Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans (2009)

wiredbison82 said:Someone mentioned that Herzog poetry, but I’d argue this film is more akin to prose—and rather benign prose at that.

I mean, it probably wouldn't be any fun if the movie was actually malignant anyway, right?

driftingeagle27 said:I mean, it probably wouldn't be any fun if the movie was actually malignant anyway, right?

True, but for this particular film, being malignant might actually be acceptable. I get the sense there's a bit of posturing involved here, though even an Abel Ferrara film didn't quite hit that mark completely.

I watched this movie two weeks ago and I'm still feeling a bit confused. Usually, that means I’ll give it another viewing, and there's a good chance I'll actually like it.

Regarding the cast, Nicolas Cage is one of my more likable actors. Even though some people can't stand him—and people always bring up that undeserved Oscar—he's proven to be an incredibly profitable actor who knows how to pick projects that hit the right notes for critics and audiences alike. In the 2000s alone, he pulled off five or six high-quality performances, ranging from Adaptation to Weather Man all the way to Bad Lieutenant.

As for Eva Mendes, she isn't my choice either. It's not because of her looks—that's subjective—but simply because I don't consider her a strong actress.

Bottom line: I pretty much like everything Werner Herzog has done, but my favorite era is still Herzog - Kinski.

wiredbison82 said:True, but for this particular film, being malignant might actually be acceptable. I get the sense there's a bit of posturing involved here, though even an Abel Ferrara film didn't quite hit that mark completely.

I don't get it, are you saying it would be better if the director just leaned into being a villain?

Btw who is Abel Ferrara?

Just kidding 🙂.

Joshua Smith5 said:I watched this movie two weeks ago and I'm still feeling a bit confused. Usually, that means I’ll give it another viewing, and there's a good chance I'll actually like it.

Regarding the cast, Nicolas Cage is one of my more likable actors. Even though some people can't stand him—and people always bring up that undeserved Oscar—he's proven to be an incredibly profitable actor who knows how to pick projects that hit the right notes for critics and audiences alike. In the 2000s alone, he pulled off five or six high-quality performances, ranging from Adaptation to Weather Man all the way to Bad Lieutenant.

As for Eva Mendes, she isn't my choice either. It's not because of her looks—that's subjective—but simply because I don't consider her a strong actress.

Bottom line: I pretty much like everything Werner Herzog has done, but my favorite era is still Herzog - Kinski.

Look, just so there's no confusion, I was left scratching my head too, honestly. 😁.

Joshua Smith5 said:I watched this movie two weeks ago and I'm still feeling a bit confused. Usually, that means I’ll give it another viewing, and there's a good chance I'll actually like it.

Regarding the cast, Nicolas Cage is one of my more likable actors. Even though some people can't stand him—and people always bring up that undeserved Oscar—he's proven to be an incredibly profitable actor who knows how to pick projects that hit the right notes for critics and audiences alike. In the 2000s alone, he pulled off five or six high-quality performances, ranging from Adaptation to Weather Man all the way to Bad Lieutenant.

As for Eva Mendes, she isn't my choice either. It's not because of her looks—that's subjective—but simply because I don't consider her a strong actress.

Bottom line: I pretty much like everything Werner Herzog has done, but my favorite era is still Herzog - Kinski.

I’d say she actually pulled the role off pretty well, honestly. I shouldn't even let myself wonder what it would've looked like if they'd gone with someone like Penélope Cruz or some other heavy hitter instead. 😱.

Herzog says he was dead set on her, but things got messy with the producers, only for that same guy who caused all the drama to call him later and act like, "Hey, we actually had a killer idea!"

Joshua Smith5 said:I watched this movie two weeks ago and I'm still feeling a bit confused. Usually, that means I’ll give it another viewing, and there's a good chance I'll actually like it.

Regarding the cast, Nicolas Cage is one of my more likable actors. Even though some people can't stand him—and people always bring up that undeserved Oscar—he's proven to be an incredibly profitable actor who knows how to pick projects that hit the right notes for critics and audiences alike. In the 2000s alone, he pulled off five or six high-quality performances, ranging from Adaptation to Weather Man all the way to Bad Lieutenant.

As for Eva Mendes, she isn't my choice either. It's not because of her looks—that's subjective—but simply because I don't consider her a strong actress.

Bottom line: I pretty much like everything Werner Herzog has done, but my favorite era is still Herzog - Kinski.

It’s hard to compete with Aguirre; I mean, those few seconds where Klaus Kinski grabs that little monkey, stares it down, and tosses it into the water is worth more than most movies ever made. 😁But honestly, if you ask me, Kaspar Hauser is the most incredible part of that whole thing.

Look, she gave her absolute best performance in this one. I just hope Hollywood doesn't try to turn her into the next Halle Berry, hand her an Oscar (mostly because she showed skin, had a total meltdown, and let a charming guy like Billy Bob Thornton run circles around her), and then completely toss her aside. 😁

Yeah, Aguirre is my favorite Herzog film. Pure poetry. As for Klaus Kinski, in my eyes, he stands right behind Brand as the greatest actor of the 20th century. No need to waste words there.

driftingeagle27 said:I don't get it, are you saying it would be better if the director just leaned into being a villain?

Btw who is Abel Ferrara?

Just kidding 🙂.

Not necessarily a villain, but if you caught my drift, yes. I'm actually planning to write a proper review of the film here on this thread soon, where I can really articulate some specific thoughts regarding the movie and Herzog's work in general.

