User Reviews (147)

Add a Review

  • William Friedkin is a mysterious, often mystifying film-maker. Although he rose to prominence at the same time as the rest of the so-called 'movie brat' generation of directors (Coppola, Spielberg, Scorsese, DePalma, et al.), he stands apart, even from a group as essentially disparate as this one. For one thing, his films lack the intertextual references and cinematic stylisation common to most of the other members. If he has an over-riding aesthetic, it would be the ugliness of the majority of human existence. He's not interested in prettifying his images or indulging in style-for-style's sake; which is not to say that his film's don't exhibit inventive and effective technique, just that this technique is always at the service of the story he's telling, and is often blunt and brutally effective in it's employment. All of this no doubt arises from his start in documentary film-making. Friedkin is particularly good at depicting the menace of urban environments, and the locales of a lot of his films are frightening, tangibly real places. Witness the sequences involving Karras' aged mother in 'The Exorcist', which for me are the most disturbing scenes in an often terrifying film. As we observe the elderly lady living alone in her shabby apartment in a crime-ridden neighbourhood, we realise that this is the existence that many millions of people are forced to endure, and it's oppressiveness adds immeasurably to the psychological impact of the film as a whole. We share Karras' fear and traumatising guilt that she died alone in such circumstances, and the special effects trickery of the climax is lent a genuine resonance.

    Because of the stark, seemingly 'artless' force and apparent misanthropy of much of his work, a number of otherwise perceptive commentators dislike Friedkin intensely. Pauline Kael was extremely cool about 'The French Connection' and absolutely hated 'The Exorcist'. David Thompson described him as "essentially incompetent", bludgeoning the audience with blatant and obvious effects. In fact, Friedkin's best work is highly sophisticated in it's use of sound and music, and employs often visceral imagery to telling and subversive effect. However, some of his films ARE genuinely bloody awful, or at least depressingly mediocre. The very inconsistency of his work lies at the centre of the mystery that is his career. He seems to me to be a fiercely intelligent man whose art is driven by his life rather than the culture of film, and whose reportedly quixotic, often self-destructive personality in no small measure accounts for the expansive peaks and troughs of his cinematic achievements.

    Friedkin has reassuring or comforting his audience way down the list of his priorities. In the case of 'Cruising', he neglected to add them at all. Because of this, 'Cruising' is a very difficult film to watch. Most film-makers, were they making a film set in such an alien and frightening environment, would go overboard on providing us with at least one protagonist we could identify with. But Friedkin takes the very opposite route and presents us entirely with characters who are abhorrent, sleazy or totally ambiguous. Indeed, ambiguity is the film's raison d'etre - we are never sure of anything, and this becomes both the pictures great strength and source of much audience frustration. It seems that unlike, say, Spielberg, who continually seeks the approbation of his audience, Friedkin actively resents his (or rather, their preconceptions and certainties), leading him to consistently challenge and upset them. This can be exciting to those who value such seditious manouveres, but dispiriting and destabilising for those that don't.

    The major problem with evaluating 'Cruising' is that the film as it currently exists is seriously incomplete (apparently having been shorn of some 40 minutes of footage by the censors!). I suspect that a 'directors cut' should it ever emerge, although no doubt clarifying certain issues, would overall fail to dispel the central ambiguity that is so infuriating and troubling to the majority of the audience, and that lies at the heart of Friedkins vision. "What interests me is the very thin line between good and evil", the director once said when asked to provide a thematic overview of his work - and this is the core of 'Cruising'.

    I would urge you to watch the film. It is a uniquely dark, brave piece somewhat compromised by well documented production difficulties and the censors scissors. It has a sinister, compelling momentum and wonderfully ugly, grainy textures that seep into your pores leaving you uncomfortable and unsettled. Sometimes a feel-bad movie can be as bracing as a winter morning. 'Cruising' is such an experience, and a fascinating, provocative one at that.
  • dixxjamm14 February 2005
    This is a FRIEDKIN movie. Consequently, it is soulless, dark and physical. There are no heroes, the range goes from unclear/mixed up/tortured souls/loonies to the dephts of hell. It is also highly interpretative, you can not expect a logical script and a "I did it" smile or a "walk towards the sun" type of ending. So, it's a question of taste if you like his movies or not. I DO. I very much doubt that Pacino or Sorvino regret making this film. It is riveting. For one, characters are not even gray, they are a mystery. Sorvino's character, for instance is so blank, that you even wonder if he cares about anything, including Burns' fate. Pacino's character is pretty ambitious, but other than that he is completely controversial. Although he shows some kind of goodness (towards his neighbor, for instance), the ending even kinda questions that (was it because he had sexual intentions with the guy or that he just wanted to do some good?). Also, he sometimes feels overwhelmed by the undercover job ("I don't know if I can do this") but then he starts to adapt. One of the possible ideas of this movie is: you dance with the devil and then you start to like it. In any case, it leaves conclusions to the viewer. The atmosphere and especially the music are truly amazing and original. 9/10
  • Viewed today, "Cruising" still elicits intense responses from both Gay and straight viewers alike. Mainstream Gays lament, as many protestors of the film at the time of its release, that it shows a homophobic image of Gay life, depecting them as sex-obsessed. Straights are put off by the frank look at the Gay sex "cruising" culture.

    Interesting, however, some of the people involved in the Leather/SM subculture at the time this film was made have praised it for its accuracy of this particular lifestyle -- a pre-AIDS lifestyle concentrated on quick sex that was (and still is) pursued by a segment of the Gay community.

    The film does not pretend to depict Gays as a whole. It is just a drama about a police investigation that uses the scene as a background and catalyst for an exploration into how one cop is affected by his work.

    Not the greatest film ever made, but certainly a good springboard for discussion about the Gay community's politics, when one fully examines the controversy surrounding the film and the continued debate over public sex and body image in the community.

