User reviews

When body parts of men start showing up in the Hudson River, police come to believe a serial killer is targeting gay men. Under intense pressure from the media, gay advocacy groups, the city's elected officials, Steve Burns (Al Pacino) is assigned to go undercover in the fringe S&M gay scene as he has a similar profile and build to the men being killed. As Steve adopts the alias of John Forbes, he finds himself further and further entrenched and drawn to the lurid allure of the scene.

Based on the 1970 novel Cruising by Gerald Walker, French Connection producer Philip D'Antoni had approached Friedkin earlier in his career only for Friedkin to turn it down due to lack of interest. D'Antoni then approached Steven Spielberg, but was unable to find studio backing. When the rights were bought by Jerry Weintraub years later, Friedkin had warmed up to the idea thanks to his exposure to a series of articles by Village Voice writer Arthur Bell as well as encounters with former police officer Randy Jurgensen who had done similar deep cover work to investigate a series of gay murders. Not only was the film prone to frequent conflicts with the MPAA to secure an R rating with nearly 40 minutes of deleted footage of explicit material in the various bars, but the film was also subject to massive protests and pickets from gay rights groups who characterized the film as homophobic and anti-gay. In the years since it's troubled release the film continues to be discussed and has found appreciation among directors such as the Safdie brothers, Nicholas Winding Refn, and Quentin Tarantino.

The movie is very giallo like with its lurid sexualized murders investigated by a where the film is more concerned with crafting an atmosphere and sense of character as Friedkin captures the seamy side of New York's nightlife. While Al Pacino does well playing the audience proxy as he reacts to the world crafted by Friedkin's film, there is a sense that Pacino is a bit more secured in his sexuality than the filmmakers intended. As an experience the film is simply unforgettable.

William Friedkin's Cruising is a tense and thrilling film that captures its lurid atmosphere so vividly you can feel it with every scene. While the movie's loose structure and ambiguous payoffs will challenge viewers, in terms of craft of filmmaking Cruising has few equals.

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.

Knowing that this was inspired by true events and what really happened, I understand why the film may seem as one giant plot hole to some viewers. I know most people want a definitive answer and this movie doesn't exactly make it clear for the viewer. Done intentionally by Friedkin to reflect the true story's mystery, which I think is brilliant. That said, I wish the cast was hotter and I still can't believe Al Pacino did this film. I love it. It's such an amazing documented piece of Homosexual life before AIDS hit. Something we will never see or experience ever again.

I do well remember all the outrage when word about Cruising being filmed on location in the streets of New York with all kinds of protesters from the GLBT community picketing the set. Word had gotten out that the film was going to be about the Leather/S&M scene and everyone that I knew was upset.

Viewed 26 years later Cruising is mild stuff compared to some of what is shown on television today. There isn't a prime time TV series that today doesn't have some gay themed episode on it during its season. Some are sensitive and some are far more crassly exploitive than Cruising could ever aspire to be.

The fuss back then was that in many places including the location of the film, New York City, gay civil rights was not on the statute books. A whole lot of people were trying to make that happen and a film like Cruising was feared in that it would give homophobes a lot of ammunition against the proposed civil rights law.

People needn't have worried. The cause and the community proved a lot stronger than the impact of one film at the box office.

Without all the politics involved, Cruising is a murder mystery. There's a troubled young man with a whole lot of issues murdering and dismembering men he picks up in various locales in New York. Chief of Detectives Paul Sorvino picks officer Al Pacino because in looks and build he fits the physical profile of the victims. Cruising is the story of Pacino's undercover investigation looking for that killer. It also is a story of Pacino reexamining a whole lot of preconceived notions about human sexuality in general.

As it turns out I happen to know one of the cast members of the film who had a small three line speaking role in the film and with Al Pacino himself. He related to me that when the casting call came out, he came in the required leather uniform and had three levels of audition. First with the casting director, then with Bill Friedkin and finally with Al Pacino himself.