It's certainly a conversation starter, regardless.

wiredbison82 said:Not necessarily a villain, but if you caught my drift, yes. I'm actually planning to write a proper review of the film here on this thread soon, where I can really articulate some specific thoughts regarding the movie and Herzog's work in general.

It's certainly a conversation starter, regardless.

Uh, if I'm following you correctly, that's pretty much the last thing I'd want or expect from Werner Herzog.

Write 🙂.

driftingeagle27 said:So, I decided to entertain myself a bit: for those of you who hated the movie, just lay out exactly what didn't sit right with you, and I'll go through your complaints point by point. 🙂

I don't know if you dig Nicolas Cage or not, but I've been a fan since way back. I'm not quite sure what people mean by him being "unbelievable" in this context, because to me, the Bad Lieutenant is just hilarious and touching all at once—he’s just that guy, totally unhinged yet deeply human, which makes him more than believable to me.

When it comes to believability, you have to look at how Werner Herzog operates—that constant tension between the accountant's version of the truth and some kind of ecstatic, raw reality. At the end of the day, we're talking about cinema here, not whether someone got their change right at the local grocery store.

Exactly. 🙂

I don't see what the big deal is if someone doesn't have one specific goal to chase, though I guess that's why Herzog poetry hits differently. I don't know what you're getting at with that, but I'm just sitting here waiting for something actually worth my time to show up on the feed. Just one goal that’s pretty damn obvious: trying to keep the whole thing from falling apart.

Look, let's just be real about it: this guy is... Not bad..

In that scene, Cage clearly has his eyes on the prize, and sex isn't even a factor in his head. Now, if that woman is just some regular person, then we're looking at one of the absolute worst horrors this movie puts in front of us.

I’d say Roger Ebert didn't exactly nail that one, though we can't forget the guy's packing a pretty massive piece in that scene. You really have to wonder if she's just playing along or if she actually means it. It's an incredibly weird moment, easily one of the most absurdly hilarious things I've ever seen on screen, yet probably the most deeply uncomfortable part of the whole movie.

Honestly, I think this might be the most explicit sexual scene in any Werner Herzog film I've ever seen, at least from what I've watched. Even just on its own merits, it probably deserves its own deep dive, but maybe we can save that for later.

And why wouldn't she be beautiful?

Prostitutes aren't necessarily ugly, especially when they come with that high-end price tag.
It’s all about that ecstatic truth, the kind of raw, unvarnished reality that hits you right in the gut when everything else feels like a lie.

For most of the movie, this guy doesn't even seem like he matters that much, but he definitely hits some high notes here and there. That arrest scene near the end is a standout, for sure. Whether he's just background noise or front and center, Val Kilmer is honestly killing it in this one.

Pure admiration right here 🙂. 🤷

I don't really fall into that camp. Adaptation is actually one of my favorites.

The villain they've given us is hilarious yet touching—just... the way he is, frantic and human... which makes him more than believable to me.

You’re talking about the character on the page here, not Nicolas Cage's performance. It sounds like you think, "the character is so unstable that no matter how Nicolas Cage plays him, it'll work, because there are so many ways to be mentally ill."

I don't see why it's an issue if someone doesn't have one concrete goal. Herzog poetry's treacherous fiancé, however, does have at least one fairly obvious goal: just trying not to fall apart....

I wouldn't call that a "goal"; it's more of a survival instinct. That doesn't make him any more distinct from every other cinematic degenerate (except for the ones who end up killing themselves).

Well, let's just say it plainly: this guy is likable.

Heh, double standards when dealing with reality versus cinema. Would you grab a beer with him?

In that scene, Nicolas Cage has a clear objective, and sex isn't even on his mind. Now, is that girl ordinary? If she is, then this movie depicts one of the absolute worst horrors imaginable.

In what sense is she ordinary? If you mean her mental state, she's anything but. That girl (drunk and/or high at the moment) gives the impression of someone who's going to post on her blog or Facebook later about how some creep forced himself on her.

I'd also argue that Roger Ebert didn't quite catch everything. But then again, let's not forget the instigator is holding a (pretty large) gun. So, is she acting like she wants it, or does she actually want it?

Give me a break... the point is that Nicolas Cage said nothing to her. The fact that she took the initiative tells you everything you need to know about her. Either that, or she's been through this before and knows exactly what to do.🤣

That scene is utterly bizarre—honestly, one of the most absurdly hilarious things I’ve ever seen on screen.

It didn't strike me as weird, just a pale imitation of the original.

By the way, I suspect this might be the most explicit sexual scene in the entire filmography of Werner Herzog, at least from what I've watched.

Quite possible.
But that doesn't mean it's superior just because it's more graphic than his other scenes.

And why wouldn't it be beautiful?

I take it you haven't seen Maid, because then you'd understand my perspective.

On a side note, I can't recall the details regarding her cost. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

That character might not seem particularly vital for much of the movie, but he certainly has his moments. Especially that arrest scene toward the end. Whether he feels incidental or essential, Val Kilmer is truly excellent in this film.

I honestly don't remember anything from that scene at all 🤷 ...so, there you have it. That was the impression it left on me.

(Moderate to heavy spoilers ahead, though I wouldn't say anything too crazy—and if I recount the whole movie, you'll probably just need to go see it for yourself anyway 😁)

goldenhound32 said:I don't really fall into that camp. Adaptation is actually one of my favorites.

The villain they've given us is hilarious yet touching—just... the way he is, frantic and human... which makes him more than believable to me.