    The strengths of "Cruising" are its use of locales and documentary-style cinematography, as well as the interesting performance from Paccino. In the end, it is hampered as a drama by problems with the narrative structure of the piece that seems to fizzle out in the last act, leading to an intriguing, but inconclusive, finish.
  • I know this film got bad reviews when it was first released but I have always thought it deserved much better than it got. The film is a very tense thriller with a terrific performance from Al Pacino. The film is filled with memorable scenes and characters. The killer is one of the most interesting villains I have seen.....attractive with a complex character that is both mesmerizing and frightening. The film has a creepy quality that sometimes reminds me of the feeling I got watching "Silence of the Lambs." The scene in which Pacino goes to the shop and views the different colored bandanas for sale provides some brief humor that gives your nerves a chance to calm down.
  • William Friedkin directed not only The French Connection and The Exorcist, he also directed The Boys In The Band then years before Cruising. If there is an evolution in how the straight world saw the gay world in the decade between Boys In The Band and Cruising, the evolution is backwards. The gay scene in Crusing is sheer hell and I have to believe that it reflected the Country's mood of the day. In not such subtle ways Cruising tells us about the depravity of one group threatening the other. If you think I'm wrong, why then the gay sex and enviroment is wrapped in violent rock music in which actual feelings are not even present but the heterosexual sex scenes between - the always wonderful Al Pacino and the beautiful Karen Allen are wrapped in lyrical classical music, all feeling, tenderness and light. As soon as the film ended I had to wash my face and pour myself a double scotch on the rocks. I was kind of angry and definitely disturbed. Oops, maybe I recommending Cruising without meaning to.
  • m-c-hohmann30 January 2005
    I had the pleasure of seeing this movie recently and I highly recommend it to any people who savor the darker things in life. If I had never seen this movie the reviews left about it everywhere on the net would surely have made me miss it at every opportunity but luckily I only came across them looking for more information after its viewing.

    The first thing that really got me was the fantastic soundtrack. This is American punk rock at it's best and most glorious and I cannot think of a more apt context for it than the New York gay S&M scene. This my friends ... is punk-o-rama.

    This is not a gay film ... nor is it a porno film ... this is an in your face horror much like William Friedkin's other classic "The Exorcist" ... but not a hammer horror nor a gore filled voyage through some fiery "kissing the devil's ass" hell but a very real slice of a very real life that exists in every major city in the world as well as some smaller ones. This is a film about a world so few know anything about that it is far above common criticism ... yet at the same time the directions and nuances are all too common. I would say that any fans of the movies of David Lynch might enjoy the somewhat lost disenchantment of this flick as it slides further and further into the darkest realms of the grotesque. As well anyone who's enjoyed the backwards pleasures of watching the cult classic "Je'Taime ... Moi Ne Plus" starring Jane Birkin would also find a little gem here.

    "Cruisin'" is pure subversive genius.


    Pure *ART*
  • First and foremost, Cruising is not a film about gay men in general. Friedkin explains this perfectly on the DVD -- it's a murder mystery of a cop going undercover that just happens to have a gay element in it. To those familiar with the 70s Italian giallos, Cruising is a "U.S. giallo" -- a successful combination of murder mystery, sex, alternative lifestyles and subcultures with that, and how getting into something too out of your element can affect you. Unlike the Italian giallos that often featured a gratuitous lesbian tease, Cruising gave us a masculine leather theme instead.

    The controversy and protests surrounding Cruising were based on misinformation and unfairly gave the film a bad reputation, though lately many critics that originally panned it have since recanted their negative comments, finding more to appreciate about the film.

    Two things factored into why people were uncomfortable with Cruising: First, the murder story was not the real reason. Frankly, they saw not effeminate stereotypes, but masculine gay men dancing, kissing, and experiencing S&M activities. When gay characters are weak and fey, many heterosexual men feel safe. They want non-threatening characters that will be kept in their place. The disclaimer that appeared before the film (that has thankfully been removed on the DVD) was to appease gay men that felt the film would be perceived as a representation of the whole gay community. If that's the case, then films like The Birdcage and TV's Will & Grace should have disclaimers as well that say not all gay men are effeminate finger-snappers that watch Desperate Housewives, are drag queens, nor are FABulous well-groomed clean-shaven cutie boys.

    Second, the locations and activity in the bars was as it actually was (and still is to a degree) in many places. The characters and extras were "real" for this story -- bearded leathermen enjoying what they do, instead of buffed party circuit boys dancing to the latest diva tunes. To add to the darkness and mood of the story the bars were blasting with serious hard-driven songs by Willy DeVille, John Hiatt, Rough Trade, The Germs, The Cripples and others instead of loopy diva dance music. Some gay men as well as straight had a problem with this, thinking it was not a decent representation of what gay men "should" listen to. To date this is still one of the coolest soundtracks around, I cherish my vinyl LP copies of it.

    Yes, this film was brutal. It will leave an impression on you. THAT'S A GOOD THING! It's what film is supposed to do. Amidst all this the journey of Al Pacino's "out of his element" slip into a different mindset was a great touch. It affected his whole being, his treatment of his girlfriend, his whole outlook. And it wasn't just because he got to dance with some leathermen, it was because the murder investigation he was doing was so horrifying. What, you were expecting a sweet ending? The only reasons Pacino distanced himself from this film was because footage was cut that he felt fleshed out his character better, and the protests during filming distressed him.

    And think of it this way: if this were a film about lesbians, it would be hailed by hetero guys as an erotic masterpiece. But when it's about masculine gay men, it seems hard for some of them to handle it. This may sound cliché, but I know many straight guys that actually understood Cruising and have told me (on IMDb as well as in person) they thought it was quite a cool film.

