Featured Audience Ratings

• Reid V

  
  With the 80's explosion of homosexuality in the mainstream, director William Friedkin set out to explore the tension that consumed New York during this time. How a fear of the "other" during this anxious period, so easily manifest itself as hate. Now, what I just… More
  With the 80's explosion of homosexuality in the mainstream, director William Friedkin set out to explore the tension that consumed New York during this time. How a fear of the "other" during this anxious period, so easily manifest itself as hate. Now, what I just described above, is fodder for a great film. Unfortunately, Friedkin's final product "Cruising", isn't that great film. It often forgoes the dark and compelling for the shocking and exploitative. Friedkin seems to lend as much grace and finesse to this subject that he clearly has a cursory knowledge of. Meaning of course, he lends incredibly little.What the viewer gets in essence is a clunky gay horror film in which a hesitant Pacino slowly becomes immersed in a seedy realm of the subversive gay world. It's filmed in such a way that it feels like a gay Rome, replete with an all-consuming plague like hedonism that is meant to appall. I mean, why else would Friedkin go to such lengths to make sure the viewer gets treated a nice long fisting scene? Friedkin cuts together shots of a knife being thrust into a man's back with others of a penis being plunged into a man's butt. It is hard to not feel like Friedkin is grimly equating murder with homosexuality. This is even furthered by a certain scene in which blood is seen spurting, ejaculating, on the screen in a theater that plays gay porn. The acts of these deviants are drenched in the blood of countless men. In fact, Friedkin seems so intent on wanting to shock that he ends up not really saying anything of substance. He really only succeeds in propagating stereotypes, fear, and that if a black man in a cowboy hat and jockstrap walks into a room with you, it would behoove you to walk out. I find Friedkin to be one of the more fascinating figures in American cinematic history. When he hits it, he cranks it out of the park. When he misses, he not only wastes a good opportunity, he also seems to throw his shoulder out in the process. It is no wonder that after a disaster like this, it has been an uphill battle just getting himself back in the game.

