Cruising (1980)

Featured Audience Ratings

• Steve K

  
  A compelling look at the gay underground in late 70's NYC, with a complex Pacino performance. Unfortunately, there is ample evidence of studio tinkering, especially towards the end when the whole thing simply falls apart. Too bad.

• Adam M

  
  Friedkin uses the gay leather scene to show NYC as an abattoir where two will go out at night to play a game trading turns as butcher and meat. They often get more than they bargained for when sizing each other up. "Cruising" means hunting for sex-prey-death. The… More
  Friedkin uses the gay leather scene to show NYC as an abattoir where two will go out at night to play a game trading turns as butcher and meat. They often get more than they bargained for when sizing each other up. "Cruising" means hunting for sex-prey-death. The hetero-macho cop world and Gay S&M bars supposedly fetishize this erotic and lonely compulsion more than the "straight" world, which just ignores the mayhem and lets it go on. There's a lot of dumb use of stereotypes; the side of Pacino's character that we should know about is underdeveloped; and some plot jumps are insulting -- to the characters and to our good sense. Eventually, you get the feeling that this foray into a controversial subculture is not really complex and considered as much as it might be another cheap horror show. And as a horror show, it's only unique because it always risks being bigoted and because it's transgressive with sexual identity. The hetero-male viewer shares Pacino's voyeuristic perspective and the female viewer is wondering about what might attract that male viewer. (Karen Allen doesn't get to do much, but she does get to try on her boyfriend's gay gear.) Pacino begins as a sensitive undercover cop and transforms into a violent hunter, who's afraid of either his capacity for affection or his hidden drives. Somehow, his repulsion at the police abuse of a gay sex suitor is the catalytic event that makes Pacino embrace his pathology and enjoy testing the prowess of the killer inside him against that of the serial killer he's tracking. It's an emotional trigger which is not easy to believe. Easier to believe is that he's intrigued with this cruising world partly because he's testing his inclination that "nothing human is alien to me." It should be said that although Friedkin tries to build layers of ambiguity throughout the whole film, he undercuts all that work at the end, in coaching Paul Sorvino -- who's good as the stoic police captain -- to let his last scene fill with emotional facial expressions. The captain's out-sized reaction to another murder pushes the audience too much toward one conclusion: Pacino's character, soon to be detective, has been cursed with a Joe-Estzerhas final twist. Not sure whether what happens to this cop is meant to challenge the male egos in the audience -- as in, how close to aggressive gayness can you stay and still be heterosexual? Maybe it's supposed to show how living through excess-abandon can drive people to not care about one body from another, at least enough to let gender get in the way. Regardless, using different actors, dressed in the same gear, for the killer -- which is both confusing and a cheat in the mystery -- isn't metaphysically intriguing enough to excuse the fact that those same actors are playing the past and future victims. This seems like blaming the victims for enabling the killers, an idea that goes beyond controversial; it's sociopathic, especially since the screams of two victims electronically curlicue into pig squeals. Great soundtrack put together by Jack Nietzsche, great sound design, proper use of Joe Spinell as human horror, interesting Powers Boothe cameo, and sordidly bizarre Bruno Kirby cameo. -- Why did Kirby want to do this? In fact, why did Friedkin or Pacino? ... This question of project choices becomes the most resonant one of the movie! Did they want to prove to themselves that "nothing human is alien to definitely brilliant but securely heterosexual artists"? Or were they being flamboyant heterosexual artists who, believing their own genius for "serious" subject matter, secretly felt they deserved their own chance to do camp?

