maclock Honestly, Cruising isn't that good of a film. That's it. I guess there's a reason that I never saw this particular Pacino film until yesterday. You can give this one a miss.

adonis98-743-186503 A police detective goes undercover in the underground S&M gay subculture of New York City to catch a serial killer who is preying on gay men. This is easily without a doubt one of Pacino's worst movies not only is dumb and boring but it's disgusting and not in a way that you see someone getting stubbed but for the things that those people do in all those clubs if you thought that Jack & Jill was bad think again in what kind of a police department there's a black big dude with a cowboy hat that gets in just wearing his underwear slaps you and leaves? The last shot of the movie is Al Pacino looking at the mirror and watching the camera thinking why the hell did i agree to star in this crap? Cruising gets a D- and a 3 out of 10 yes it was that bad.

Mr_Ectoplasma "Cruising" has William Friedkin directing Al Pacino as an undercover cop who immerses himself in New York City's underground gay S&M subculture in order to track a killer who is filleting gay men across Manhattan. Infamously protested by the gay community upon its release, "Cruising" is upfront and unyielding in its depiction of the leather subculture; Friedkin does not shy away from depicting raw sexuality anymore than he does candid violence, and it's no surprise that a film like this caused such an uproar in 1980. Opinions on the film are myriad and vary from interpreter to interpreter, and it's perhaps one of the most frustrating thrillers of all time because there are so many different ways in which we can make sense of it. Friedkin toys with the audience deliberately by employing various actors as the sinister killer, which in effect puts a damper on the murder-mystery plot arc and forces the audience to focus on the bigger picture— the devil is not in the details here.The film has been interpreted as an admonishment of gay S&M subculture, a prescient metaphor for AIDS, and an exploration of sexual repression and the ways in which that bubbles into violence. My theory on the film is more in line with the latter, and I find it impossible to take any definitive stance on the crosspatch of possibilities that Friedkin leaves us with in regard to "who" the killer really is— the fact remains that there is really no way way to make sense of it no matter how we attempt to piece it together. There is no resolve. Ultimately, all that we are left with is a series of senseless and vicious murders in an underground culture of men on the fringes of society. The cinematography shines here, and is perhaps the film's strongest suit amidst a narrative that irritatingly closes in on itself over and over again. "Cruising" is a photographic masterpiece full of phenomenal compositions, haunting murder scenes, and a very astute capturing of subculture, sex, and the nightlife of New York City. Friedkin's signature grit is in every frame, and combined with the borderline-nihilistic narrative, the final product is graphic and almost depressing. Al Pacino turns in a strong performance that is as ambiguous as the material itself, with a supporting cast portraying everyone from closet-case patrol officers to sassy drag queens and innocent abused lovers. All in all, while "Cruising" is perhaps one of the most ambiguous thrillers I've ever seen, I still feel it is culturally and social relevant, and worth seeing if for nothing more than the cinematography and the genius compositions on display. It's disheartening, disturbing, and offers us no answers, leaving us in a circular state of confusion; a who-dun-it without the dun-it. In the end, all I can definitively say about it is that "Cruising" shows us that the potential for violence bubbles underneath the surfaces of us all, and repression of any kind is ostensibly more dangerous than a knife itself. 8/10.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU This film was important when it came out in 1980. We were just before the AIDS pandemic hit the world. In New York the gay scene had crossed the line of simple ordinary cruising to enter the hard line of sado maso sex, leather paraphernalia and a certain amount of constraint, force, violence, etc., what some call authoritarian gay sex. In that scene criminal violence is then a lot more difficult to trace and find out because it does not stand out "like a sore thumb" but gets blended in the surrounding violence.One serial killer is running on that stage in New York and to pick him, to find him out a cop has to be sent undercover. He is young, handsome, not gay at all, and yet he is going to get into the gay business. He finds out that this cruising is first of all attractive because it deals with feelings that are not satisfied otherwise: love, friendship, equal force and equal power. It is more some accompliceship than real sensation or emotion. The lovers meet halfway in the project of being as strong as the other, of submitting the other and be submitted to the other by this other precisely. This narcissistic fascination, this love for the other who is my equal and to whom I must submit to be his equal because he submits to me to be my equal – submission, domination and yet total communion and equality. This side is actually not explored enough in this film, except of course occasionally when the undercover cop meets with his next door neighbor the playwright. But that is little and it will end badly anyway because in such a situation jealousy and possessiveness are the two main characteristics of some couples who cannot accept any intruder, in spite of the fact that the gay bars are necessarily open stages and open situations. For some to get into a relation is also to get out of all opportunities to meet with another possible relation, the rejection of any promiscuity. That is not typical of the gay scene but men have not been used to being dominated by their partners for something like 300,000 years like women. Such situations can become very nasty.The film exploits another line without giving all the details. The serial killer was rejected by a father who, we understand, refused his gay orientation and required that he should change orientation in order to be given the support he wants. Unluckily it is suggested that the father has been dead for ten years. Hard on the chap who has not been able to prove himself to his father and is out in the wild without a father behind him, except as a phantasm to whom he writes hundred of letters, every week or so, without sending them, of course. Then we enter the field of perversion, rather simple actually, maybe too simple. He uses his sexual orientation to capture a prey, has sex with, complete or partial sex, it does not matter, and then he kills his prey who "made him do this." It sounds simple because it is not explored enough. It is true we were in 1980 and that was a long time before profiling became popular, a long time before "Criminal Minds." It will excuse the lack of expertise with DNA too.The subject was interesting, but the treatment has aged a lot and appears today rather simple if not superficial or just plain provocative, though the provocation has completely gotten out of the picture for us today.Dr Jacques COULARDEAU