You’re talking about the character on the page here, not Nicolas Cage's performance. It sounds like you think, "the character is so unstable that no matter how Nicolas Cage plays him, it'll work, because there are so many ways to be mentally ill."

I don't see why it's an issue if someone doesn't have one concrete goal. Herzog poetry's treacherous fiancé, however, does have at least one fairly obvious goal: just trying not to fall apart....

I wouldn't call that a "goal"; it's more of a survival instinct. That doesn't make him any more distinct from every other cinematic degenerate (except for the ones who end up killing themselves).

Well, let's just say it plainly: this guy is likable.

Heh, double standards when dealing with reality versus cinema. Would you grab a beer with him?

In that scene, Nicolas Cage has a clear objective, and sex isn't even on his mind. Now, is that girl ordinary? If she is, then this movie depicts one of the absolute worst horrors imaginable.

In what sense is she ordinary? If you mean her mental state, she's anything but. That girl (drunk and/or high at the moment) gives the impression of someone who's going to post on her blog or Facebook later about how some creep forced himself on her.

I'd also argue that Roger Ebert didn't quite catch everything. But then again, let's not forget the instigator is holding a (pretty large) gun. So, is she acting like she wants it, or does she actually want it?

Give me a break... the point is that Nicolas Cage said nothing to her. The fact that she took the initiative tells you everything you need to know about her. Either that, or she's been through this before and knows exactly what to do.🤣

That scene is utterly bizarre—honestly, one of the most absurdly hilarious things I’ve ever seen on screen.

It didn't strike me as weird, just a pale imitation of the original.

By the way, I suspect this might be the most explicit sexual scene in the entire filmography of Werner Herzog, at least from what I've watched.

Quite possible.
But that doesn't mean it's superior just because it's more graphic than his other scenes.

And why wouldn't it be beautiful?

I take it you haven't seen Maid, because then you'd understand my perspective.

On a side note, I can't recall the details regarding her cost. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

That character might not seem particularly vital for much of the movie, but he certainly has his moments. Especially that arrest scene toward the end. Whether he feels incidental or essential, Val Kilmer is truly excellent in this film.

I honestly don't remember anything from that scene at all 🤷 ...so, there you have it. That was the impression it left on me.

I’m not going to dive into Adaptation right now; we’re talking about this movie. In any case, good to know you aren't a hater when it comes to this actor.

goldenhound32 said:I don't really fall into that camp. Adaptation is actually one of my favorites.

The villain they've given us is hilarious yet touching—just... the way he is, frantic and human... which makes him more than believable to me.

You’re talking about the character on the page here, not Nicolas Cage's performance. It sounds like you think, "the character is so unstable that no matter how Nicolas Cage plays him, it'll work, because there are so many ways to be mentally ill."

I don't see why it's an issue if someone doesn't have one concrete goal. Herzog poetry's treacherous fiancé, however, does have at least one fairly obvious goal: just trying not to fall apart....

I wouldn't call that a "goal"; it's more of a survival instinct. That doesn't make him any more distinct from every other cinematic degenerate (except for the ones who end up killing themselves).

Well, let's just say it plainly: this guy is likable.

Heh, double standards when dealing with reality versus cinema. Would you grab a beer with him?

In that scene, Nicolas Cage has a clear objective, and sex isn't even on his mind. Now, is that girl ordinary? If she is, then this movie depicts one of the absolute worst horrors imaginable.

In what sense is she ordinary? If you mean her mental state, she's anything but. That girl (drunk and/or high at the moment) gives the impression of someone who's going to post on her blog or Facebook later about how some creep forced himself on her.

I'd also argue that Roger Ebert didn't quite catch everything. But then again, let's not forget the instigator is holding a (pretty large) gun. So, is she acting like she wants it, or does she actually want it?

Give me a break... the point is that Nicolas Cage said nothing to her. The fact that she took the initiative tells you everything you need to know about her. Either that, or she's been through this before and knows exactly what to do.🤣

That scene is utterly bizarre—honestly, one of the most absurdly hilarious things I’ve ever seen on screen.

It didn't strike me as weird, just a pale imitation of the original.

By the way, I suspect this might be the most explicit sexual scene in the entire filmography of Werner Herzog, at least from what I've watched.

Quite possible.
But that doesn't mean it's superior just because it's more graphic than his other scenes.

And why wouldn't it be beautiful?

I take it you haven't seen Maid, because then you'd understand my perspective.

On a side note, I can't recall the details regarding her cost. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

That character might not seem particularly vital for much of the movie, but he certainly has his moments. Especially that arrest scene toward the end. Whether he feels incidental or essential, Val Kilmer is truly excellent in this film.

I honestly don't remember anything from that scene at all 🤷 ...so, there you have it. That was the impression it left on me.

No. I haven't read the script—I watched the movie. I'm talking about the character I saw in the film I actually watched; he's played by Nicolas Cage. Someone somewhere wrote that his hair alone in this movie deserves an Oscar 😁. There's something to that...

goldenhound32 said:I don't really fall into that camp. Adaptation is actually one of my favorites.

The villain they've given us is hilarious yet touching—just... the way he is, frantic and human... which makes him more than believable to me.

You’re talking about the character on the page here, not Nicolas Cage's performance. It sounds like you think, "the character is so unstable that no matter how Nicolas Cage plays him, it'll work, because there are so many ways to be mentally ill."

I don't see why it's an issue if someone doesn't have one concrete goal. Herzog poetry's treacherous fiancé, however, does have at least one fairly obvious goal: just trying not to fall apart....

