chrliebrown54529

That is the question posed before you? This movie is a blatant rip off two movies, one good and one just as awful as this one. The one really good movie Copycat with Sigourney Weaver and Holly Hunter and other right down at the bottom of the scrap heap, Fear Dot Com with Stephen Dorff and Nastcha McElhone. If you're going to rip off a movie you have to do it in such a way that you'd find inconceivable to think about which movies that you are copying. To compare both this film and Fear Dot Com is very easy to do with the major exception that FDC was backed by a bigger studio and slightly bigger production values unlike this one which is definitely a low budget choppier. As side from that, you wonder as to why the once upon a star, Natasssja Kinski would be involved in this mess and that goes for both Huey Lewis and Nicolette Sheridan, who's gotten far far away from this junk without looking back at it. However, if you're in a mood for a late night insomniac time waster or just simply out of boredom (which is how i encountered this movie), here's the movie for you. Just have a copy of Fear Dot Com handy in case you feel the urge to compare notes and more cheap thrills.

There are some movies you watch that completely frustrate you and Crusing is definitely a top the list. The film starts off very curiously with body parts found in the East River that could be linked to a killer who's MO is tied to homosexual murders. At least it appears that way at first. Enter Al Pacino's character who's given an assignment to go deep undercover by Paul Sorvino to investigate the recent murders of gay men taking place in the gay community. Pacino does just that, he goes way too deep undercover and while getting closer and closer to the killer, he soon finds his sexuality confusing in his own right, which is one of the main problems with this film. From the outset, we see Pacino with the beautiful Karen Allen and immediately think that he's out of his mind to accept an assignment like this. Soon while his undercover alter ego makes a few connections and attractions, Pacino's character starts to develop his own thinking of who this killer really is or does he? Or the stress of the job be getting to him to cause even more confusion.

Director William Friedkin was on some kind of high at this time because this movie just makes absolutely no sense no matter how you look at it. His main problem is that or it appears that way is his self indulgence for the gay culture and the way it's portrayed in the film which is what probably enraged gays when the film was released. If the film was released now, I still think it would be controversial but not as badly as it was back in 1980. At the very least, it would have a shot to being successful, but it just isn't both artistically or visually. Another problem is that Friedkin was just too close to this material and to say he fell in love with it would be an understatement. If someone else had polished his draft of the script, it wouldn't have been as convoluted as it is because it has no idea of how to deal with the material in a simpler way. Like Pacino's character, the film's itself doesn't know what it wants to be. Is it a mystery? Is it a suspense thriller? Is it a personal attack on gays or particularly gay men in general? It boggles the mind to even think about it, regardless all these elements put together in way that Friedkin has doesn't make any sense. The film's tone, atmosphere and settings look awkward and very uncomfortable to sit through at times to the point you'd want to take a long shower after you've finished watching it.

What is Pacino doing in this film? He just looks really out of it in this one and to be honest, he probably saw something interesting on paper that looked like a good idea, but on film, it just doesn't work. You don't know what his character is, what he likes, who he loves? What kind of guy he really is when he's not wearing a badge? There are lot of unanswered questions. Pacino is completely wasted, so is everyone else associated with this film from Paul Sorvino to Karen Allen. What are they doing in this film? They deserved better than playing cardboard characters. It's understandable that the MPAA cut this film to shreds, but how much of a difference would it make if the director's cut that Friedkin talks about would make if it was shown today? Maybe a little one, the question would really be if that version of the film would be able to save this mess? Perhaps one day we'll be able to see what Friedkin had originally intended for this film. For now we'll have to live with this curious disaster that at this point has very little redeeming qualities and an ending that just leaves you hanging. It's a wonder why Pacino has not worked with Friedkin ever since and you can't blame him for this disaster.

Okay I'll admit two things. One, I love cheesy action flicks and Two, even cheesier action flicks, much like Lowball. Lowball is Damian Lichtenstein's writing and directoral debut, before the overheated and stylish caper, 3000 Miles to Graceland. Lowball is not in the same league as Graceland in terms of budget, but it is definetly a better movie than the aforementioned Graceland. The film stars Peter Greene as John, a coked-out NYC cop who's sister is kidnapped by a mysterious druglord in some God forsaken hell hole. With his partner in tow (Erik Schrody), John is shaking down low life mobsters and gangsters in hopes that someone knows the guy who's got his sister and get back in one piece in 24 hours. Greene is particularly excellent playing a good, but not all good cop and Schrody is very good as well trying not to make himself look like a fool in this film. While it does have some good cinematography, the film is otherwise mirky and full of shadows. I guess it's the budget, if it had a bigger budget this film would be a 110 times better. For the time being, it's a step above all those other junk action pictures that head straight to video. I recommend this one if you can find it.