MovieChat Forums > Cruising (1980) Discussion > First time watching it!

First time watching it!

posted 5 months ago by jpssteveshanahan (462)
2 replies | jump to latest

Just saw this movie for the first time the other night and it left me with more questions than answers.

"Obvious spoilers"

1) When the captain asks Pacino to take on this assignment. He stresses that he can't carry a badge, nor a gun. For when he goes undercover. Artistic license aside! Wouldn't that be suicide!? If you're getting involved in a case that could potentially lead you to a high profile serial killer. One would naturally presume the obvious necessity to be armed. I know the authorities were waiting in the wings, but still!

2) When Pacino was having that pool table conversation with his superior (Paul Sorvino). He briefly mentioned some guy who goes by the name of "Tommy The Joker". Sorvino adds that he can't "move in on him". Pacino innocently ask "why?" This irritates his captain. To which he gives Pacino a stern glance and an equally stern response. "I ask the questions!"

Just who exactly was this "Tommy The Joker" and why couldn't they make a move? And why he became defensive all of a sudden? My natural assumption was that the captain was somehow implicated with this character. Hence, he couldn't try anything. Does the novel talk about this?

3) Noticed that this aforementioned captain walked around with a mild limp. Was the actor legitimately injured or was his character supposed to have been wounded in action or something? Again! Does the novel talk about this?

4) What was the deal with that bulking black guy wearing nothing but a jock strap and a cowboy hat just barging in the interrogation room and slapping the suspects!? Of all the random things!

According to IMDB this actually happened:

"During a Q&A at a screening of the film in Los Angeles, the film's editor Bud Smith claimed that this scene came out of technical advisor Randy Jurgenson's recollections of interrogation techniques that were actually used by the NYC police department precisely because they would appear absurd in any subsequent complaints about police brutality"

Again! Of all the random things!

And why did Pacino remove his hat and tossed it out a nearby window? Out of spite, maybe!?

5) Did that poor kid that was victimized by the authorities press charges?

6) What was the deal with Pacino breaking into the killer's apartment (without a warrant) and was suddenly stalking the killer himself by doing things like peering into the window of his room from across the street and giving off a sinister smile when noticed? Was this a sign that Pacino was becoming one of them?

One of the killers, I mean!?

And was it really that easy to disable an AC fan from the late 1970's by simply jamming a screwdriver between the blades?

7) The scene where Pacino knocks on Ted's door and is greeted instead by his jealous boyfriend (Greg). Their conversation gradually escalates until it reaches a boiling point when he says to Pacino as he closes the door on him. "Ted is too sensitive to have many involvements. We found that out with the last piece of trash that moved in. It must be something about that room, the people it attracts, do you suppose?" This enrages Pacino. As he furiously slams the door with his hands while yelling out "cocksucker" to Greg. I find that homophobic slur hilarious in context of that scene and the movie altogether. No wonder he kept using it in Irishman 😄

But seriously! I was a bit confused. What exactly was Greg implying that triggered Pacino into a blind rage? Was the implication that Pacino himself was "thrash?" I legitimately don't know 😕

8) Pacino begins to "zero in" on the killer by pretending to be "cruising" for anonymous gay sex. To which the killer suggests they do it right there in the tunnel. "Don't worry, Dorothy! There's no one here".

Well! Two questions I have during this exchange:

A) As they were undressing and seemingly getting ready to get down. The killer asks Pacino "how big are you?" To which he replies "I'm party sized". What the hell does that mean!?

B) Afterwards, Pacino asks "hips or lips?" Again! What the hell does that mean!?

Were they negotiating the terms of who gives and who receives!? 🤷‍♀️

9) What happened to that unresolved conflict between the crossdressers and the crooked constables that were extorting them for sex? The good captain seemed incredulous at first until near the end where he is conveniently talking to one of the alleged perpetrators involved in the conspiracy (Joe Spinell) during their investigation on the last murder of the movie.

"Sixth precinct?"

[–] jpssteveshanahan (462) 5 months ago

10) Who exactly was responsible for that final murder of the red haired kid? I doubt it was Pacino, seeing as they developed an amicable relationship throughout the movie. Most likely his jealous boyfriend was to blame. Remember that he threatened Pacino with a kitchen knife during their confrontation just before this murder occurred. Not to mention the authorities specifically said there was no sign of a struggle. Which obviously implies that it must have been someone he knew well enough to let his guard down.

11) And for the million dollar question! What the hell was the ending supposed to mean!? With Pacino looking into the mirror after he finished shaving (yet somehow has a five o clock shadow) and then unto the camera!? I took it to mean that he was "washing away" his old persona but was the implication that he was the killer all along? Was he suffering from post traumatic stress disorder? Did this undercover assignment help rediscover his sexuality? Remember when the captain tells him to take the rest of the week off and there's a scene immediately afterwards of someone with the same features as Pacino/the other killers walking back into the same S&M bar? I naturally assumed it was Pacino's character. With the implication that that "world unto itself" remains with him.

And what was the deal with the girlfriend trying out his S&M attire? At face value it would just seem like she was just messing around (for the hell of it). But being the inquisitive person that I am! I believe there's a deeper meaning to it. Was she somehow involved in the murders, a la "Jill the Ripper?" Was she destined to become the next victim due to Al Pacino (or whoever the real killer was) deciding to switch genders?

[–] jpssteveshanahan (462) 5 months ago

This whole thing left me scratching my head. Don't get me wrong! I prefer stories that are open ended but this movie was an incoherent mess. (I wonder if the missing 45 minutes have something to do with it) and Pacino seemed out of place and disinterested. Which is ironic! Considering that he himself requested the part after reading the script. The director added that Pacino would often arrive late and didn't offer any ideas for his character. I think Friedkin was right when he said that Richard Gere would have been a better choice. Not to mention that the latter was closer in age to the on screen protagonist.

In all honesty this was the worse Al Pacino movie I've seen. Not because he starred in a "gay movie". Although some would argue that this was basically made with the purpose of "shocking" the heterosexual audience. From Wikipedia per Brian Juergens of AfterEllen: "arguing that gay male sexuality does not seem to serve any purpose in the plot other than being a prop to shock heterosexual audiences". There may be some truth to this! As the first 20 minutes consisted mainly of the camera zooming in on naked backsides of men (among other things).

But it wasn't all bad! Saw some familiar faces whom I would never even realized they worked on this. Paul Sorvino (Goodfellas), Mike Starr (Last Dragon), James Remar (TFTC/TFTDS), Joe Spinell (The Godfather, Rocky), even Al Bundy!...Sorry! Ed O'Neill.

And it just hit me! Both Starr and Sorvino appeared in Goodfellas. But never at the same time on screen.

Just like here!

Had to divide my post in three but anyway! This was my initial impression of the movie.

PS: I understand that this is a family oriented forum. So let's keep the comments PG 😁