I wouldn't call that a "goal"; it's more of a survival instinct. That doesn't make him any more distinct from every other cinematic degenerate (except for the ones who end up killing themselves).

Well, let's just say it plainly: this guy is likable.

Heh, double standards when dealing with reality versus cinema. Would you grab a beer with him?

In that scene, Nicolas Cage has a clear objective, and sex isn't even on his mind. Now, is that girl ordinary? If she is, then this movie depicts one of the absolute worst horrors imaginable.

In what sense is she ordinary? If you mean her mental state, she's anything but. That girl (drunk and/or high at the moment) gives the impression of someone who's going to post on her blog or Facebook later about how some creep forced himself on her.

I'd also argue that Roger Ebert didn't quite catch everything. But then again, let's not forget the instigator is holding a (pretty large) gun. So, is she acting like she wants it, or does she actually want it?

Give me a break... the point is that Nicolas Cage said nothing to her. The fact that she took the initiative tells you everything you need to know about her. Either that, or she's been through this before and knows exactly what to do.🤣

That scene is utterly bizarre—honestly, one of the most absurdly hilarious things I’ve ever seen on screen.

It didn't strike me as weird, just a pale imitation of the original.

By the way, I suspect this might be the most explicit sexual scene in the entire filmography of Werner Herzog, at least from what I've watched.

Quite possible.
But that doesn't mean it's superior just because it's more graphic than his other scenes.

And why wouldn't it be beautiful?

I take it you haven't seen Maid, because then you'd understand my perspective.

On a side note, I can't recall the details regarding her cost. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

That character might not seem particularly vital for much of the movie, but he certainly has his moments. Especially that arrest scene toward the end. Whether he feels incidental or essential, Val Kilmer is truly excellent in this film.

I honestly don't remember anything from that scene at all 🤷 ...so, there you have it. That was the impression it left on me.

It seems like you and I have a fundamental conceptual disagreement here: you seem to want to dissect—to grasp and judge—this thing as if it were just some standard crime drama. I'm not saying you can't do that, and that approach isn't worthless, but in my view, it shouldn't be the only way to look at it.

To me, Werner Herzog's films connect with people and their lives precisely because he doesn't pretend that you can linearly or academically "tell" or experience some profound art through a film like it's some textbook lesson.

It's kind of like trying to understand Michael Haneke's Funny Games strictly as a slasher horror.

Except Haneke is more of a planner and a theorist, whereas Herzog... he's a poet.

Give the director the genre so you can get to know them better. But then, let the viewer enjoy the post-genre film they end up making...

goldenhound32 said:I don't really fall into that camp. Adaptation is actually one of my favorites.

The villain they've given us is hilarious yet touching—just... the way he is, frantic and human... which makes him more than believable to me.

You’re talking about the character on the page here, not Nicolas Cage's performance. It sounds like you think, "the character is so unstable that no matter how Nicolas Cage plays him, it'll work, because there are so many ways to be mentally ill."

I don't see why it's an issue if someone doesn't have one concrete goal. Herzog poetry's treacherous fiancé, however, does have at least one fairly obvious goal: just trying not to fall apart....

I wouldn't call that a "goal"; it's more of a survival instinct. That doesn't make him any more distinct from every other cinematic degenerate (except for the ones who end up killing themselves).

Well, let's just say it plainly: this guy is likable.

Heh, double standards when dealing with reality versus cinema. Would you grab a beer with him?

In that scene, Nicolas Cage has a clear objective, and sex isn't even on his mind. Now, is that girl ordinary? If she is, then this movie depicts one of the absolute worst horrors imaginable.

In what sense is she ordinary? If you mean her mental state, she's anything but. That girl (drunk and/or high at the moment) gives the impression of someone who's going to post on her blog or Facebook later about how some creep forced himself on her.

I'd also argue that Roger Ebert didn't quite catch everything. But then again, let's not forget the instigator is holding a (pretty large) gun. So, is she acting like she wants it, or does she actually want it?

Give me a break... the point is that Nicolas Cage said nothing to her. The fact that she took the initiative tells you everything you need to know about her. Either that, or she's been through this before and knows exactly what to do.🤣

That scene is utterly bizarre—honestly, one of the most absurdly hilarious things I’ve ever seen on screen.

It didn't strike me as weird, just a pale imitation of the original.

By the way, I suspect this might be the most explicit sexual scene in the entire filmography of Werner Herzog, at least from what I've watched.

Quite possible.
But that doesn't mean it's superior just because it's more graphic than his other scenes.

And why wouldn't it be beautiful?

I take it you haven't seen Maid, because then you'd understand my perspective.

On a side note, I can't recall the details regarding her cost. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

That character might not seem particularly vital for much of the movie, but he certainly has his moments. Especially that arrest scene toward the end. Whether he feels incidental or essential, Val Kilmer is truly excellent in this film.

I honestly don't remember anything from that scene at all 🤷 ...so, there you have it. That was the impression it left on me.

Let's be clear here: I'd definitely grab a drink with Nicolas Cage. With that lieutenant from the movie... well, maybe. But only if the director is there too, just so he can, you know... keep things 😛 under control
.

goldenhound32 said:I don't really fall into that camp. Adaptation is actually one of my favorites.

The villain they've given us is hilarious yet touching—just... the way he is, frantic and human... which makes him more than believable to me.

You’re talking about the character on the page here, not Nicolas Cage's performance. It sounds like you think, "the character is so unstable that no matter how Nicolas Cage plays him, it'll work, because there are so many ways to be mentally ill."