What he also mentioned was that Pacino was a nice down to earth sort of fellow when he met him and easy to work with. And the reason he was easy to work with was that he was a man totally focused on the job at hand when on the set.

He also related to me that apparently Bill Friedkin had decided in advance to do some kind of a gay related story. The final script for Cruising beat out others including one that would have had a prostitution angle in it. Probably a worse image for a film than what Cruising was about. This writer whose script was rejected was a political activist as well and he was the one who got the ball rolling with all the protests.

My friend mentioned that among his own group of friends he lost only one permanently over his decision to work in the film. Everyone else in his circle saw the film and their reactions were a gamut of applause for the film to a total trashing. But only one individual broke with him over it.

Art sometimes predicts life. There is a shot during Al Pacino's travels through the bars and clubs of the West Village of 1980 of the Ramrod bar. After Cruising had come and gone from theaters, a man named Ronald Crumpley one November night in 1980 drove by with an Uzi and wounded six and killed two people. Things like that are still happening, even in some of the gay friendliest areas in the USA.

Besides Pacino and Sorvino, the performances to look for are those of Don Scardino as the young writer who lives next door to the apartment Pacino is located in during his undercover assignment and James Remar as Scardino's roommate who is a dancer. They have a volatile relationship and Scardino would be considered a battered spouse had they been able to marry. A story all to true, but hardly limited to same sex relationships.

Cruising will never rank in the top 10 of Al Pacino's films on anybody's list. But sufficient time has passed so that we can look at it with a bit more objectivity than was possible in 1980.

Too many things wrong with this one to really care for it. The main problem is too much focus on over-the-top depictions of the gay S&M subculture, and not enough on its characters. The undercover cop (Al Pacino), his girlfriend (Karen Allen), and the killer (???) are all ridiculously underdrawn. We don't get enough of what's going through the cop's mind as he's undercover, the girlfriend is only there to serve as a barometer of his heterosexuality, and the killer has some cliché "daddy issues." We do, however, get public fisting ffs.

Especially for 1980, it's unfortunate that this was the window mainstream America got into gay life, as it felt voyeuristic and intended to shock, not serve as a source of understanding or empowerment, at least as best possible as a backdrop to a murder mystery. Maybe the neighbor character, the aspiring writer, was intended to balance some of this out, but he was quickly lost, perhaps by things like the ridiculous man in the precinct house wearing nothing but a jockstrap and walking into interrogations to slap gay suspects around. What the hell was that?

I loved the little bits critiquing the police department at various levels - the beat cops harassing guys on the street and forcing one to perform oral sex, the captain (Paul Sorvino) who too quickly looks the other way, and the chief of detectives who doesn't really empathize with the victims, only wanting to avoid untimely negative publicity. It's too bad more wasn't done with this, but maybe there was a moment of transformation in the captain finding that last body.

The story doesn't really hold together as a police procedural, however. Maybe the film didn't want us to think about Pacino's character having to go home with guys to be effective at his assignment, so a lot of the time, he's just standing around in a bar, watching the raunchy antics of the wild crowd. Early on we're made to understand he's working for the captain only, with no one else knowing about it, but then in one critical scene swarms of cops come to his aid - only to then disappear at the end, when he acts completely alone again. There are also attempts at adding ambiguity into the story in several ways, but they all felt more forced than intriguing.

It's Pacino's character that ends up being the real mystery. You could see this as a man whose bisexuality is awakened, that he goes home with enough men like the guy we see him following out of the park that he loses interest in his girlfriend, and then later knows the repartee well in the climactic encounter. You could also see it as a straight man who has been overwhelmed by what he's seen and done, so much so that his relationship suffers along the way, and even when he's back with her at the end, he's liable to suffering flashbacks and trauma. It was interesting pondering that, but it felt like the film was being less artistic in its ambiguity, and more inhibited by what it felt it could show in a 1980 Hollywood production with a big star like Pacino. Regardless, it was less than completely satisfying, like everything else here.

