Cruising [1980]

See Larger Image	List Price: £13.99 Our Price: £6.98 Availability: Usually dispatched within 10 to 13 days Manufacturer: Warner Home Video Starring: Al Pacino, Paul Sorvino, Karen Allen, Richard Cox, Don Scardino Directed By: William Friedkin Average Customer Rating:


Audience Rating: Suitable for 18 years and over Binding: DVD EAN: 7321902167961 Format: PAL Label: Warner Home Video Manufacturer: Warner Home Video Number Of Items: 1 Publisher: Warner Home Video Region Code: 2 Release Date: 2008-02-25 Running Time: 98 Studio: Warner Home Video
Related Items Dog Day Afternoon - Special Edition [1975] Eastern Promises [2007] Shelter [2007] Serpico [1973] The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford [2007]
Spotlight customer reviews: Customer Rating: Summary: Forgotten because of subject matter Comment: I first watched the film about a year ago as I enjoy watching controversial films from the 70's/80's and had somehow managed to miss this film. The fact Al Pacino starred also made me want to watch it. The storey centres around a cop who goes undercover to catch a serial killer who is targeting the gay community. There is plenty of eye opening scenes especially in the clubs. Overall it is a very good film and worth watching. As a note the film caused major uproar upon release mostly from the gay community as they thought it showed an untrue image of the gay scene in New York at the time. 4 Stars. Customer Rating: Summary: Borderline incompetent but fascinating film Comment: BIG SPOILERS CONTAINED IN THIS REVIEW This film fascinates me. Is it good? No, it's boring and badly made. Is it worth watching? Yes, it's very interesting. The film is a mess that comes apart half way in and has an ending that confuses everyone. I've read up on the film and I got a good description of what actually happens in it from a book about William Friedkin (the director of The French Connection and The Exorcist) written by Thomas D Clagett. The ending is deliberately ambiguous. The director does not know the answers to most of the questions that you're left with at the end. Is Richards' the killer? He probably only killed the clothes shop owner in the peepshow booth. The final image of the man in leathers going into the bar? It's up to you. If you think it's Pacino then it is. If you think it's the real killer, or a new killer, then it is. Who killed the neighbour? It's up to you to decide. Pacino's sexuality? As far as I'm aware even Friedkin and Pacino never came to a conclusion so I think it's up to the viewer to decide. The cops at the start who abuse the transvestites? Um, I don't know. There is a suggestion, not in the film but based on the research Friedkin did for the film, that they're not real cops. One of the cops turns up at a murder scene at the end so he is a real cop, so maybe his partner was a fake? Or maybe I'm just reading too much into it? The big guy with the cowboy hat who beats up the suspect during the interrogation? He's probably a cop, and he's there simply to confuse and disorientate the suspect (the same desired effect as Gene Hackman's "picking your feet in Poughkeepsie" speech in The French Connection). Who is the murderer? There's more than one killer. For misjudged artistic reasons the one voice (Richards' father) was dubbed onto all the killers, which just confuses things. The hotel killer from the start is murdered in the brambles half way into the film. The theme is supposed to be that there is nothing more infectious than evil. Sadly as no one states this theme in anyway what so ever this idea never turns up in the film. It certainly makes more sense of the copycat carnage that takes place. There's simply too much ambiguity in the film. The problem with too much ambiguity is that it can leave a lot of interesting looking surface but not a lot of depth. The film has ended up being more hollow and empty than it was meant to be because they've left too much undecided. Friedkin likes to treat his audience as intelligent adults. He assumes we can all work things out for ourselves. Unfortunately no one watches films that way. We're used to having important information pointed out to us in a clear, obvious and concise way. Even the smartest audience member will be left confused and frustrated by the way the dots aren't connected for us. Another small example is a scene in a bar where Pacino meets Sorvino for his money drop off. He tells Sorvino that a name keeps coming up when he talks to people; that he might own the bars. Sorvino tells him that he knows who he is but he can't move on him. That's it. No more. By reading up on the film it turns out that we, the audience, are supposed to work out for