I don't see why it's an issue if someone doesn't have one concrete goal. Herzog poetry's treacherous fiancé, however, does have at least one fairly obvious goal: just trying not to fall apart....

I wouldn't call that a "goal"; it's more of a survival instinct. That doesn't make him any more distinct from every other cinematic degenerate (except for the ones who end up killing themselves).

Well, let's just say it plainly: this guy is likable.

Heh, double standards when dealing with reality versus cinema. Would you grab a beer with him?

In that scene, Nicolas Cage has a clear objective, and sex isn't even on his mind. Now, is that girl ordinary? If she is, then this movie depicts one of the absolute worst horrors imaginable.

In what sense is she ordinary? If you mean her mental state, she's anything but. That girl (drunk and/or high at the moment) gives the impression of someone who's going to post on her blog or Facebook later about how some creep forced himself on her.

I'd also argue that Roger Ebert didn't quite catch everything. But then again, let's not forget the instigator is holding a (pretty large) gun. So, is she acting like she wants it, or does she actually want it?

Give me a break... the point is that Nicolas Cage said nothing to her. The fact that she took the initiative tells you everything you need to know about her. Either that, or she's been through this before and knows exactly what to do.🤣

That scene is utterly bizarre—honestly, one of the most absurdly hilarious things I’ve ever seen on screen.

It didn't strike me as weird, just a pale imitation of the original.

By the way, I suspect this might be the most explicit sexual scene in the entire filmography of Werner Herzog, at least from what I've watched.

Quite possible.
But that doesn't mean it's superior just because it's more graphic than his other scenes.

And why wouldn't it be beautiful?

I take it you haven't seen Maid, because then you'd understand my perspective.

On a side note, I can't recall the details regarding her cost. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

That character might not seem particularly vital for much of the movie, but he certainly has his moments. Especially that arrest scene toward the end. Whether he feels incidental or essential, Val Kilmer is truly excellent in this film.

I honestly don't remember anything from that scene at all 🤷 ...so, there you have it. That was the impression it left on me.

And that kind of suggests that she isn't ordinary, or maybe she is...? All I'm saying is, I don't know.

goldenhound32 said:I don't really fall into that camp. Adaptation is actually one of my favorites.

The villain they've given us is hilarious yet touching—just... the way he is, frantic and human... which makes him more than believable to me.

You’re talking about the character on the page here, not Nicolas Cage's performance. It sounds like you think, "the character is so unstable that no matter how Nicolas Cage plays him, it'll work, because there are so many ways to be mentally ill."

I don't see why it's an issue if someone doesn't have one concrete goal. Herzog poetry's treacherous fiancé, however, does have at least one fairly obvious goal: just trying not to fall apart....

I wouldn't call that a "goal"; it's more of a survival instinct. That doesn't make him any more distinct from every other cinematic degenerate (except for the ones who end up killing themselves).

Well, let's just say it plainly: this guy is likable.

Heh, double standards when dealing with reality versus cinema. Would you grab a beer with him?

In that scene, Nicolas Cage has a clear objective, and sex isn't even on his mind. Now, is that girl ordinary? If she is, then this movie depicts one of the absolute worst horrors imaginable.

In what sense is she ordinary? If you mean her mental state, she's anything but. That girl (drunk and/or high at the moment) gives the impression of someone who's going to post on her blog or Facebook later about how some creep forced himself on her.

I'd also argue that Roger Ebert didn't quite catch everything. But then again, let's not forget the instigator is holding a (pretty large) gun. So, is she acting like she wants it, or does she actually want it?

Give me a break... the point is that Nicolas Cage said nothing to her. The fact that she took the initiative tells you everything you need to know about her. Either that, or she's been through this before and knows exactly what to do.🤣

That scene is utterly bizarre—honestly, one of the most absurdly hilarious things I’ve ever seen on screen.

It didn't strike me as weird, just a pale imitation of the original.

By the way, I suspect this might be the most explicit sexual scene in the entire filmography of Werner Herzog, at least from what I've watched.

Quite possible.
But that doesn't mean it's superior just because it's more graphic than his other scenes.

And why wouldn't it be beautiful?

I take it you haven't seen Maid, because then you'd understand my perspective.

On a side note, I can't recall the details regarding her cost. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

That character might not seem particularly vital for much of the movie, but he certainly has his moments. Especially that arrest scene toward the end. Whether he feels incidental or essential, Val Kilmer is truly excellent in this film.

I honestly don't remember anything from that scene at all 🤷 ...so, there you have it. That was the impression it left on me.

Sure, but a gun and the fear of prison probably speak louder than a thousand words. Then again, did that gun trigger (just) fear, or... did it drive her to take that kind of action?

goldenhound32 said:I don't really fall into that camp. Adaptation is actually one of my favorites.

The villain they've given us is hilarious yet touching—just... the way he is, frantic and human... which makes him more than believable to me.

You’re talking about the character on the page here, not Nicolas Cage's performance. It sounds like you think, "the character is so unstable that no matter how Nicolas Cage plays him, it'll work, because there are so many ways to be mentally ill."

I don't see why it's an issue if someone doesn't have one concrete goal. Herzog poetry's treacherous fiancé, however, does have at least one fairly obvious goal: just trying not to fall apart....

I wouldn't call that a "goal"; it's more of a survival instinct. That doesn't make him any more distinct from every other cinematic degenerate (except for the ones who end up killing themselves).

Well, let's just say it plainly: this guy is likable.