Crusing is a very dark psychological thriller from acclaimed director William Friedkin and leading man Al Pacino. Based on true events where a serial killer preyed on gay men part of the S+M gay leather scene in NYC, pre AIDS, where casual sex or cruising was a big thing in that scene. Al Pacino goes deep undercover to attempt to bring down the killer. This film only shows one side of the gay community, which was controversial and brought a polarizing reaction in the gay community in that time. The gay S+M clubs, parks and other areas of NY are the backdrop to this sleazy, violent and downbeat thriller. Al Pacino is excellent, as is the support cast of Paul Sorvino, Joe Spinell and Karen Allen as Pacino's girlfriend. The film is similar in a lot of ways to the Italian giallo films and it seemed to borrow some of its ambiance and style. While most of what happens in the film is pretty ambigious, it seems that as the film progresses Al Pacino seems to identify more with the gay community. This film is very well done and very much in the 70's style, gritty, suspenseful and uncompromising in its presentation. Crusing certainly will not appeal to everyone, but for those that like this kind of film, it is very well done.

I'd heard of this movie in passing a couple of times, and it came up in the group movie night.

I guess I don't know what I expected, but dang, dude. The entire time I watched this my only primary thought was: there's no way anything like this really existed, right?

This is a movie where Al Pacino plays an undercover cop who has to pretend that he's gay in order to catch a murderer who is only killing gay men. It's left open to interpretation, but being around so many gay men seems to leave Pacino's character... struggling with some feelings.

The thing is, when Pacino enters gay bars in this movie, they're depicted more like brothels. It's like Pacino goes to "the gay part of town" where everybody's getting it with everybody else pretty much everywhere you look. Public, private, it doesn't matter, it's moaning and grinding and groping as far as the eye can see. A moderate amount of bare ass, and I swear I might have even seen a brief flash of penetration in the theater scene. Calling this "steamy" is an understatement.

For as pearl-clutching as society can be about sex today, there's no way 35-100 leather daddies all claimed a five block radius and never got hassled about it back in 1980... Right? I guess I wasn't born yet, so anything's possible.

Really wild movie, though. Not surprised to read it was almost rated X. A lot of this movie is just letting the lens wander -- the murder mystery is fairly simple by comparison.

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.

***SPOILERS*** With the Democratic Convention coming to New York City a rash of murders of local gay New Yorkers has put the NYPD on the case in a very big way. From the mayor on down every city official wants the politically explosive murders stopped, and solved, as soon as possible. NYPD Detective Captain Edelson, Paul Sorvino,gets local patrol cop Steve Berns, Al Pacino,to go undercover in the gay community to help find and arrest the killer before he kills again. At the same time Burns is very uncomfortable with his new and secret assignment. Not having any idea of the local gay lifestyle Burns feels it would alienate him from his live-in girlfriend Nancy Gates, Karen Allen, but he really has no choice in the matter.

The movie "Cruising" has some of the most graphic scenes ever, in a major studio released motion picture, about the heavy leather and S&M gay world. Those scenes are peppered into the movie in almost every other sequence to the point that it almost loses it's story about a gay serial killer on the lose.

Burns taking the name John Forbes and moving into a West Village apartment tries to get familiarized with the clubs and bars that the killer frequents to find new victims in his bloody rampage against gays. Even with a strong police presence the killer goes on his way killing gays but now he's being tracked by the undercover Steve Burns aka John Forbes who got a good idea to who he is.

It turns out that the killer Stuart Richards, Richard Cox, is an art student at Columbia University. Stuart's first victim was a professor Vincent who's class he attended. Officer Burns realized that Stuart was seen at the local gay bars in the village were a number of the killers victims were picked up and later murdered. The very fact that Stuart was also a student of the murdered Prof. Vincent, who was also gay, was just too much of a coincidence to be overlooked.

Breaking into Stuart's apartment on the Columbia Collage campus Burns finds a number of leather jackets and caps hidden in his closet. The clothes match the ones that Burns saw the person who looked a lot like Stuart at a number West Village gay bars and clubs. There's also a box-full of letters written by Stuart to his father, who's been dead for ten years, begging his forgiveness for not being the man that he always wanted him to be.

