Cruising (Deluxe Edition)
|
List Price: Our Price: $7.95 You Save: $12.02 (60%) Availability: Usually ships in 24 hours Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
Movie Reviews of Cruising (Deluxe Edition)
Movie Review: On a cruise to nowhere, 27 years later
Summary: 3 Stars
The colossal failure of "Cruising" in 1980 should have been easy to predict. When you make a story about extreme taboo topics (Gay SM murders) and couple it with a bizarre, disjointed script, then outright refuse to make a linear story out of it (I could never figure out why the killer always seemed to be a different person with the same creepy voice), then you arrive with a film that hardly anyone in 1980 would sit through.
Ironically enough, one of the most controversial points to the movie now seems almost nostalgic. The seedy SM underground bars like The Cellblock or The Anvil that used to inhabit lower Manhattan's Meat Packing district are a memory now, replaced by nightclubs, condos, yuppies and the locations of a bunch of "Sex in the City" shoots. The notorious Lure Bar, the final and long gone holdout of this era, was even used as a "Sex in the City" backdrop - with little or no controversy attached. How things have changed.
That makes the "shocking" hyper-sexuality of the bar scenes somewhat bemusing. Yes, in the "Boogie Nights" mania of the late 70's, prior to AIDS, skyrocketing property values and Rudy Giuliani, these playspaces and these activities did happen. It was underground, wild, crazy...and as William Friedkin saw it, a perfect backdrop for a crime mystery. Al Pacino (who has professed his distaste for the final cut of "Cruising" and is conspicuous in his absence from the DVD extras) was keen on taking a part that would be unconventional and nonconformist. So he donned a leather jacket and took the role of Steve Burns, a young undercover cop who fits a "common victim" profile.
Thus begins a peculiar game of cat and mouse, with Pacino trying to pass as a gay leather daddy and showing all the signs of a conflict with his inner closet. Which, in the bizarre ending to this movie, is left a hanging question...especially with the little piece of business concerning Karen Allen. There are some bits of unintended humor, like when Powers Boothe attempts to explain the Hankie Code to Pacino and when an irritated bar patron snaps at Pacino about flagging the wrong color. But for the most part, the focus on seediness and the disconnected pacing of the script keep most of "Cruising" at a level where the suspense is at a minimum.
In fact, the most revealing thing about this "deluxe" DVD (hard to define it as such, since there has never been a "basic" edition) is the pair of featurettes. In "The History of Cruising" and "Exorcising Cruising," Friedkin and others dissect what they were trying to accomplish with "Cruising" and why they didn't look at it as a gay movie. They also partially explain the ambiguity with the killer's many faces/one voice trick (giving it an almost horror/supernatural bent, and considering The Exorcist, hardly a stretch). A former detective who was a consultant for the movie explains the presence of the musclebound cop in the jock-strap, among other plot points. The interviews with minor cast members almost 30 years later are interesting as well.
The features (in particular, "Exorcizing Cruising") also address the controversy. While I can see the point that there was a dearth of gay characters in the movies and therefore a gay serial killer made lots of folks virulently uneasy, I was personally more insulted by The Boys in the Band than "Cruising." Even with the backdrop a serial killer movie, the men in the bar scenes are looking like they are hitting the bars because they belong there and are enjoying themselves; as opposed to the bitter, regretful losers of TBITB cast of closet queens.
What the commentaries don't address is why "Cruising," which is a dynamite movie for atmosphere and grit, was ultimately such an incoherent mess. There's a great soundtrack featuring The Germs, Mink DeVille and John Hiatt when he was punky, a twist from the usual disco-drenched music of any movie tagged as "gay." And finally, there is Pacino. Looking for all the world like a damaged and conflicted man, the ambiguity of the final third of "Cruising" (Is he gay or not? Is Burns maybe a killer, too? Who is that leatherman going into the bar at the end?) made for an unsatisfying finale. More a curiosity now than a controversy, "Cruising" is now a strange look into a time long passed.