Heh, double standards when dealing with reality versus cinema. Would you grab a beer with him?

In that scene, Nicolas Cage has a clear objective, and sex isn't even on his mind. Now, is that girl ordinary? If she is, then this movie depicts one of the absolute worst horrors imaginable.

In what sense is she ordinary? If you mean her mental state, she's anything but. That girl (drunk and/or high at the moment) gives the impression of someone who's going to post on her blog or Facebook later about how some creep forced himself on her.

I'd also argue that Roger Ebert didn't quite catch everything. But then again, let's not forget the instigator is holding a (pretty large) gun. So, is she acting like she wants it, or does she actually want it?

Give me a break... the point is that Nicolas Cage said nothing to her. The fact that she took the initiative tells you everything you need to know about her. Either that, or she's been through this before and knows exactly what to do.🤣

That scene is utterly bizarre—honestly, one of the most absurdly hilarious things I’ve ever seen on screen.

It didn't strike me as weird, just a pale imitation of the original.

By the way, I suspect this might be the most explicit sexual scene in the entire filmography of Werner Herzog, at least from what I've watched.

Quite possible.
But that doesn't mean it's superior just because it's more graphic than his other scenes.

And why wouldn't it be beautiful?

I take it you haven't seen Maid, because then you'd understand my perspective.

On a side note, I can't recall the details regarding her cost. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

That character might not seem particularly vital for much of the movie, but he certainly has his moments. Especially that arrest scene toward the end. Whether he feels incidental or essential, Val Kilmer is truly excellent in this film.

I honestly don't remember anything from that scene at all 🤷 ...so, there you have it. That was the impression it left on me.

Oh right, there's that other movie too, I keep forgetting... 😛

goldenhound32 said:I don't really fall into that camp. Adaptation is actually one of my favorites.

The villain they've given us is hilarious yet touching—just... the way he is, frantic and human... which makes him more than believable to me.

You’re talking about the character on the page here, not Nicolas Cage's performance. It sounds like you think, "the character is so unstable that no matter how Nicolas Cage plays him, it'll work, because there are so many ways to be mentally ill."

I don't see why it's an issue if someone doesn't have one concrete goal. Herzog poetry's treacherous fiancé, however, does have at least one fairly obvious goal: just trying not to fall apart....

I wouldn't call that a "goal"; it's more of a survival instinct. That doesn't make him any more distinct from every other cinematic degenerate (except for the ones who end up killing themselves).

Well, let's just say it plainly: this guy is likable.

Heh, double standards when dealing with reality versus cinema. Would you grab a beer with him?

In that scene, Nicolas Cage has a clear objective, and sex isn't even on his mind. Now, is that girl ordinary? If she is, then this movie depicts one of the absolute worst horrors imaginable.

In what sense is she ordinary? If you mean her mental state, she's anything but. That girl (drunk and/or high at the moment) gives the impression of someone who's going to post on her blog or Facebook later about how some creep forced himself on her.

I'd also argue that Roger Ebert didn't quite catch everything. But then again, let's not forget the instigator is holding a (pretty large) gun. So, is she acting like she wants it, or does she actually want it?

Give me a break... the point is that Nicolas Cage said nothing to her. The fact that she took the initiative tells you everything you need to know about her. Either that, or she's been through this before and knows exactly what to do.🤣

That scene is utterly bizarre—honestly, one of the most absurdly hilarious things I’ve ever seen on screen.

It didn't strike me as weird, just a pale imitation of the original.

By the way, I suspect this might be the most explicit sexual scene in the entire filmography of Werner Herzog, at least from what I've watched.

Quite possible.
But that doesn't mean it's superior just because it's more graphic than his other scenes.

And why wouldn't it be beautiful?

I take it you haven't seen Maid, because then you'd understand my perspective.

On a side note, I can't recall the details regarding her cost. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

That character might not seem particularly vital for much of the movie, but he certainly has his moments. Especially that arrest scene toward the end. Whether he feels incidental or essential, Val Kilmer is truly excellent in this film.

I honestly don't remember anything from that scene at all 🤷 ...so, there you have it. That was the impression it left on me.

I'm not saying it's better just because of that, but I am saying that might be the exact reason it deserves its own analysis.

goldenhound32 said:I don't really fall into that camp. Adaptation is actually one of my favorites.

The villain they've given us is hilarious yet touching—just... the way he is, frantic and human... which makes him more than believable to me.

You’re talking about the character on the page here, not Nicolas Cage's performance. It sounds like you think, "the character is so unstable that no matter how Nicolas Cage plays him, it'll work, because there are so many ways to be mentally ill."

I don't see why it's an issue if someone doesn't have one concrete goal. Herzog poetry's treacherous fiancé, however, does have at least one fairly obvious goal: just trying not to fall apart....

I wouldn't call that a "goal"; it's more of a survival instinct. That doesn't make him any more distinct from every other cinematic degenerate (except for the ones who end up killing themselves).

Well, let's just say it plainly: this guy is likable.

Heh, double standards when dealing with reality versus cinema. Would you grab a beer with him?

In that scene, Nicolas Cage has a clear objective, and sex isn't even on his mind. Now, is that girl ordinary? If she is, then this movie depicts one of the absolute worst horrors imaginable.

In what sense is she ordinary? If you mean her mental state, she's anything but. That girl (drunk and/or high at the moment) gives the impression of someone who's going to post on her blog or Facebook later about how some creep forced himself on her.

I'd also argue that Roger Ebert didn't quite catch everything. But then again, let's not forget the instigator is holding a (pretty large) gun. So, is she acting like she wants it, or does she actually want it?

