be making excuses for low budgeting,technical difficulties, and, all the detriments that Independent Cinema must unarguably face today to even make it to the completion of a project,but, i cannot making excuses when to hide the lack of identity, and, real personal vision of products, such as this one,someone would use the name "Lynch" as, just an excuse to sell some slow moving, undefined material, as artistically challenging, because that, "Pornography"is not! I personally resented some of the "over heated","tweaked" sequences, written more like keeping in mind a conversation between raunchy costumers of some seedy sex house, rather than having in mind a film that would like to introduce us to a dark thriller with stylish tones! "Pornography"sadly kept reminding me of how transparent were becoming, all of a sudden, the radical but simply basic lines and substantial differences,within such a mess, and, instead,the electrifying, galvanizing experience someone could still get by watching(and,i would quite frankly recommend dearly "re-watching" many greater films, to all of those folks still having doubts on whether,this film has nothing merely even resembling the works of Lynch and of other talented filmmakers, or not, since we should all, at least, be able to understand, how hard it is to accomplish even just a mere impression of those contemporary masters' work, and, with such different creative ideas, cultural back ground's, talent,and,imagination, they must be working with!),something like "Lost Highway" or "Mulholland Drive",or even the out standing works of another great European director, whose name, someone even dared to make, when talking about "Pornography"! Especially unsuitable in this case,in fact, it was to read or hear cited by some, at the time of this film's premiere,the name of extraordinary director, Michelangelo Antonioni (well known in the US, especially,for the frenzy, the trend he established so unforgettably, with the mesmerizing mystery,and virtuoso script,and camera work,carrying his intense,unique "Blow Up"released by MGM back in 1967, when there was still someone truly caring for the cultural faith of this Country),who indeed made also a phenomenal movie about an unusual,unexplainable disappearance of a key character, bringing up events, eventually going much deeper inside the interiors,and "the reality", to the point of introducing,a completely new story,from the one the movie had originally started with! That glorious achievement "L'Avventura",was shot in Italy in early 1960,and,still gives incredible thought provoking thrills,and, many reasons for collective meditations over the never ending links between filmmaking,and representation of relationships, cheating, alienation, and, other social commentaries,including last,but, not least,a disease we all may experience and share at various levels today, called incommunicable feelings'despair. Again, quite frankly, after having watched such ineptitude,just the thought of such directors,and, subjects,feels out of place and utterly embarrassing, since Antonioni's,and, Lynch's works, in my opinion,should just not even be mentioned, when going through the motions of "Pornography", ultimately, becoming only just fine example of how lost and awry a movie project with, maybe even too many ambitions, considering the material's potentials, may so tragically turn out to be,at the end. I could also object that Lynch has never even edited a nonsense shot,like the many abominable ones we have gotta sit through here, but, at the contrary, how there's always plenty of heartfelt,visionary,meditative moments,and, insightful,layered content, able to introduce anyone into a new World, new experiences,and, philosophical journeys opening up new horizons to our lives and minds. But, why shall i even bother to go on? Would i be doing any good? I obviously don't have anything against daring, independent producers and directors,quite, at the contrary, love and try to route for, prize, and, always welcome all the works of new talented folks, even when not all completely accomplished, such as the films of P.T. Anderson,but, even those of Steve McQueen,John Cameron Mitchell,Van Sant,or of Todd Verow,and, Everett Lewis,for example,whose,movies are never less than compelling, but, always taking us through a creative,emotional,and spiritual journey of discovery! In fact, i have even bought and watched "Pornography",in its full entirety, before judging it so harshly! However, it did raise only one important moral question,and, that was just the absurd,but, painfully true misconception, today convincing many to believe, in good or bad faith, to be watching art films,instead of just boring, misguided,and tawdry attempts at exploitative, sporadic,utterly sensationalistic filmmaking.

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?"

"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.

This film is a myth and the object of a cult. Desire among gay people, desire to sexually do absolutely all one may desire, but also desire that everything that someone else might desire to do to one submissive subject may be done. It tries to show that love, any love I guess, gay love here, has that kind of absolute submissive dimension and that this submissive dimension may be exploited to the extreme by some who know there is an audience for that kind of kinky adventure. Is the film well done? Probably and after a while we lose track of the characters and the places, from New York to California and back again. We seem to be mixing old episodes and recent ones and present ones and maybe future one. We lose track of time and that is important because that kind of desire is so total and absolute that there is no limit to it, no time limit, no space limit, no limit whatsoever. That discourse is interesting because that is the very definition of any passion. What is surprising in this film is that it is interspersed with some sex scenes that are in no way really artistic, nor crude enough to be realistic. The films seems to prove what is said somewhere that any sex video, even snuff videos are fake, are not true. In other words there the film stops being realistic at all. Because that is not true. And there is a market for that kind of stuff, even for the real thing to be performed, if we can say so, in front of your very eyes. But what's more this sadism that the film seems to push aside is also a real element in many societies. The death penalty is nothing else and when it is shown on TV or even organized in stadiums like lapidating and hanging, or like some torturing in prisons or during war operations that is webcasted on the Internet, we can be sure that there is a market for that kind of real thing, I mean really real. So the film is interesting in a way when it shows the exploitation of the sex drive among gay people or people in general, but it is fantasizing when it pretends the snuffing side of it does not exist. At least Christopher Rice does not hesitate to set up that sadistic side in full view. Thanks God he does.Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne, University Paris 8 Saint Denis, University Paris 12 Créteil, CEGID