On C List of Movie Reviews
(For optimum viewing, adjust the zoom level of your browser to 125%.)
Cruising (1980)
Rate:
6
Viewed:
12/07, 8/15
12/07:
Cruising is a disappointment.
Even worse is Al Pacino. What he did is absolutely nothing. Pretending to be a homosexual character, Al
Pacino never kisses a guy, only to let him cop a feel of his chest for one moment, or partakes of oral sex either way.
In short, he chickened out, plain and simple.
The best part is the gay leather/S&M bar scene which is convincing and represents a world unto itself. Sadly, this would
last for the first half of the picture before it's unceremoniously dropped, settling for an ambiguous resolution of the bland
murder mystery case with the biggest head-scratcher ending.
All in all, failing in what he's supposed to do for Cruising, Al Pacino lost some credibility.
8/15:
Because his girlfriend dons leather gay bar accessories, the incomprehensible ending suggests Steve Burns was the serial
killer the whole time.
Huh? One reviewer developed a theory that Burns, who was originally heterosexual, had been losing his mind and needed to
kill homosexuals. I don't buy it. The other theory is Steve was becoming gay because he started to like the
leather/S&M stuff. It's possible based on his hostile, if ambivalent, feelings toward his girlfriend.
Anyway, Cruising is infamous for the mistreatment of homosexuals and transsexuals and the perpetuation of stereotypes
about them. Today, the whole thing is pretty tame. Even Killer Joe is worse. The gay activists need to
remember it's just another world which doesn't have to be real or accurate.
What I love about the film is the leather/S&M subculture that exists within the gay bars. It's like being there, and William
Friedkin never lets me down with the visuals. Sadly, this occurs only during the first half. But the most disappointing
of all is Al Pacino's craven performance.
It's obvious Al Pacino took the safe route as indicated in one scene when he had a yellow bandana hanging out of his
left rear pocket and replied he preferred to watch. So, my question to him is this: "If you're not going to take risks,
why bother being in the film?" I know he's a great actor, but I'm disappointed in him. However, there's a
prevailing theory that Al Pacino did participate but the film was heavily edited to protect his reputation.
The other problem is the second half. Nothing much happens. It's almost like watching another movie that has nothing to
do with the first half. Then, the stupid ending comes. Can it be a matter of forced editing to appease the imminent
protestors and the studio's head honcho? Looking up information on the Internet, it turns out that at least thirty minutes of
footage was cut out.
All in all, Cruising remains a unique film with a lot of potential, but I wish William Friedkin continued on
with the first half to keep it consistent or maybe he should release the original uncut picture to clear up some of the
questions (but he insisted the deleted footage contained mostly gay pornography and was therefore destroyed by the
studio).