    After all these years, Cruising still packs a punch and does what it sets out to do: unnerve you. It's a taut thriller and a mindblower in its complexities. That's quite an achievement and while many films are forgotten, this one still seems to be well remembered no matter what. I for one love this film and think Friedkin and company deserve much praise for their effort.

    The DVD released in 2007 can be considered a bit of a "director's cut" since Friedkin made some additions and changes. For a thorough article on the exact changes and where they occur, check out the magazine Video Watchdog #152, November 2009.
  • In New York, the ambitious police officer Steve Burns (Al Pacino) is assigned by his Captain Edelson (Paul Sorvino) to work uncover in the gay S&M underworld to seek out the serial-killer that is killing and severing the members of gays since he has the same appearance of the victims. Steve has the objective to be promoted to detective and get his golden shield and Capt. Edelson is the only one in the department who knows Steve's assignment.

    Steve does not tell to his girlfriend Nancy (Karen Allen) his mission and he needs to learn the behavior of this community. During the investigation, Steve is affected by the discoveries in this new world, but Captain Edelson does not want him to quit his assignment.

    In the 70's and 80's, Al Pacino was among my favorite American actors with his magnificent performances. "Cruising" is an original movie that discloses part of the society unknown to straight persons like me: the gay S&M world of New York in the late 70's.

    I have seen this film at least four time and today for the first time on DVD, and my greatest question is how far a person would go to be promoted. Steve Burns dreams on having a golden shield and when he has his chance, he accepts a dangerous psychological mission to find the serial-killer that is killing gays and affects his personal life and his relationship with his girlfriend. The conclusion is one of the most ambiguous that I have ever seen in an American movie, when Steve looks at his image on the mirror. My vote is eight.

    Title (Brazil): "Parceiros da Noite" ("Night Partners")
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Spoiler Alert I write this because this film was one of the most engrossing and powerful films I have seen in recent memory. I also write about this film as its pedigree is amazing. And finally I can't believe I've not heard of it, even in a Heavens Gate, this must have been professional suicide sort of capacity.

    The film is from 1980 and it is directed by William Friedkin (Exorcist & The French Connection). It stars one Al Pacino (no C.V. required). It is called Cruising. Basically it is the story of a gay serial killer and Al Pacino is the cop who must go undercover to try and find him.

    I was a bit drunk, a bit stoned and a bit bored when I was channel flicking one night in UK. I came across the start of this movie. The story starts in a club in New York that is very much like the Blue Parrot in the Police Academy movies, except there is nothing funny about this place. It is a proper underground S & M gay club where anything goes. A young Italian Stallion picks up a guy who is in the full leather get up. Cap and glasses obscuring his face and chains that clink whenever he walks. They go back to the stallions flat. Off screen sex occurs. The next shot is the young guy, naked, having his hands tied behind his back. He doesn't like this but is being talked into it by Chains. Next Chains draws a thin knife from his boots and starts playing with it. Young guy is frantic now and begs to be let out but Chains is now teasing him. Chains then stabs the young guy repeatedly in the back. This is graphically shot and you see the knife going in and the young guy screaming. This was a really, really intense scene. I was now hooked on the story and had to know where it ended.

    I am not gay and I am liberally minded. Having been to Thailand, Ibiza and Amsterdam I have had my arse felt a few times in dance clubs. I am not bothered by this as long as it stays each to their own, but I have no knowledge of the proper underground gay scene. The closest I get is working with a gay man at work, and enjoying watching Will & Grace. Like the brilliant 8 Mile this film was an introduction to a world I knew nothing about. The depiction of the activities in the Gay Club left nothing to the imagination. Never shown but implied were scenes of fisting and watersports. This, as well the very graphic violence meant this film was still quite close to the bone (no pun intended!) in 2003 so I could barely imagine what an impact this had in 1980's America.

    The police are now on the case, but more gay men start turning up brutally stabbed. A Harvard professor has already been murdered and a Hollywood stylist gets brutally stabbed in a cheap peep joint when he had been picking up a stars dress for an awards ceremony. These are respectable people who were not known to be involved in this extreme scene, so the political pressure gets turned up.

    In comes Al to the proceedings. He wants to be a detective but hasn't been given his chance yet. He is offered accelerated promotion to Detective branch if he agrees to go undercover as he is the same type of Italian Stallion that the perp seems to target. What comes next is a wonderful example of both acting and directing as young, naive, straight Al Pacino starts his undercover role. Reporting only to his chief (Paul Sorvino) and getting set up in a flat in a gay area of New York, it is riveting stuff to see Al Pacino learn from his mistakes when he visits the gay club. He learns that different coloured neckscarfes worn in either the left back pocket, or the right back pocket mean a different sexual taste! It is funny in a black comedy way watching him try to pick some one up to see if they are the killer, when it is quite clear he doesn't want to pick them up because he is not gay.

    Al has a girlfriend played by Karen Allen who only knows he is undercover but she doesn't know where or what he is doing. Al's character starts to go deepcover and begins to lose himself in the culture. He starts to empathise with the gay community and even gets hassled by prejudice cops. This is brilliantly handled by the director and the actor. A sympathetic approach to hardcore homosexuality in 1980? No wonder it disappeared.

    Meanwhile the killer is still on the loose. You see Chains picking people up in parks and by toilets or you see him visiting the bar. You can never see him properly. You can only hear the distinctive clink of his chains. This started to make me apprehensive whenever I heard the rattle of his chains. Now that's good direction!

    Al Pacino starts to lose himself as he goes deepcover but starts making progress on the case. I wont give away anymore in case someone watches it.

    I found this movie to be a really rewarding experience. It reminded me why I love movies in the first place. It is not an easy movie to watch and its subject matter is made to make you squirm, but this movie really got to me! To watch all the way through when all I was doing was channel flicking is a real test of a movies quality in my humble opinion.