• Mark H

  
  Unsettling slasher film masquerading as a crime thriller. NYC cop goes undercover in the gay underworld of S&M leather bars in order to uncover a murderer whose victims are patrons of those establishments. As he become more involved in the investigation, it changes him.… More
  Unsettling slasher film masquerading as a crime thriller. NYC cop goes undercover in the gay underworld of S&M leather bars in order to uncover a murderer whose victims are patrons of those establishments. As he become more involved in the investigation, it changes him. Sensationalistic drama is marked by heavy handed direction that portrays the victims as inhuman deviants which removes any sympathy the viewer might have for them. Actor Al Pacino brings a sincere innocence to his role that benefits the material, but the drama is given to sloppy editing which betrays coherent story or character development. The action suggests multiple killers but never addresses those suggestions. How the character's exposure to this "community" has caused him to become increasingly violent is never explained either. Even the ambiguous ending leaves the viewer with frustratingly unanswered questions. A crudely made effort.

• Anthony L

  
  A decent 'cop goes undercover and possibly goes mad' film with a gay theme. It?s full of suspense and intrigue but it is a little confusing towards the end. Good performances by Pacino & Sorvino and great direction by Friedkin.

• Lady D

  
  Highly controversial in it?s time, both in subject matter and portraying the Gay scene and Leather scene in a bad light. It?s very much a film way ahead of it?s time. Partially based on true events and a real-life undercover cop situation, the film is of interst on many levels.… More
  Highly controversial in it?s time, both in subject matter and portraying the Gay scene and Leather scene in a bad light. It?s very much a film way ahead of it?s time. Partially based on true events and a real-life undercover cop situation, the film is of interst on many levels. What the film lacks (to it?s credit) is lack of explanation, justification and a particular view point ? leaving viewers to make their own views on the film itself. I think this film is of interest more as a controversial piece than perhaps just it?s storyline, but one that was an interesting watch, suggestion and subliminal messaging are key behind it?s non graphic impact. Moments of confusion from the story can be easily cleared up by the Special Features, which are worth taking a look at.

• Drew S

  
  I can certainly see why people would have found this controversial thirty years ago - the film doesn't do all that much to dispel the stereotype that gay men are Deviant, Evil, Leather-Wearing Perverts. Sure, there's sweet, beatific Ted, friend to Al Pacino and chaste… More
  I can certainly see why people would have found this controversial thirty years ago - the film doesn't do all that much to dispel the stereotype that gay men are Deviant, Evil, Leather-Wearing Perverts. Sure, there's sweet, beatific Ted, friend to Al Pacino and chaste hard-working gay and protector of forest animals or whatever, but he has all of three scenes and he catches a tough break in the end anyway. To a homosexual or anyone who knows a homosexual even remotely, the seediness that the movie depicts is present, but not omnipresent. Of course this scene exists. It exists amongst heterosexuals too, at a far higher rate of prevalence. But if you're reading this, most likely you knew this already anyway. So maybe this did a little damage when it was first released, back in simpler (read: dumber) times, but these days it's an obscure film unlikely to be found by anyone who wouldn't know better. I can't imagine a bunch of fratboys picking it up at Blockbuster looking for a dated Pacino thriller and consequently learning that faggots dress up in policeman uniforms and lick each others' nipples. As a film, Cruising is entertaining. Pacino is decent, the mystery engages and the cinematography is surprisingly lush. There's even a little bit of juicy internal conflict, if that's your thing. It's really nothing special, though, save for its role in gay film history. Also interesting is that it doesn't address the AIDS epidemic at all, arriving about a year before its discovery. Viewing it in retrospect gives it this new, increasingly sinister light.

• Tsubaki S

  
  This might need a rewatch, i mean, if the ending is what is suppose to be then this movie goes from serious to silly quite fast.