Incidentally, given the notorious bent to "Cruising's" history, it is interesting to think about some of the movies after that bear a resemblance. Hard, 8MM and even modern horror movies like Hostel or the Saw movies owe a debt to "Cruising."
Movie Review: Both Homophobic and Mediocre
Summary: 3 Stars
I saw this movie in the theatres when it was released in 1980 and defended Mr. Friedkin's ("The Exorcist" and "Boys In The Band") right to make it when my friends protested its opening. I was curious to see what "Cruising" looks like over twenty-five years later. It does not wear well with time. Taken from a book by the same name, it's all about a homosexual serial killer who is making a bloody path through New York City's leather community. Al Pacino as Steven Burns of NYPD complete with a full set of leather goes undercover to catch the killer. The plot is still hard to follow and often doesn't make much sense; Pacino, who is such a fine actor, doesn't get his act together here, probably through no fault of his. (He allegedly said that this is the worst movie he ever made.) Much of the film is shot in a leather bar in New York City to give-- I supose-- realism to the story.
The DVD contains a long and winding defense of this film by the director William Friedkin. He should have left well enough alone. He tries unsuccessfully to convince us that "Cruising" is in no way homophobic. If he is not attempting the sensational, then why does he use what he calls more edgy music than the music that was playing in the bars when he made this film since he only wants to give an accurate depiction of the gay leather community? Do members of that community have women's names and constantly refer to each other with feminine pronouns? Are we really to believe that a muscle-bound member of the NYPD force wearing only a cap, boots and a jock strap roughs up a suspect at the precinct station? Mr. Friedkin says a similar event actually occurred but offers no proof of that. The ending is laughable. All of Pacino's soulful staring into the mirror will not make a great, serious film out of a homophobic slasher. In addition to all the footage of Friedkin, the minor characters give interviews although we do not get one word from or glimpse of Mr. Pacino. Jerry Weintraub, the producer, says that the novel from which the film is made is an "important piece of literature." I kid you not.
If Mr. Friedkin had depicted the African America or Jewish community-- or any other minority for that matter-- in such a way, he would have been vilified to the heavens. While you certainly do not have to be homosexual to make a movie about gay people that portrays them as complex, flesh-and-blood individuals-- Mike Nichols, for example, does a wonderful job in "Birdcage" of making a funny but honest movie-- it would be interesting to see what a gay director would have done with this story. Probably nothing.
I rant on. The good news is that I didn't pay a lot for the rental of the movie and that it will have the fate of most dull movies and become a bit of the history of gay cinema since it's not quite bad enough to make cult status, at least not for me.
Movie Review: OK for cheap thrills.
Summary: 3 Stars
Cruising seemed like superficial cheap exploitation when it came out. But I decided to give it another chance when I found a used inexpensive copy recently with director's comments and all. I think now that it stands up reasonably well for the photography and Pacino's reasonably OK acting.It is interesting to get the commentary. What were they thinking?!
Also, I will take the director and producer's word for it that it is a one dimensional snapshot of a unique scene (a few leather bars) at a unique time (post-sexual revolution,pre-aids)and place (New York). They say they had to fly out from Hollywood to see if it was really true. OK, that is interesting, even though the film the scene quickly and leave. All told this is a rather three stars cheap thrills film at best.
It never gets into the heads of the leatherboys or the variety of their sex play and what their various practices do for them. The commentary implied that the leatherboys were only too happy to cooperate and be seen and filmed(surprise, surprise), and that was an interesting historical note that rings quite plausible.
Sorry, but it still seems after 30 years that Cruising was hastily knocked out to make some bucks and get some attention for those who made it. The dialogue is wooden. The characters are very thin and the mystery parts are gimmicky and even corny. Good lord! The killer is a mystery because he has no sperm in his semen. So what? And he is a nut case who has had problems relating to his father!! And they admit that they were switching voices on characters because they wanted to keep viewers disoriented and involved; but there was nothing artsy about it. What depth. LOL.
