उपयोगकर्ता समीक्षाएं

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 which are investigated in a way 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

William Friedkin's connections to the real story that inspired this film are probably more interesting than the film itself. Friedkin hired Paul Bateson, an x-ray tech, to play a doctor in The Exorcist. Bateson went on to murder several gay men in New York through the 70s, even going so far as to imply that he had done more than he had been convicted for. The story of the film doesn't touch on Bateson directly, instead being inspired by a novel written by Gerald Walker. It also seems to get completely lost in trying to obfuscate things from the audience, attempting to blur the line between reality and...I'm not sure. I don't want to be completely dismissive of Friedkin's efforts here. He was obviously trying something, but I'm just not sure what it was or whether it was successful or not. I lean towards no, though.

As gay men in the BDSM subculture in New York City are being brutally murdered (either by being stabbed or dismembered, the police are lumping them all together), Captain Edelson (Paul Sorvino) recruits the young policeman Steve Burns (Al Pacino) to infiltrate the subculture and investigate as an undercover detective. Burns takes the job because of the quick promotion to detective that it represents, and it's not well received by his girlfriend Nancy (Karen Allen) since he has to pretty much completely disappear from her life for who knows how long.

So, Steve throws himself into the culture, and this is probably where the film is the most interesting. It's a pretty standard police procedural about how one man has to infiltrate into this strange new place for him. The details of these BDSM gay clubs is very stark and defined (with forty minutes of it being dropped to satisfy the MPAA to get an R rating instead of an X), and Burns gets lost in this world. There's intentional obfuscation about how much Burns is actually doing, whether he's just wandering into and out of these clubs, making himself known and asking questions, or if he's actually partaking in things. And I think that level of unknowingness works within this first half or so. How far is he willing to go? It's an interesting question that the movie ends up not really bothering with because it is more interested in other obfuscations than that.

Burns ends up zeroing in on a particular suspect, Skip (Jay Acovone), after another murder at a porno theater. With increased pressure from on high, Edelson arrests Skip and interrogates him, buoyed by the fact that he works at a steakhouse that uses knives that match very closely to the stab wounds of previous victims, but Skip's fingerprints don't match those from the theater. This is the point where the film just steadily starts to lose me. The actual mystery seems to increasingly take a backseat to the action on screen as Burns gets progressively deeper into finding anyone to blame. It's helped not at all by the fact that his investigation is almost incidental to him zeroing in on the next suspect, a Columbia student named Stuart (Richard Cox) who was the student of one of the first victims, a Columbia professor (killed before the movie started). How does Burns figure this out? Edelman gives him the pages from a yearbook that Burns then recognizes Stuart from his trolling of the gay bars.

This just feels completely out of order to me. This comes more than halfway through the film when it should be something like an introductory element to the investigation, not some kind of last gasp when the investigation is getting desperate. It's where the police procedural elements just kind of fall apart, and we're left with Burns obsessively tailing Stuart. It's also where the film just starts to outright and fully embrace the idea that there could be multiple killers (always implied from the beginning when the police are throwing together different deaths with completely different methods together) to the point where there's heavily implication that Burns himself is the killer, especially the way he ends up just outright stalking Stuart.

Is that a bad choice? That's where I become uncertain about things. There's a certain level of interesting about this series of choices in the film's latter half. Leaving behind the BDSM clubs for the greener spaces around Columbia is a marked contrast, but it's counterbalanced by Burns getting darker, the influence of his investigation staying with him. And the pieces of the investigation don't really seem to stick together all that well in retrospect (especially the events around the fingerprint in the theater which belongs to Stuart but there are further implications that it's not him). I don't know. I think it's too messy without actually leaning into something like an unreliable narrator (there is none, and we see plenty of stuff away from Burns for that sort of rigid point of view reading to work at all) while losing the interesting part of the subculture. It both becomes more regular and less readable at the same time.

I really just don't think it works. It's really trying something different, which I recognize, but I don't think it works.

Pacino might be part of my problem as well. First of all, the dude is simply too old for the role (he was 39 but the character is supposed to be something like 27). Secondly, he doesn't really bring much to the role, which is a weird thing to say about Pacino, but Friedkin seems to have directed Pacino to play everything close to the chest. This is also a writing and editing issue where we have no real sense of who Burns is outside of the investigation, but the view of him in the investigation is intentionally opaque. We're not supposed to get to know him because of the later implications about his culpability in the crimes in question. This film is intentionally not working on normal narrative terms, but I just don't see it working on the other terms it offers up. It feels like an experiment in trying something new that simply didn't end up working.