Give me a break... the point is that Nicolas Cage said nothing to her. The fact that she took the initiative tells you everything you need to know about her. Either that, or she's been through this before and knows exactly what to do.🤣

That scene is utterly bizarre—honestly, one of the most absurdly hilarious things I’ve ever seen on screen.

It didn't strike me as weird, just a pale imitation of the original.

By the way, I suspect this might be the most explicit sexual scene in the entire filmography of Werner Herzog, at least from what I've watched.

Quite possible.
But that doesn't mean it's superior just because it's more graphic than his other scenes.

And why wouldn't it be beautiful?

I take it you haven't seen Maid, because then you'd understand my perspective.

On a side note, I can't recall the details regarding her cost. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

That character might not seem particularly vital for much of the movie, but he certainly has his moments. Especially that arrest scene toward the end. Whether he feels incidental or essential, Val Kilmer is truly excellent in this film.

I honestly don't remember anything from that scene at all 🤷 ...so, there you have it. That was the impression it left on me.

Maybe I am, but that was a long time ago. Anyway,

goldenhound32 said:I don't really fall into that camp. Adaptation is actually one of my favorites.

The villain they've given us is hilarious yet touching—just... the way he is, frantic and human... which makes him more than believable to me.

You’re talking about the character on the page here, not Nicolas Cage's performance. It sounds like you think, "the character is so unstable that no matter how Nicolas Cage plays him, it'll work, because there are so many ways to be mentally ill."

I don't see why it's an issue if someone doesn't have one concrete goal. Herzog poetry's treacherous fiancé, however, does have at least one fairly obvious goal: just trying not to fall apart....

I wouldn't call that a "goal"; it's more of a survival instinct. That doesn't make him any more distinct from every other cinematic degenerate (except for the ones who end up killing themselves).

Well, let's just say it plainly: this guy is likable.

Heh, double standards when dealing with reality versus cinema. Would you grab a beer with him?

In that scene, Nicolas Cage has a clear objective, and sex isn't even on his mind. Now, is that girl ordinary? If she is, then this movie depicts one of the absolute worst horrors imaginable.

In what sense is she ordinary? If you mean her mental state, she's anything but. That girl (drunk and/or high at the moment) gives the impression of someone who's going to post on her blog or Facebook later about how some creep forced himself on her.

I'd also argue that Roger Ebert didn't quite catch everything. But then again, let's not forget the instigator is holding a (pretty large) gun. So, is she acting like she wants it, or does she actually want it?

Give me a break... the point is that Nicolas Cage said nothing to her. The fact that she took the initiative tells you everything you need to know about her. Either that, or she's been through this before and knows exactly what to do.🤣

That scene is utterly bizarre—honestly, one of the most absurdly hilarious things I’ve ever seen on screen.

It didn't strike me as weird, just a pale imitation of the original.

By the way, I suspect this might be the most explicit sexual scene in the entire filmography of Werner Herzog, at least from what I've watched.

Quite possible.
But that doesn't mean it's superior just because it's more graphic than his other scenes.

And why wouldn't it be beautiful?

I take it you haven't seen Maid, because then you'd understand my perspective.

On a side note, I can't recall the details regarding her cost. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

That character might not seem particularly vital for much of the movie, but he certainly has his moments. Especially that arrest scene toward the end. Whether he feels incidental or essential, Val Kilmer is truly excellent in this film.

I honestly don't remember anything from that scene at all 🤷 ...so, there you have it. That was the impression it left on me.

Well, you've seen her neighborhood, and you know exactly what kind of clients she's dealing with. 😕.

goldenhound32 said:I don't really fall into that camp. Adaptation is actually one of my favorites.

The villain they've given us is hilarious yet touching—just... the way he is, frantic and human... which makes him more than believable to me.

You’re talking about the character on the page here, not Nicolas Cage's performance. It sounds like you think, "the character is so unstable that no matter how Nicolas Cage plays him, it'll work, because there are so many ways to be mentally ill."

I don't see why it's an issue if someone doesn't have one concrete goal. Herzog poetry's treacherous fiancé, however, does have at least one fairly obvious goal: just trying not to fall apart....

I wouldn't call that a "goal"; it's more of a survival instinct. That doesn't make him any more distinct from every other cinematic degenerate (except for the ones who end up killing themselves).

Well, let's just say it plainly: this guy is likable.

Heh, double standards when dealing with reality versus cinema. Would you grab a beer with him?

In that scene, Nicolas Cage has a clear objective, and sex isn't even on his mind. Now, is that girl ordinary? If she is, then this movie depicts one of the absolute worst horrors imaginable.

In what sense is she ordinary? If you mean her mental state, she's anything but. That girl (drunk and/or high at the moment) gives the impression of someone who's going to post on her blog or Facebook later about how some creep forced himself on her.

I'd also argue that Roger Ebert didn't quite catch everything. But then again, let's not forget the instigator is holding a (pretty large) gun. So, is she acting like she wants it, or does she actually want it?

Give me a break... the point is that Nicolas Cage said nothing to her. The fact that she took the initiative tells you everything you need to know about her. Either that, or she's been through this before and knows exactly what to do.🤣

That scene is utterly bizarre—honestly, one of the most absurdly hilarious things I’ve ever seen on screen.

It didn't strike me as weird, just a pale imitation of the original.

By the way, I suspect this might be the most explicit sexual scene in the entire filmography of Werner Herzog, at least from what I've watched.