It is implied that Pacino is being lured into the mentality he is supposed to be impersonating, but there is no character development that makes that implication in anyway interesting artistically. They do keep you wondering, but why should you be very interested in whether this more or less one-dimensional cop is some kind of closet case? OK hint, hint, kinky sex can be intoxicating. I get it. But for me that is a problem -- why just hint, hint? Show some guts and talent and put it out there and explore it. Several other good films have done that with SM -- I can't remember them all. There was one with Eastwood, 9 1/2 Weeks, Belle Du Jour, The Night Porter, Love is the Devil, even Crimes of Passion -- and a fascinating French one that I have never seen on DVD, translates roughly The Prisoner. Too many more to remember.
Basically Cruising is just a kind of what's around the corner suspense flick with some leather and sweaty skin thrown in. Respectable photography, exotic setting, respectable acting by Pacino. OK for an evening of popcorn when you don't have any good other mysteries around.
Movie Review: Interesting, but not a "lost" masterpiece...
Summary: 3 Stars
I saw this film recently on Sundance (or IFC) after not seeing it for years. It's a really perplexing work. As a time capsule, it's fascinating. It was shot in NYC in 1980 when the city was dying all around, and many of these gay "meat markets" were in full swing. The gay bar scenes are incredibly intense and realistic, and they can still shock most viewers today. The film has a real dirge, detached atmosphere to it, giving it an unexplainable vibe. The dialogue is flatly rendered, and at first I disliked this. This may have been due to gay groups very loud protests during the actual shooting. While they were location shooting in NYC, various gay groups disturbed the filming by shouting, whistling, blowing off sirens, etc., etc., in other words, they made sound recording almost impossible. On the featurette (which is fascinating), the producer and Friedkin said they took a month and a half to do ADR (automatic dialogue replacement) on the film. I believe gay groups were angry that the "leather scene" was the only type of gay subculture portrayed in the film, and I understand their concerns, but that was no reason to attempt and stop the film being made, which is essentially what they did.
The film's plot isn't particularly well developed, and Pacino's character is mostly confused (as is his performance, which supposedly he was unhappy with). Friedkin made one of the greatest gay films ever with The Boys in the Band, but here his film feels exploitative, like he enjoyed showing the bondage/leather gay scene of NYC instead of showing relatively straightforward gay people. The film feels unfinished, but not by design. The only deliberate ambiguity I feel is the ending. SPOILER. The killer is caught, but a murder happens after the killer is caught which is indirectly connected to the case, and that really leaves a creepy vibe when the film ends.
Look quickly for James Remar and Ed O'Neil as a gay roomate and a detective, respectively. The film is worth watching at least once, but it's not a "lost masterpiece".
Movie Review: Startling and apocalyptic. . . .
Summary: 3 Stars
Viewed now, with the benefit of more than 29 years hindsight, what's startling about William Friedkin's "Cruising" is its foreboding, apocalyptic (and apparently unintentional) pre-AIDS depiction of gay nightlife as it existed in the late 1970's. Though not by any means a masterpiece, "Cruising" is an intermittently fascinating study of an undercover cop (played by Al Pacino) investigation of a string of brutal murders of local gay men. Filmed in and around several gay bars and hard-core sex clubs located in the heart of New York City's Greenwich Village (with actual patrons--not only extras--and club life serving as the backdrop), the film was quite controversial at the time of its release. "Cruising prompted a good number of protests for the graphic, no-holds-barred nature of its subject matter and also for its sensationalism, with the potential to incite or increase violence against gays (this movie was made at the height of the "gay (sexual) liberation" movement). "Cruising" is best seen for Pacino's stirring performance as the sexually ambivalent Steve Burns, who infiltrates the furtive gay underground scene and finds a powerful, addictive environment that has an intoxicating mixture of danger and gutter glamour.
Like "The Exorcist" and "The Boys in the Band" (both of which Friedkin directed), "Cruising" is often heavy-handed and it raises far more questions about sexuality, cultural identity and societal permissiveness than it answers. Yet the film still holds one's attention as it telescopes a specific cultural phenomenon circa 1979. As portrayed here, the gay scene is at once alluring and repugnant.