    So there you go. Not a new movie but a bloody good one that most people may have missed. IMDb has not been too kind to it but hey, what do I know?
  • A deranged serial killer is on the loose and is killing patrons of gay S&M clubs. Officer Steve Burns(Al Pacino) is chosen by the chief of police to go undercover as a gay male and find this mad man. The idea of going undercover, to Burns, at first sounds simple enough. However, this new bizarre world he has become a part of slowly begins to affect his mind and his psyche as he begins to question many things about himself and what he thought that he was before. Before he was simply just playing a role, but soon his work completely takes over his life as he becomes a part of the gay underground world.

    William Friedkin's early-80s shocker, CRUISING, has been called one of the most despicable and offensive films ever to be put out by a major motion picture studio. It's been voted as one of the most homophobic films ever made, along with Paul Verhoeven's trash classic BASIC INSTINCT and Gaspar Noe's experimental revenge thriller IRREVERSIBLE. While I can certainly understand where the hatred for this film is coming from, I still find it to be a very effective and haunting piece of film-making.

    I found the scenes involving Al Pacino at the clubs to be so full of realism and so raw that, at times, it was difficult to watch. These scenes are where the true horror of the film come to life. So much of what he sees disturbs him and, indeed, it disturbs us as well. The several glimpses of public sex(oral sex, anal sex, fisting, BDSM, etc) in these leather clubs are stomach churning in how different the world of these places are to everyday life.

    The whole film is quite disturbing and fascinating to watch all the same, but the explicit nature of the scenes, as well as Al Pacino's reaction to them, give the film a real documentary-like sense of realism. The scenes in which the serial killer strikes are equally disturbing in their realism. They come off extraordinary in the blunt and heartless way they are shown. The fact that multiple frames of gay pornography are spliced into the gory violence further makes clear the idea of the knife penetrating the body and, at the same time, will probably raise a few eyebrows from many folks who are offended at such gestures.

    Indeed, this is definitely a film that tends to be gleefully tasteless at times. I am certainly not surprised that many folks found the film so offensive. The gay lifestyle is not depicted in a particularly positive light. Most of the gay characters in the film are either perverted, violent, rude, or insane. The sole gay character who seems to be a shining light of purity is Pacino's neighbor in the film, Ted Bailey (Don Scardino) a rather young and sweet-natured writer who is terrified of the leather bars. Ted is the one lamb in the crowd of vicious billy goats, so to speak.

    Despite the Ted character and despite the raw visual style of the film, the scenes of actual police procedure come of a tad weak when juxtapose with the scenes in the leather bars. While they do have just as much an uncanny realism to them as the undercover scenes, they feel a bit lifeless and ugly. In addition, Karen Allen in the role of Pacino's wife comes off slightly overshadowed alongside the other bizarre and interesting characters in the film. Despite this, however, she does help make the climax of the film far more terrifying and shocking.

    Despite the homophobia and despite the flaws, CRUISING is a fascinating film. It remains one of the darkest and most challenging mainstream films I've ever seen. I loved the realism of the film and I loved how shocking the last hour was in particular. It is definitely a film that works! While I can't say that I would be able to fully stomach a second viewing, I can safely say that it is a film that will affect you whether you love it or hate it. You will not forget this film very easily.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    A serial-killer is attacking homosexual men in New York and the police have no leads. An ambitious young cop goes undercover and hangs out at the gay bars and nightspots to lure the killer out, but finds himself being changed by the scene he becomes part of.

    Based on a book by Gerald Walker, this is an intriguing (and daring for the time) delve into the NYC homo underground of leather bars and pick-ups in Central Park, and is a great pre-Aids snapshot of a particular era of the city's history. Unfortunately, as a crime thriller it's pretty pedestrian; the murders are bland, the investigation boring and the suggestive ending just plain confusing. Friedkin is a very stylish director, but here he deliberately abandons that for a documentary-like approach; this adds to the drama but kills any suspense, although James Contner's ultra-dark photography is terrific. Pacino is likeably believable, Sorvino does a gritty textbook job of a police captain who hasn't slept in a week and the supporting cast are good. Ultimately however, this film is more interesting as a pre-political-correctness depiction of a particularly sordid corner of society. As with other urban-ghetto films of the time (Busting, Fort Apache - The Bronx, etc) it was crucified by the white liberal arts media as queer-bashing propaganda, but of course it's not - they just didn't like the way it depicts the specific social scene the story is set amongst. An important document of a time, but not really a very good movie.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I was ten years old and an old movie house not far from my home was playing a double feature. It was Empire Strikes Back and Cruising. After nagging to my grandma for days she took me and a friend because we were huge Star Wars fans. The matinée was at 12:00 p.m. and they started with Cruising. The movie starts, the place is packed and the bar scene were the killer picks up his first victim plays and my grandma storms out of place with me and my friend and I don't know if the guy my grandma confronted was the manager or the ticket seller but she ripped him a new one. She told him that he was trash, that she was going to call the cops, that he was not a man, everything. My friend and me were stunned and beg my grandma to calm down and wait in the lobby till Cruising was over. We waited and we saw Empire. It is disturbing that the place was full of little kids and nobody else walked out. Anyway, I tracked the movie down when I was in college and watched it.It still is a shocking experience and the bad reputation that this movie earned is a little uncalled for because I think Friedkin captures the reality of that world as it is. My cousin had a friend who was homosexual and part of the S&M leather gay culture. He was a flight attendant and whenever he flew to New York went to this clubs and my cousin tells me that the things his friend told him pale in comparison to what Friedkin shows us. The flight attendant died of AIDS in 1983. Pacino and his perm realistically portray the confused cop that ultimately becomes a killer out of the brutal repression his gay feelings suffer. This movie after 25 years continues to provoke discussions among film fans and any movie that does that is a good film. I really would like a DVD of this movie with a few extras to witness the backlash this film created. Watch it and witness the closing of the 70s and the beginning of the 80s in this murder mystery that will no doubt open your eyes to the brutal, the cruel, misunderstood and innocent sides of human beings. P.S. Nobody complained in 1984's Police Academy which the Blue Oyster Bar about the portrayals of leather gay men. BA BA BA BUM BA BA BA BA BA BUM BA BA BAM PARARARARARARARA.(theme song). I know I'm an idiot.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    William Friedkin's controversial 'Cruising' is a challenging and oftentimes frustrating film. The story centers around Al Pacino going undercover to find a serial killer in the gay BDSM culture of late 70's NYC. The story seems simply enough, right? Well, it's deceiving as what Friedkin does is take the audience into a dark abyss of sordid sex, extreme debauchery, and brutal violence. It is, quite honestly, one of the more uncomfortable American films of the period to sit through.

