I just saw it and I found it to be a very peculiar and not sure what to think of it. I like the premise a lot, about a straight police detective having to go undercover in the homosexual BDSM underworld, in order to find a serial killer.
SPOILERS
But I thought maybe the movie kind of got repetitive a lot in the second act, as Pacino's character, spends most of his time just cruising around at random hoping the killer will pop up by luck, and he doesn't really do much else.
I mean in a lot of detective thrillers like Chinatown, The Big Sleep, or Seven for example, it's a puzzle that unravels with one piece of evidence, taking you into the next piece, etc. Here it just feels like maybe he is going through false suspects to fill in the second act, unless I am reading it wrong.
There is also the part of the plot, where the police Captain and his superior are talking and the superior tells him how the gay community is breathing down the department's throat to find the killer and they have to take off the gloves to find him
So their definition of taking off the gloves, is arresting a suspect, who they don't have much significant evidence, on and try to get a confession out of him. They do this by having a muscular man, wearing a thong, come into the room, and beat a confession out of him. They won't let him talk to a lawyer either.
So they want to take off the gloves cause the gay community is putting pressure on them, but wouldn't the gay community come down on them a lot harder, if the suspect decides to go to the media, and talk about how the police arrested him and wouldn't let him see a lawyer, and how they allowed a muscular man beat a confession out of him. A muscular freak in a thong at that.
It seems to me that the gay community would have a much bigger problem with that, then the police not being able to find the murderer yet, and it seemed so illogical.
Also, the ending is meant to ambiguous as to what really happened, but I felt it was too ambiguous perhaps, to the point where it came off as gimmicky, as if the filmmaker wanted to say look how far I can take the ambiguity, but I think he went too far, where the viewer just feels jerked around, at least I did.
But what do you think, maybe I'm looking at it the wrong way.
SPOILERS
But I thought maybe the movie kind of got repetitive a lot in the second act, as Pacino's character, spends most of his time just cruising around at random hoping the killer will pop up by luck, and he doesn't really do much else.
I mean in a lot of detective thrillers like Chinatown, The Big Sleep, or Seven for example, it's a puzzle that unravels with one piece of evidence, taking you into the next piece, etc. Here it just feels like maybe he is going through false suspects to fill in the second act, unless I am reading it wrong.
There is also the part of the plot, where the police Captain and his superior are talking and the superior tells him how the gay community is breathing down the department's throat to find the killer and they have to take off the gloves to find him
So their definition of taking off the gloves, is arresting a suspect, who they don't have much significant evidence, on and try to get a confession out of him. They do this by having a muscular man, wearing a thong, come into the room, and beat a confession out of him. They won't let him talk to a lawyer either.
So they want to take off the gloves cause the gay community is putting pressure on them, but wouldn't the gay community come down on them a lot harder, if the suspect decides to go to the media, and talk about how the police arrested him and wouldn't let him see a lawyer, and how they allowed a muscular man beat a confession out of him. A muscular freak in a thong at that.
It seems to me that the gay community would have a much bigger problem with that, then the police not being able to find the murderer yet, and it seemed so illogical.
Also, the ending is meant to ambiguous as to what really happened, but I felt it was too ambiguous perhaps, to the point where it came off as gimmicky, as if the filmmaker wanted to say look how far I can take the ambiguity, but I think he went too far, where the viewer just feels jerked around, at least I did.
But what do you think, maybe I'm looking at it the wrong way.