what ever they do with this film, please don't ask Edwards and the rest of the Democratic candidates about it. Edwards would probably agree to let his kids' school teacher show it to the class on "Sexual Exposure Day".

Edwards in particular and the rest in general show all be bitched slapped for their hideous, insane responses to the Gay question during Russerts' debate.

TO ALLOW ANYONE OTHER THAN YOUR HUSBAND OR WIFE TO EXPOSE YOUR "2ND GRADER" TO ANY SEXUAL CONTENT---MUCH LESS GAY CONTENT--- DISQUALIFIES ALL OF THOSE PRICKS FROM BECOMING PRESIDENT!

I never saw it, now I can. Actually, what I look forward to is the soundtrack...early American punk/metal, scary stuff for the time.I remember a band called "The Germs" was on it. And since I have always had gay friends, I knew this was not a reflection of gays, but of a strange subculture within a subculture. Think about it, a dominatrix/slave relationship can be between a man & woman, but does that make it a commonplace heterosexual experience?
No.

the film's a time capsule of bar activity that existed in the now fashionable meatpacking district. it was also prophetic: about 20 years later, there would be a killer on the loose, brutally murdering gay men.

Oh yeah, the Reuters article is very stupid--Cruising came out (ahem...) when Carter was President, in the early spring of 1980. Reagan had nothing to do with this film's reception. (But he would've liked Pacino's commie-killing, free enterprise-loving Tony Montana in Scarface)

Who the fuck is editing over at Reuters?

I saw that movie when it was released and thought it was an abomination that should never have been released.

And it was another exhibit in the decline of Al Pacino's acting from the Olympian heights of the first 2 Godfathers and Serpico to over-the-top screaming and yelling.

Seriously, I think Pacino, DeNiro, Nicholson, and Hoffman are national treasures, but they just aren't very good anymore, and that's because U. S. movies in general--in general, I said--aren't as good as they were in the early to mid-1970s.

Friedkin said "I learned people don't get upset when you push the boundaries of violence in films but when you do so in sexual areas you're going to make a lot of people angry."

Still clueless after all these years. The uproar wasn't about violence or sex, per se. It was about yet another movie portrayal of gay men as soulless beasts, killers and victims who must die brutal deaths as punishment for their sexuality. Starring Al freaking Pacino, no less.

Wasn't old enough to understand it when the movie "came out" (pun very much intended)but rented it much later. Pacino was awesome in it. I didn't realize it till today that it was a flop.. By all means, revive it...

I saw this film when it first came out and thought then it was under rated. Not a happy movie, but one that was a realistic portrayal of the hedonistic gay lifestyle at the time. I know I was there so don't listen to those who want to deny such a subculture existed. It did. And this thriller has an ending that is ambiguous but certainly thought provoking.

This movie was awesome. It was not a gay exploitation film, which may be why it was not commercial. It was just too real.

I remember renting this when I was a 17-yr-old twink... it's pretty graphic. I've also wondered why nobody had ever discussed this role of Al Pacino's!!