    The problem with the picture are the character motivations are vague for virtually all involved (Pacino, the killer, and the police chief). Why is the killer doing this? Why is Pacino starting to lose it? What is the deal with the police chief? Does he care about Pacino or not? Everything is so opaque and mysterious that the film is both fascinating and aggravating at the same time. And perhaps that was done on purpose, but considering reportedly 40 minutes was cut from the film I would imagine that many of those questions I posed were more clear. The ending itself is even more strange and confusing and I would suspect that while the ending wouldn't have been wrapped up in a nice little bow for the audience (nor would I expect that in a Friedkin film), the viewer could at least attempt to make more sense of it.
  • BandSAboutMovies2 September 2019
    Warning: Spoilers
    Despite being appraoced with New York Times reporter Gerald Walker's 1970 novel Cruising several times, William Friedkin (The Exorcist, Sorcerer and perhaps not as successfully, Jade) wasn't interested. He changed his mind after an unsolved series of murders in New York's leather bars.

    Articles by Village Voice journalist Arthur Bell helped inform this film, as well as NYPD officer Randy Jurgensen, who went into the same deep cover as this film's protagonist Steve Burns. Then, Friedkin learned that Paul Bateson, a doctor's assistant who appeared in The Exorcist, had been implicated in the crimes while serving a sentence for another murder.

    Friedkin did some of his research for the film by attending gay bars dressed in only a jockstrap, but by the time the movie began filming, he had been barred from two of the biggest bars, the Mine Shaft and Eagle's Nest, due to the controversy surrounding the movie.

    Much like The New York Ripper and God Told Me To, this movie feels like one set at the end of the world - New York City near the close of the 20th century. Someone is picking up gay men, murdering them and leaving their body parts in the Hudson.

    Officer Steve Burns (Al Pacino) - who is exactly the type of man who the killer has been after - is on the case, assigned by Captain Edelson (Paul Sorvino) to infiltrate the foreign world of S&M and leather bars. But as the case goes on, he begins to lose himself and his relationsip with Nancy (Karen Allen).

    Soon, he learns of just how brutal the NYPD is to gay men - even if they're just suspects. And he finds himself growing closer to his neighbor Ted (Don Scardino, Squirm).

    By the end, nothing is truly clear. While the killer may be Stuart Richards, a schizophrenic who attacks Burns with a knife in Morningside Park, it could also be Ted's angry boyfriend Gregory (James Remar). After all, Ted's mutilated body is discovered while Stuart is in custody. Or the real killer is still out there - perhaps he's even a patrol cop (Joe Spinell). The truth is never told.

    Spinell is incredible in this. That's no surprise. He used his real life for inspiration, as there's a line that talks about his wife leaving him and moving to Florida with his daughter. His wife Jean Jennings had just done exactly that before this movie was shot.

    The real vesion of this movie may never be released. Friedkin claims it took fifty rounds to get the MPAA to award the film with an R rating. Over 40 minutes of footage was cut, which consisted of time spent in the gay bars. The director claims that these scenes showed "the most graphic homosexuality with Pacino watching, and with the intimation that he may have been participating."

    This footage also creates another suspect - Burns himself may have become a killer.

    When Friedkin sought to restore the missing footage for the film's DVD release, he discovered that United Artists no longer had it and may have even destroyed all of the cut footage.

    In 2013, James Franco and Travis Mathews released Interior. Leather Bar., a metafictionalized account of the two filmmakers trying to recreate the lost 40 minutes of Cruising.

    There's a disclaimer at the start that says, "This film is not intended as an indictment of the homosexual world. It is set in one small segment of that world, which is not meant to be representative of the whole." Years later, Friedkin would claim that MPAA and United Artists required this, hoping that it would absolve them of the controversy that had been all over this production.

    That's because protests had started at the urging of gay journalist Arthur Bell, the aforementioned Village Voice writer whose series of articles on the Doodler's killing of gay men inspired this movie. There were numerous disruptions to the filming, as protesters blasted music and loud noises at all filming locations, leading to hours of ADR to fix the ruined dialogue.

    Arrow Video has released a new blu ray of this film that is spectacular. No surprise - Arrow always has great releases.

    This release features a brand new restoration from a 4K scan of the original camera negative, supervised and approved by writer-director William Friedkin, along with audio commentary from the 2007 DVD. The two features from that release, The History of Cruising and Exorcizing Cruising, are also on the disc.
  • lisa-rolfy3 March 2018
    What strikes me while watching the film, is that truth to reality is really refreshing. No editing in the world can make up to a camera catching a dark, rainy street as they could back in those days when equipment was not developed. Aristoleles claimed that cruelty should be committed outside the scene, that is, in the background. The imagination of the spectator is far more imaginative than a view of the actual event. Therefore, leaving out is stronger in terms of storytelling than showing. Quite the contrary to contemporary movies, I'd say. The advantage of this story is thus the suspense built up on lack of knowledge. There is no flirting with the audience; you do not know in advance who dunnit. There is no flirting with the audience on the task of staging one of the protagonists as a gay either. This is not the greatest movie, but really worth seeing.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    William Friedkin never quite returned to the heights of his early masterpieces The French Connection and The Exorcist, but in 1980 he plunged to new depths with Cruising. This thoroughly unsympathetic cop thriller set in the underbelly of New York's S&M scene seems to be rather over-impressed with its own courage in dealing with a hitherto taboo subject. The problem with Cruising is that the subject matter is treated terribly superficially – this is little more than a murder mystery, with scenes of excessive sleaze and gay bar activities tossed in to stir up some controversy. One almost feels that Friedkin wasn't happy with the idea of a simple, straightforward cop thriller, so he came up with all the gay scene trappings to add spice to his film. He uses gay characters and gay lifestyles merely to shock us, but never really gets down to making a serious statement about his sexual and political intentions.