• Aditya G

  
  William Friedkin, the man behind such bad-ass gritty cop thrillers like "The French Connection" and "To Live and Die in L.A." taps his penchant for police detective films with this highly controversial, yet half-baked Al Pacino starrer based on the novel of the… More
  William Friedkin, the man behind such bad-ass gritty cop thrillers like "The French Connection" and "To Live and Die in L.A." taps his penchant for police detective films with this highly controversial, yet half-baked Al Pacino starrer based on the novel of the same name. The title of the film is a play on words, referring to 'cruising' as in patrolling and also to its sexual connotation. [img]https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-kmfRy5FSoU0/T2n4yywaOkI/AAAAAAAACTY/L40p34AU9QE/s800/vlcsnap-2012-03-21-20h44m39s204.jpg[/img] The film follows this strange case of floating body parts found in the Hudson river in New York city. The cops don't know what to make of it but are somehow linking the act to that of a notorious serial killer who has off late been brutally murdering gay men after picking them up from shady gay S&M and leather nightclubs with names like 'Ramrod', 'Cock Pit' ( you get the drift..) somewhere in Greenwich village. He lurks in the shadows, wears aviator glasses, a leather peaked cap, a leather jacket. He cruises and picks up unsuspecting homosexual pleasure-seekers, takes them to some seedy motel or isolated areas, sings his signature song..."who's here? I'm here..you're here" and proceeds to stab them repeatedly, in the process ensuring they don't survive! Captain Edelson (a limping Paul Sorvino) sends Officer Steve Burns (a curly-haired Al Pacino!) on a dangerous mission as an undercover agent to try and possibly attract the killer owing to being in the same age group and physical features somewhat matching those of the victims. An initially reluctant Burns accepts the job and sets out on his task. He rents an apartment in the locality, manages to make friends with the friendly next door neighbour Ted (Don Scardino) and also manages to rub Ted's gay partner Gregory (an early James Remar!) the wrong way! The investigation commences, but things aren't that simple for Burns, as he sees himself getting sucked into the dark underbelly of this deviant segment of the gay world, replete with seedy hangouts where sweaty, sloshed gay men indulge in kinkiest of sexual activities whilst being dressed in leather and jockstraps! Burns is clearly uncomfortable, as he attempts to fit in, trying to avoid suspicion on account of having to turn down advances! Who is this killer? Why is he targeting gay men? Is he a crazed homophobic, who despises the gay folk and is ought to teach them a lesson by wiping out as many as he can? Several leads are followed, several suspects are tailed, but is Burns able to find his man? [img]https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-yBNKiqywBSs/T2n4wph7xxI/AAAAAAAACTI/rSIMWNkm1xg/s800/vlcsnap-2012-03-21-20h33m16s65.jpg[/img] Right from its inception, "Cruising" was mired in controversy. There was widespread protest from the gay community as they tried to disrupt the filming following claims that the film represented the homosexual world in a bad light. Friedkin had to add a disclaimer to the original release of the film stating that it is set in a small segment of that world which is not meant to be a representative of the whole. There were also claims that the film is "anti-gay". Apart from showing almost all of the gay men as fetishist slobs, part of the police force is depicted as homophobic, in the way they unleash their brutality and humiliate gay suspects to force a confession out. While the degrading representation of gay people could be one of the reasons why the film was lambasted by critics on its original release, the film suffers from other technical problems too. First, there is a lot of focus on depicting too much of the sleazy side of gay nightclubs and very little time developing the characters at hand. Apparently 40 minutes of footage was taken out from the film to bring down the certification from an X rating to an R rating and it is just as well! One very important character who is also a suspect is just suddenly introduced; a couple of scenes thrown in here and there are supposed to do the character building and there's a possible motivation depicted in a fleeting, haphazard manner, so much so that it simply fails to register and comes across as a rather dabbler job. The police procedural aspect of the film isn't very appealing either. Moreover, although there are cops exhibiting gray shades, most aren't developed well and are quite forgettable, unlike in Friedkin's aforementioned other films in which all the characters including the supporting ones have a lasting effect. [img]https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-6X1UXOwZafE/T2n4nrcAU4I/AAAAAAAACSw/mR9R_5je178/s800/vlcsnap-2012-03-21-20h35m56s133.jpg[/img] Then there is the problematic casting of Al Pacino. Apart from giving him that horrendous curly-haired look, the major problem is the failure on Pacino's part to bring any kind of androgynous quality to his character, which, Friedkin had a problem with as well. Even if he is a straight undercover cop pretending to be gay, he has to do a darned good job of pretending, otherwise what's the point! That would've added a versatile touch to his acting which is sorely missing. Apparently Richard Gere was Friedkin's first choice for the role because he thought Gere would've delivered that kind of attribute to the character. Pacino's Burns, though, walks, talks and acts like a tough guy in most of the scenes, thus, clearly standing out from the rest of the crowd. At one point, he smokes like Michael Corleone and in another scene he assumes the swagger of Tony Montana! It is surprising, then, that the others don't recognize him to be an outsider. Maybe the curly hair was there just so that he could 'look' different. If only he acted differently as well. So, indeed, Pacino does well ...but in the end he doesn't go much beyond his usual self! Only in a couple of scenes we see the angst...the troubled, worried look on his face conveying that he is clearly not enjoying his job, as he confesses to Captain Edelson ("...not that I am afraid...it's just that .. things are happening to me..") and to his girlfriend Nance (Karen Allen, who, by the way, doesn't serve any purpose in the film except for being in bed with Pacino). There is only one scene that makes it remotely clear that Burns doesn't "want" Nance anymore. We don't really know that until she says it out loud. [img]https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-LBHwWNo6Ikw/T2n4xY8xNPI/AAAAAAAACTM/qTtG9eJ73sQ/s800/vlcsnap-2012-03-21-20h34m29s30.jpg[/img] What does work on some level is Burns' reaction to her claim! He says something like "my job..it is affecting me". He is not supposed to tell her what his undercover operation is. So whether it is making him question his sexual preferences or whether it is taking a toll on his health is unclear. In one love-making scene between the two, midway in the film, Burns appears either disturbed or disgusted. This is where the complex trait of his character starts creeping in. It serves as a solid device for a film of this sort. There are a lot of clever scenes where Burns comes across as a rather vague individual...you don't really know what he stands for! The equivocal nature of Pacino's character is then the best part of this film. [img]https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-HTH1jtTofLA/T2n4ymlor5I/AAAAAAAACTU/P8tHixeMJGg/s800/vlcsnap-2012-03-21-20h42m02s66.jpg[/img] There are still more positives, of course...."Cruising" isn't a 'bad' film anyhow! There is also a very unsettling atmosphere in the film. New York by night appears at its grittiest best, reminding of Scorsese's classics "Taxi Driver" and "Mean Streets". A fair amount of suspense is built up to the climax and the final fifteen minutes including the deliciously ambiguous twist make the film stand apart from conventional cop thrillers. It is good to see Joe Spinell (Willi Cicci of 'The Godfather') in the role of a crooked cop, sharing screen space with his The Godfather co-actor, Pacino (He shared a scene with De Niro in "Taxi Driver"!). Some scenes in the nightclub and a couple of murder scenes are genuinely disturbing and well directed. "Cruising" is a film that had a lot of potential owing to a solid premise. But it only succeeds partially. If only it wasn't such a half-hearted effort on the part of Friedkin, he would've had another fine Cop thriller feather in his cap to stand tall with his best films of the genre. Alas... Score: 7/10.

• 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.

• Stephen E

  
  "Cruising" gives me mixed feelings. Friedkin's direction is superb and his entire production reeks of style, but the script is disappointingly weak. The plot is muddled, characters are paper thin, and there are a couple of instances where I had no idea what was going on… More
  "Cruising" gives me mixed feelings. Friedkin's direction is superb and his entire production reeks of style, but the script is disappointingly weak. The plot is muddled, characters are paper thin, and there are a couple of instances where I had no idea what was going on at all. Also, people complain about the film's frustratingly ambiguous ending. Well, I would have had more of a problem with it if I had cared about the Pacino character at all, which I didn't. Overall, "Cruising" is a decent cop thriller that has that dark and sinister look of films to come like "Se7en," but it is completely forgettable.

• 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 17 featured audience ratings