ourselves that the reason why Sorvino can't make a move is because the person is a mob guy under investigation from a different unit. Friedkin just asks too much of his audience. How is anyone supposed to work that out for themselves? It's a weird movie and it will give you a headache if you try to understand it. And it's strangely boring as there's an awful lot of Pacino hanging out, watching what's going on. Not a film full of action and excitement. For all its many flaws, it is a fascinatingly odd film. And if it made sense then I doubt I would have watched it about five times. Maybe if you think of it as a David Lynch style surrealist film, instead of as a conventional thriller, then it might work better for you as a film. I quite like the movie and I think that if you're inclined to like it then you should enjoy it. If you don't want to like it then you're guaranteed to hate it. By the way, if the acting seems weird and detached, it's because almost the whole film had the dialogue dubbed on later. This is because protestors made too much noise during filming to use the audio they recorded on the set. Also look out for the police officer with the moustache (he's in the autopsy scene at the very start). In real life he went undercover like Pacino, so the film is based partly on his experiences. The music is excellent and it would be nice if they would release the soundtrack on CD. One track called "It's So Easy" by Willie DeVille is on the Death Proof movie soundtrack. If you want to see something odd then I fully recommend this film. If you want a good thriller then it's probably best to just skip this. Customer Rating: Summary: Brave, but at times, flat thriller. Comment: A brave film for the Pre AIDS generation, which is an undercover cop thriller with a twist. Pacino's performance stands up but is not in anyway his best. Whats makes the film brave is its willingness to explore a sub culture that many people would never think existed.Gay issues will always, for some reason raise some form of debate.The outcry at the time of release from the Gay community was not only stupid and misled but In a way did nothing but raise the films profile.Whish it very much needed. It is made VERY clear that is does not portray average gay life but a sub culture and I feel in no way what so ever is offensive to the average gay men.Yes, some will find the sexual nature of the film an issue but then, I would hope they read the review on the cover and made up thier mind it's was for them. The film now look's, clunky ( like Al in his oversized leathers) and still has a few scene's which leave questions un answered.Why keep the killers hat??? Who kills the flatmate??? Who's the big black man in the jock strap??? For those who have seen the film and are wondering " Was it really like that then?" The answer first hand is Yes. Customer Rating: Summary: edgy,sexy, overblown thriller. Comment: For years this movie has been heavily criticized for its homophobic portrayal of gay men. Set against the backdrop of 70s gay leather bars in New York Al Pacino is a cop dispatched undercover to hunt down and expose a gay serial killer, by using himself as bait. The movie is gritty and violent, and adopts a style typical of Hollywood cinema at the time. Pacino is great, brooding and on edge. Stalking gay leather bars cruising for sex to catch the sado-masochistic killer. Pacinos character is completely straight, or so we assume but the assignment does cast doubts on the future strength of his marriage. The almost exclusive portrayal of gay men as sadomasochistic leather queens cruising for rough anonymous casual sex is where the problem lies. Is it the responsibility of Hollywood to give a balanced, realistic representation of all aspects of gay men and their culture? Well yes. In the same way that Hollywood should aim to represent all factions of society, no matter how marginalised in a balanced and accurate manner. Does that happen today? In the 27 years since this movie came out the representation of gay people in mainstream cinema is as bad as ever. Im not making excuses for the film but with that in mind remember the movie represents only one aspect of gay culture, and its not necessarily that inaccurate. Permissive casual gay sex pre Aids was a reality and is so again. The movie is an entertaining thriller, some of the acting is a bit ropey. The plot by todays standards is overblown and melodramatic and the characters are 2-dimensional. But -and this is my point- by todays standards its not bad at all!! Its depressing though how little ground has been made but don't let that spoil your enjoyment of this thrilling if dated and slightly silly film. More Reviews