    Dismembered corpses are found in the Hudson River in New York. The police believe that the deaths are the work of a serial killer who is preying upon gay men, luring them from gay bars in the city, raping them, then killing them and throwing their cut-up remains into the water. Captain Edelson (Paul Sorvino) of the New York Police Department appoints rookie cop Steve Burns (Al Pacino) to crack the case. Burns – a straight guy with a steady girlfriend - is approximately the same build as the victims. Edelson hopes that he will go undercover in the gay underworld scene and attract a little attention upon himself – perhaps even lure the killer into the open. Determined initially to take on the case to win promotion, Burns gradually finds himself drawn deeper and deeper into the unfamiliar gay culture. His relationship with girlfriend Nancy (Karen Allen) suffers, and he finds himself uncertain of his own sexual identity and orientation.

    The film aroused a large degree of protest when released, partly because it was ahead of its time and partly because gay activists were afraid that the film might set back their cause. Sometimes such controversy inadvertently generates extra box office for a film, but in the case of Cruising the film was a flop. Pacino gives an acceptable performance as the emotionally and sexually bewildered cop, though the script does him few favours. In a city as big as New York, it seems almost unthinkable that an undercover cop could be chosen to ensnare a serial killer merely because he is roughly the same build as one of the killer's preferred victims. It is such an unconvincing plot point, yet so important to the whole story, that it wrecks the film's credibility. On the plus side, the gay bar scenes seem fairly accurate, but less agreeable is the way some of the anti-gay characters who people the film are presented too over-the-top (for example, the police interrogator who assaults a gay man in his custody whilst wearing a jock-strap and cowboy hat.) The film's climax also sits awkwardly, especially the way that it hints that maybe Pacino himself has committed one of the murders. If we pursue this line of thought, are we to assume that the film is saying that indulging in gay activities will ultimately turn you into a killer? Cruising is a confused, repellent thriller. It treads ground that many movie makers are afraid to step upon, but sadly it never tells us much about the places and people it attempts to explore and emerges as a somewhat disappointing film.
  • Body parts are being found in the Hudson River and there have already been two recorded homosexual murders that show signs of being done by the same killer. With no leads in the case, Captain Edelson offers Officer Steve Burns the chance to go undercover on the basis that Steve looks similar to the victims that the killer tends to pick. Steve goes undercover with no badge and no gun, only reporting to Edelson; meanwhile the murders continue as Steve begins to lose himself little by little.

    I had never seen this film until just a few weeks ago but I was looking forward to it as I remember it being one of the movies that was reviewed by critic Mark Kermode on his `cult corner' he used to do as a weekly part of a radio 1 show - he liked it and generally I trust him. The film opens with a similar enough premise: cop goes undercover to try and catch a killer. We have all seen this genre before and think we know where it is going to go - cop will start to `go native' gradually and will struggle with it even after he has caught the killer - right? Well, yes and no. The film tries to do this but it manages to make a real pigs ear of it throughout, coming across like it really didn't know what it wanted to do. I am aware that there is another version of this out there somewhere and that this was mercilessly edited but I cannot know that that would be any better without seeing it.

    The film is all over the place. Burns' investigation goes nowhere for the vast majority of the time and just seems to focus on gay clubs with lots of men in leather or jock straps. Meanwhile the killer continues to carry out his murders and the rest of the police sort of float around in the background. It is difficult to really get into the film because the narrative is so very disjointed and it is almost impossible to have anything to follow or care about: basically the first 90 minutes is `there's a guy out there killing and a cop going to gay clubs - oh, look what they do' and then the final 20 minutes is `oh, we got him now' - and that's it! So with no traditional narrative I assume that the film wanted us to follow the character of Steve. However, Steve is a nonentity, even being played by Pacino! He has no character and we see nothing to suggest that he is really being either attracted or repulsed by the life he sees. The end of the film is so open in regards him and just doesn't make sense. With these two threads going nowhere, all that remains is a film that looks at the gay scene in the city.

    In this regard I was worried that it was going to be all PC when the film opening with a disclaimer that I assume was put on to placate gay groups. However I immediately understood why the makers had put this caption onto the film - and it wasn't even enough! The homosexuals in this film are, to a man, deviants who all hang out in clubs having anonymous sex with multiple partners in clubs and parks. I know the film apologises for this but it doesn't excuse the sheer lazy clichés that it wheels out and seems to just hope that we are shocked by the repeated graphic image. The seedy nature of the film means that it hasn't lost it's shock ability (even with gay relationships no longer a taboo in the media or normal life) - but if this is all it has then it is hardly worth it. If Friedkin had a vision then it has been lost because there is no sign of life in this film - by the end of the film everyone seems to have given up on it and it just, well, grinds to a halt. I won't even go into the various threads that just seem to go nowhere - DiSimone turning up all over the place for no reason for example.