• Walter M

  
  Directed by William Friedkin, "Cruising" has provocative subject matter that regretfully does not have a very compelling plot to match it nor is there is much in the way of mystery, as the solution is dispensed in an offhand way. A serial killer(Richard Cox) is murdering… More
  Directed by William Friedkin, "Cruising" has provocative subject matter that regretfully does not have a very compelling plot to match it nor is there is much in the way of mystery, as the solution is dispensed in an offhand way. A serial killer(Richard Cox) is murdering gay men in New York City and Captain Edelson(Paul Sorvino) has assigned Steve Burns(Al Pacino, who is brave for taking this role), a macho beat cop, to go undercover in the gay community where he quickly makes friends with Ted Bailey(Don Scardino), a wannabe playwright. Steve has a girlfriend, Nancy(Karen Allen), who is mostly shown when they are in bed, possibly indicating he has something to prove. What's most striking and controversial about "Cruising" is its depiction of the leather and S & M scene which Edelson explicitly states is not part of the gay mainstream.(The movie also makes a point of showing gay relationships, so it's not just about the sex.) What's especially troubling(along with the problematic ending) is how much the sexual activity is ascribed, like the killer's motive, to self-loathing which can be partially explained away by society's homophobia but not entirely while excusing the pleasure principle of activities that may be hard for an outsider to fully comprehend. Regardless, the film was made at the beginning of the AIDS epidemic which changed everything and, five years later, this could have made for an intriguing AIDS metaphor. At any time, it is unique to explore gay sexuality in such a graphic matter in a studio movie while in the present day it is rare for any kind of sex to be shown in a studio movie. If you think gay men are treated badly here, the cops get worse. At best, they are ineffectual. At worse, they are openly hostile. Two cops browbeat a couple of transvestites into giving them blow jobs while the killer walks calmly by to claim another victim. Their complaints are repeatedly dismissed by other detectives including Captain Edelson. So much for community relations.

• Mike T

  
  James Contner's photography and William Friedkin's direction provide a lot of texture and interesting ideas for this film on a visual level, but the script is too murky and directionless for anything to be a saving grace. Pacino, struggling with an underwritten character,… More
  James Contner's photography and William Friedkin's direction provide a lot of texture and interesting ideas for this film on a visual level, but the script is too murky and directionless for anything to be a saving grace. Pacino, struggling with an underwritten character, provides an interesting performance.

• Eduardo C

  
  Homophobic for sure, but more importantly it is incompetent and surprisingly shallow. For a purported exposé on underground homosexual S&M culture in 1980 it is not interested in anything but surface value. It is as insightful a gander at gay culture as the Blue Oyster Bar scenes… More
  Homophobic for sure, but more importantly it is incompetent and surprisingly shallow. For a purported exposé on underground homosexual S&M culture in 1980 it is not interested in anything but surface value. It is as insightful a gander at gay culture as the Blue Oyster Bar scenes in "Police Academy".

• Matthew A

  
  I found this movie very boring, hardly any action and some of the scenes I found really disturbing. Overall didn't capture my interest at all. And a very strange and confusing ending too, which one can consider a plus, but they could've made it a bit more clear at least.

• Christopher B

  
  The anti Brokeback Mountain. Sleazy, hillarious and well done exploitation. Pacino apparantly won't even talk about this one, but it really is far better than the crap he's doing nowadays. If they ever have a Pacino retrospective at the Oscars all they need play is his… More
  The anti Brokeback Mountain. Sleazy, hillarious and well done exploitation. Pacino apparantly won't even talk about this one, but it really is far better than the crap he's doing nowadays. If they ever have a Pacino retrospective at the Oscars all they need play is his dance scene in this one.

• Ashton R

  
  I had high expectations going into watching this movie, and I'm glad to say that they were not only met, but surpassed. This is an intricate and surreal thriller, with so many layers that even repeat viewing will only scratch at the surface. Very controversial for it's time,… More
  I had high expectations going into watching this movie, and I'm glad to say that they were not only met, but surpassed. This is an intricate and surreal thriller, with so many layers that even repeat viewing will only scratch at the surface. Very controversial for it's time, and with good reason. Graphic and engrossing, with an amazing performance by Al Pacino. Highly recommended.

• John M

  
  Huge plot hole or bad edit. As a thriller is impotent.

Read all 14 featured audience ratings