The movie ends on a confusing note where we don't exactly know if Stuart is really the killer or not. Ever more surprising it's not made clear if someone else had taken up Stuarts cause or "crusade" against New York's gay community. Since a number of murders, including Burns' next door gay neighbor Ted (Don Scardino), happen after Stuart was already taken into custody. You don't know for sure but it seems as if the now very troubled and confused, about his own sexuality, Officer Burns had lost his bearing and went off the deep end. Burns may have began murdering gays like the killer he was assigned to capture!

As the movie ends we see Capt. Edelson investigating Ted's murder and then pulls back in a white fright, this was the first time in the movie that he showed any real or genuine emotions at all, when he finds out who possibly may have murdered him! Edelson finds that Officer Burns, using the name John Forbes, was living in the next door apartment at the time of Ted's murder!

Did Edelson at that point realize that in what he did in trying to find and apprehend the gay serial killer he unknowingly created an even bigger Frankenstein Monster! A monster Which he and his bosses in the NYPD would have to answer for in the very near future.

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.

William Friedkin is not just a great director who knows how to craft riveting thrillers and get the most from his actors. He is a visual genius, a painter, who was not afraid to show us new and sometimes unsettling ways of looking at urban space, night time, interior space, parks, people, costume design. While I was watching Cruising, I took about 20 different screenshots that double as delicious still-art that will outlast the movie. Shot in cold blues, this film is a stylistic triumph. I see echoes of this in everything from Dario Argento to Michael Mann to dozens of music videos throughout the 80s. Cruising even has some good music from the club scenes, and the very subtle two note synth drone score that burbles up occasionally. As for the story, it leaves a little to be desired, but I like Pacino and the disturbing, though dated questions it raises.. Watch for the mood and atmosphere, that was enough for me to enjoy it.

"The analogy between sex and death is a time-honored theme that is explored delectably, tantalizingly and precariously in CRUISING, moreover, Friedkin's script (loosely based on Gerald Walker's eponymous novel) also tacitly mines into the less burrowed mentality of a straight man questioning his own sexuality after being introduced to the same-sex sensual surroundings which intrigue his curiosity but also effect his heterosexual potency (Karen Allen as Burns's clueless girlfriend Nancy is simply a cipher to be sexualized to gauge his bedroom performance). As contentious and avant-garde as the theme sounds, especially being a studio production with a named helmer, the film finally adopts a milder route to fudge the issue it propounds, especially by grafting an open-end denouement that suggests Burns' own implication and morphing into the variety of a dangerous beast that is a far cry from the average-Joe type he is in the beginning, with a somewhat iffy and inconvenient understatement, does a latent homosexuality turn a good man into a murderous menace to the society?"

read my full review on my blog: cinema omnivore, thanks

An undercover cop is sent to infiltrate the S&M gay community but the weird subculture starts to get to him the more time he spends there. A killer is targeting people and he has to find the man before more die. He wants out, but finally manages to accept his gig but is forever changed.

This movie can be a tough watch at times. Today you see an entire community that would have been decimated from AIDS only a few years later, but also it can just be gross. That said it's a super effective slasher / detective move with an extreme focus on reality and (for the time) accuracy in its presentation of what most people would have had no idea of.

Some people can't take how ambiguous it is, but that's partly why it works. You don't really know just what went on. How far did Pacino go? Did he start to like it? It's up to you and that may affect your final opinion. But it's well made and holds up, even if it can be icky in places.

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.

Not as offensive as it's reputed to be (the opening disclaimer is self-explanatory), and almost a "pleasant" (so to speak) surprise, coming from the director of two of the most overrated movies ever made, I think ("The French Connection" and the "Exorcist"). At least it's more character-driven than those films, a fascinating story of a man who changes and evolves during the course of the picture, perfectly played by Al Pacino. The film may not be as fully-developed as we might have wanted (they say it was cut before release), but it has a gritty, grungy realism and a feel of authenticity. (**1/2)

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 ****

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")