    Pacino is a great actor but he cannot do anything with a character he cannot understand. He is absent from the film and is given nothing to work with. Certainly the `slow burn' he is required to do is not fitting his style, but it is made harder considering the script doesn't know about Steve either and Pacino has nothing to build to. Sorvino is OK but has nothing to do, likewise Allen is just floating around as well. The only thing that really kept my interest was how many famous faces were in early roles here - Powers Booth, Mike Starr, Spinell and Weeks to name a few.

    Overall I was looking forward to this film and wanted to enjoy it. I was not let down when it failed to do the usual things I expected from the genre set-up, but I was letdown by the fact that it did nothing else with it. The plot is all over the place and the performances are poor simply because they have no characters - Steve is impossible to understand and every gay character is a cliché. An amazingly inept film when you consider the names attached to it.
  • The killer at the beginning of the movie and in the private movie booth is absolutely not the music student Pacino follows and arrests at the end. The original murderer actually looks more like the victim murdered in the park. Did anyone else pick up on this? I got to see this two nights in a row on IFC so I had the luxury of recording and watching it again. If anyone has an explanation, please explain. If not, Friedkin has to be the worst director ever. Again, the murderer who kills the first guy in the hotel by stabbing him in the back and the guy in the private movie booth is definitely the guy who GETS murdered in the park. What's going on? A little continuity please.
  • chaos-rampant20 August 2012
    Dark, gritty, viscerally-geared look at the gay "leather bar" subculture of Manhattan found its kindred spirit in William Friedkin. He presents cold New York streets as a limbo of anonymous , soulless souls in transit, the amoral , amorous couplings completely without any warmth of passion, violence in the jaded manner of it being routine and natural response to a world governed by base instincts.

    Something else is amiss here, not mere amorality. What is it? Matters of sex and violence are tricky subjects. Safer perhaps to illustrate using sex, but nonetheless the two of them are governed by the same dynamics (this goes far beyond the hysteria against 'torture porn'). Because the main sensation is so overpowering, but at the same time so readily available, so the desire for it is strong but often haphazardly squandered, it's not often very clear what it's all about.

    Sexual dynamics are about exchanged energy, more pronounced and pure in the D/S lifestyle.

    Good sex is the around the exchange. It sharpens and clears mind. Bad sex is simply waste of energy. Your partner may have attractive skin, but the mind wanders and the chemistry is all wrong.

    This is bad sex and even worse D/S. That is probably because the main atmosphere is horny guys soliciting antsy sex, and guys are guys, so all the sex is primarily visually aggressive, forceful and completely without a tease of sophistication, and on top of that the filmmaker is a macho guy, so there is absolutely no trace in the world of the film of something truly ecstatic that is concentrated prolonging, surrender, or meditation. it's quick and sloppy, like a handjob at the park.

    The most memorable scene is murder in a seedy porn cinema with penetrative thrusts of a kitchen knife spliced together with footage of gay porn. It highlights the main effect of the film: jarring, meaningless excitement that is quickly forgotten.

    Al Pacino is the one good note here. That was from the time when he was still exciting to watch and didn't just bellicosely bellow. He probably sought this out as his Taxi Driver and put serious effort to that effect. He has layers, internal dimensions, builds an ambiguous personality that prolongs our anticipation.

    He must have consciously grasped that he's playing an actor who has consciously grasped a role but has to internalize having done so, so he steadily internalizes having grasped the role. We are eventually unsure if it is still a role or not.

    He is the complex , feminine center that anchors Friendkin's aimless waste of energies.
  • I'm glad to know I'm not the only person who actually like this movie."Cruising" is a very unusual film, a very unique film for a lot of reasons.First of all,and most of all,the movie takes place in a world that very few people know about,and that is the S&M gay sub-culture.Second of all,we get to see Al Pacino,a top class mainstream actor, in a very different kind of character,even though he plays a cop.And finally,I can say it's also a very unique film because it does not follow the path of typical Hollywood movies in terms of structure and tone.

    The fact that the film does take place in a world very few people know about,at least not me,is one of the element that makes this movie so special and unsettling and original,because it's done in a very down-to-earth,realistic way.I think the film presents the S&M gay sub-culture for what it is,not more,not less.People who are offended by the sight of homosexuals having contacts with each other will be offended by this movie,of course.But if you're willing to go along,to let yourself be open about all this,you just might found out that this film is not about exploitation or homophobia.It's much more about the psychological path followed by one man who has to immerse himself in a culture unknown to him,because of a murder case,and the effects this culture and this case have upon him and his life.In the course of the movie,we see this evolution through Pacino's character,and it's rather quite compelling and captivating,Pacino being very subtle in this movie.

    Of course,"Cruising" is not only a psychological, undercover cop movie,it's also a thriller.And as a thriller,this movie is also very captivating,and pulse-pounding,although it still is flawed.Apparently,the version most of us saw is not the complete version of the movie,and sometimes,it shows.I like ambiguity in a thriller,but I think "Cruising" is sometimes too ambiguous for it's own good,and that some elements could have been just a little bit more developed and explained(the ending,for instance).That being said,Friedkin still shows with this movie that he is a very accomplished director.There's nothing artificial in this movie,nothing superfluous in terms of the cinematography or the music or the art direction,and for me,this just helps the movie to be more realistic for the viewer.There's a rather raw feeling emanating from this movie,and it suits perfectly well for the tone of this film.Also,I think the supporting cast gives very honorable performances,especially Paul Sorvino as Pacino's boss and Karen Allen as his girlfriend.