So, I kind of admire it on one level, but I don't think it comes together on the other. I'm kind of just mixed on the whole thing.

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.

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.

"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

William Friedkin does a great job directing his actors. They all give great performances. However, to what end? The ending is ambiguous. And unsatisfying.

It's a crime movie/murder mystery, but it's most interesting when exploring gay culture and characters' sexuality. There's a scene with Al Pacino dancing which I thought was a standout moment.

Many slasher/murder mystery films are misogynistic because they feature women as mostly victims being killed who need to be rescued by a straight white man. This film is homophobic for the same reasons.

My favorite part was probably the soundtrack. There is a great mix of different styles of music that really captures the late 70s/early 80s.

At the end of the day, you can probably skip this film.

I'm not absolutely certain why I love this movie so much. I suppose it starts with the fact that it's prime-era Friedkin, made when he was still at his best. Pacino at his peak is a factor too. I also love the frank and brave way it tackled the gay sexual underworld of its day, for which the film took a lot of heat, with accusations of painting homosexuals in a negative light. I personally thought its realistic portrayal of that environment was riveting. I suspect, however, that the main asset, to me, of this largely unheralded and controversial film is its Giallo-style music and editing, and the spectacularly confusing and nearly unsolvable resolution of its underlying whodunnit. Even if you decide, in the end, that there is no "answer", I defy you to stop caring about trying to find one. That's Friedkin genius, right there. He was truly one of our best.

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)

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.

Yes, Cruising has gay people. Lots of them. Most of them in leather, costumes (there's a "cop night" at a club, ironic for Pacino's character), who lead double lives with their leather and homosexual sex at night, and successful careers during the day. But as William Friedkin points out repeatedly on the newly released DVD, the West Village Manhattan backdrop of the S & M bars and bondage-fetish lifestyle is just that, a backdrop. He's not intending to make a statement either way that this way of life is bad or not. It's a murder mystery story that, in a sense, could've took place in any environment (look at it as though the setting were regular heterosexual bars, with a man getting at women, and it wouldn't be much different if only for, uh, sex and misogyny misplaced). It's still meant as neo-noir, and it's a good one. That it's not great should be expected.

It's plot ends up a little confusing (which, Friedkin also said, is part of his own metaphor for the story in the picture as one doesn't know who is really the killer, killers merging perhaps, or a killer still lurking at the end of the film even as things look tidy plot wise). But this isn't too much of a deterrent to enjoying the bulk of Cruising, as a cop (Pacino) goes undercover in the Village to search for a killer who's taking out gays, either by stabbing repeatedly or by cutting off a body limb or two, dumping in the river. We get the missteps (wrong suspect brought in, and in a bizarre moment a big black guy slaps him and Pacino around a bit, which oddly enough Friedkin also says was based on a real incident), the obsessive following of John Struthers, and even some dark, unsettling tension that edges towards the erotic. It also helps that Friedkin has a good docu-drama type of cinematography at hand (meant to be in b&w), and superb songs from Willy DeVille and the Germs.

But it doesn't mean Cruising is without flaws. Maybe more-so for some. A central one for me is that Pacino's character isn't fully developed. We get a lot of scenes early on establishing the killer, this environment, and Friedkin gets a very good feel for this world, this sort of enclosed place where things are surreal but charged with an energy that isn't alien. But Pacino is sort of left with "he's got a girlfriend he loves, that's it", and he has to work within a slightly 2-dimensional frame of a character. Which he can still do as well as an actor like Pacino can do, with few-to-no BIG scenes out outbursts or what-have-you. Yet as this officer plunges further into a situation he can't control, and can't totally assimilate to (the most he goes towards being in homosexual contact is getting tied up in a scene ala one of the deceased, saved by other cops who burst in before going any further). The one little piece of interest is suggestion, which is half Pacino half Friedkin, where the contact of being around this world of the clubs and these people get to him when he does have regular sex with his girlfriend Karen Allen. He's changed, sort of subliminally, in how he perceives contact, which is also seen with the character Ted.

It's a little trashy, actually respectable, and a bit better than you might've heard from the initial critical reactions. Cruising isn't any great shakes, but it's almost fun in the depths that Friedkin goes to in giving just that slight turn of the screws to a detective genre piece. It shakes things up just enough to get noticed, for better or worse, as an original work.