    So,in conclusion,do yourself a favor: if you like thrillers and/or if you like undercover cop movies with great psychological input, if you're willing to be open-minded and if you want to watch something different than most Hollywood movies,just find this movie if you can and watch it,and never mind all the bad critics.
  • The first knifing in William Friedkin's "Cruising", which takes place in a seedy hotel room after two men have had sex, seemed so realistic I stared in numb surprise. It was something akin to what I imagine a snuff film would be like. Once straight cop Al Pacino is assigned to the case, going undercover in New York's gay leather bars to find the serial killer of homosexual men, I found the picture akin to cheap porno: ugly, depressing, degrading, repetitive and, finally, boring. A few good scenes here and there: Pacino practically forcing a man into sex because he thinks he's got the murderer, with the cops bursting in too soon; the interrogation scene of that unfortunate guy, who is achingly humiliated. Karen Allen (in her debut) has a nice, squirrelly presence as Pacino's girlfriend, and the pseudo-dramatic ending got a laugh out of me for its sheer dumbness. Pacino himself isn't shown to good advantage here; he's "acting," showing off, but he's not in character because there really is no character. The movie has a foreboding presence, but doesn't utilize it to build any kind of momentum. Alas, as a thriller, "Cruising" is impotent. *1/2 from ****
  • Keep in mind when you watch this that William Friedkin based a lot, if not most, of the events and characters on real crimes of late 70's New York. Often dialogue was put in verbatim as he remembered hearing it. Knowing cops and criminals helped him gain insight and access to a world most of us never see in person.

    One thing is certain. Gay men were and are being murdered in many cities, sometimes by closeted men, other times by those who hate homosexuals and get away with it because homophobia still resonates in police departments and these deaths aren't always a top priority to solve. Arthur Dong's brilliant film "Licensed To Kill" was powerful in letting us simply watch these kind of felons explain their horrific crimes in their own words. "Cruising" is a murder mystery where no form of justice can punish the guilty.

    Al Pacino turns in his darkest work here, showing Patrolman Steve Burns as a young cop given an assignment no one should envy. Pose in clubs where men who looked like him met a man that butchered them. Paul Sorvino indeed shows what Friedkin calls "profound sadness" and is Burns' sole police contact for this incredibly dangerous mission. Burns, undercover as "John Forbes", meets people he likes and others he doesn't and they all have one thing in common. None know who he really is and that is the ultimate mystery of "Cruising". Watch this to see a New York that doesn't exist today.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Gay characters began to reach the American screen in the 1960s, but they would not be portrayed with any validity until the 1980s. Curiously, one of the most homophobic films created by Hollywood would mark the transition: the 1980 William Friedkin CRUISING starring Al Pacino, Paul Sorvino, and Karen Allen.

    Based on the novel of the same name, CRUISING might best be described as a sexual thriller. Police officer Steve Burns (Al Pacino) is sent undercover into the gay community to attract and identify a serial killer who stalks New York City S&M bars, slashing and sometimes dismembering his victims with a serrated knife. But even as the killer strikes again and again, Burns becomes more and more entangled in this extremely dark world, comes to identify with the killer, and eventually self-destructs in a particularly nightmarish way.

    From an artistic standpoint, CRUISING has several things going for it. Director Friedkin has an interesting eye, and the film has an unexpectedly gritty, at times almost documentary-like style. It also has tremendous atmosphere; it is adept at making the viewer feel unsettled. The cast is also effective in heightening the disturbing tone of the film as a whole. What the film does not have is a coherent plot, nor does it have anything approaching a decent script, and it is grotesquely insulting to the gay community in several ways.

    CRUISING equates homosexuality with an extreme sexual lifestyle, and what emerges is a portrait of "nasty men doing nasty things in nasty bars." Does such a subculture exist in the gay community? Of course it does, just as it does in the heterosexual community--but CRUISING posits this as the norm for homosexuals. Even more distastefully, what ultimately emerges is the idea that a heterosexual man can be seduced into the gay community in which (at least according to the film) extreme sex, insanity, and violent death all go hand in hand. And it was precisely this that so outraged many in the gay community when the film was made. Film shoots were repeatedly disrupted by protests, and director Friedkin tried to calm the matter by stating that CRUISING was not "about" homosexuals--an extremely bizarre statement that only fueled community ire.

    A number of gay organizations greeted the film with boycotts, but as it happened their efforts were unnecessary. Few critics and even fewer moviegoers liked the film and it soon faded from view. Seen today it reads very much like a snapshot of American homophobia in 1980 and little more. But CRUISING does have a certain historical significance: by and large it would be the last major Hollywood film to present the entire gay community in a wholly negative light.

    The very outrageousness of the film seemed to prompt American film makers to a much needed reevaluation of the way in which gay characters were portrayed on screen. Although "gay man equals bad man" characters have cropped up in a few films since--Kevin Costner's NO WAY OUT and several of Mel Gibson's films come to mind--the overall reaction to CRUISING killed the stereotype. And so the film, in an accidental sort of way, is significant from a historical standpoint; film historians and movie buffs will find it interesting, and I give it three stars for their sake. But just about everyone else should leave it alone.

    Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer
  • Warning: Spoilers
    The controversy over this supposed anti-gay film has stirred debate for nearly 40 years. The slaying of gay men part of the leather and s&m scene is violent and ugly, a view of just one small portion of the community. I've seen it through various gay pride and marches, Folsom Street Fair, visits to Silver Lake near downtown Los Angeles, and various Halloween parades. It does exist, and this is part of its story in the gay naked city.

    While cop Al Pacino comes off a little brusk, he's just out to do his job, even if disguising himself as a gay man is repulsive to him. He's not homophobic, just not interested in that sort of thing. But in spite of his reluctance and longterm relationship with Karen Allen, he's gotta do what he's assigned to do. So it's off to the gay leather bars of midtown Manhattan and the woods of Central Park.

    The murders are brutal, showing the fear of the victim before they are killed. This lifestyle isn't just about the gays; perversion crosses over and this just uses a small portion of the gay community to tell its story. It's just not a very good movie. Don Scardino plays an effeminate gay man who befriends Pacino, and it's obvious that Pacino likes him in spite of their differing sexualities. As a gay man, I look back on it as a warning against promiscuity, and with the AIDS crisis just around the corner, it's a bit prophetic.
An error has occured. Please try again.