Quite possible.
But that doesn't mean it's superior just because it's more graphic than his other scenes.

And why wouldn't it be beautiful?

I take it you haven't seen Maid, because then you'd understand my perspective.

On a side note, I can't recall the details regarding her cost. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

That character might not seem particularly vital for much of the movie, but he certainly has his moments. Especially that arrest scene toward the end. Whether he feels incidental or essential, Val Kilmer is truly excellent in this film.

I honestly don't remember anything from that scene at all 🤷 ...so, there you have it. That was the impression it left on me.

So now I can finally say it—you were watching that with some serious attention to detail and actual insight. 🙂Val shows he knows exactly what kind of junkie he is, choosing to just execute the criminal instead of actually making an arrest.

Maybe he’d have popped more if he’d rocked a red wig and cranked his volume up about eight notches, but honestly, I didn't see the need; the way he played the role was actually pretty well thought out and executed. If they had leaned too hard into the partner's performance, the screen would've just felt cluttered, and frankly, that probably would've backfired anyway.

Who would’ve thought we’d actually reach the day where driftingeagle27 and I end up liking the exact same movie... 🤔 😬
I won't drone on too long, just wanted to mention that Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans is easily one of my favorites from this year. It was super fun 🙂 and definitely "something else" 😍
Val Kilmer 👍 really made his mark here, though I guess it's rare for any actor to hold their own against someone as charismatic as Nicolas Cage... 😍

driftingeagle27 said:(Moderate to heavy spoilers ahead, though I wouldn't say anything too crazy—and if I recount the whole movie, you'll probably just need to go see it for yourself anyway 😁)

I’m not going to dive into Adaptation right now; we’re talking about this movie. In any case, good to know you aren't a hater when it comes to this actor.

No. I haven't read the script—I watched the movie. I'm talking about the character I saw in the film I actually watched; he's played by Nicolas Cage. Someone somewhere wrote that his hair alone in this movie deserves an Oscar 😁. There's something to that...

It seems like you and I have a fundamental conceptual disagreement here: you seem to want to dissect—to grasp and judge—this thing as if it were just some standard crime drama. I'm not saying you can't do that, and that approach isn't worthless, but in my view, it shouldn't be the only way to look at it.

To me, Werner Herzog's films connect with people and their lives precisely because he doesn't pretend that you can linearly or academically "tell" or experience some profound art through a film like it's some textbook lesson.

It's kind of like trying to understand Michael Haneke's Funny Games strictly as a slasher horror.

Except Haneke is more of a planner and a theorist, whereas Herzog... he's a poet.

Give the director the genre so you can get to know them better. But then, let the viewer enjoy the post-genre film they end up making...

Let's be clear here: I'd definitely grab a drink with Nicolas Cage. With that lieutenant from the movie... well, maybe. But only if the director is there too, just so he can, you know... keep things 😛 under control
.

And that kind of suggests that she isn't ordinary, or maybe she is...? All I'm saying is, I don't know.

Sure, but a gun and the fear of prison probably speak louder than a thousand words. Then again, did that gun trigger (just) fear, or... did it drive her to take that kind of action?

Oh right, there's that other movie too, I keep forgetting... 😛

I'm not saying it's better just because of that, but I am saying that might be the exact reason it deserves its own analysis.

Maybe I am, but that was a long time ago. Anyway,

Well, you've seen her neighborhood, and you know exactly what kind of clients she's dealing with. 😕.

So now I can finally say it—you were watching that with some serious attention to detail and actual insight. 🙂Val shows he knows exactly what kind of junkie he is, choosing to just execute the criminal instead of actually making an arrest.

Maybe he’d have popped more if he’d rocked a red wig and cranked his volume up about eight notches, but honestly, I didn't see the need; the way he played the role was actually pretty well thought out and executed. If they had leaned too hard into the partner's performance, the screen would've just felt cluttered, and frankly, that probably would've backfired anyway.

The follicular judgment being passed here is completely irrelevant to the film itself when compared to previous hairstyles. It’s an absurd metric to use. It’s like sitting there and claiming that *Inglourious Basterds* is total garbage just because it doesn't measure up to *Reservoir Dogs*. It's a nonsensical comparison.

To my mind, Werner Herzog's films resonate so deeply because they center on people and the raw reality of their lives. It’s largely due to his refusal to pretend that cinema can be some linear, textbook, or documentary-style vessel used to "explain" or experience life through art. He doesn't buy into that academic nonsense.

I’m not entirely sure I follow what you’re actually trying to get at here.

That’s a bit like trying to wrap your head around Michael Haneke's Funny Games by treating it as nothing more than a standard slasher flick.

In my estimation, what lies beneath the surface of this film—beyond the basic mechanics of the central plot—is something far more layered. If you look closely, there is a certain subtextual weight that elevates it. What makes it truly genre-bending is how it refuses to settle into a comfortable category; it dances on the edge between grit and something much more existential. It’s that sense of unease, that refusal to provide easy answers, which gives the whole thing its unique, unsettling texture.

Once again, I find myself pondering: did seeing that gun in her hands trigger nothing more than simple fear, or was it the catalyst that pushed her toward such extreme action?

You know, I didn't even think of that. It’s actually quite a clever point. Very nice. 👍

Oh, right—there’s that other film too. I seem to have a habit of letting it slip my mind constantly. 😛

Have you actually sat down and watched it?

Well, you’ve seen her neighborhood, and you certainly know the type of clientele she deals with. 😕.

Just because someone lives in a certain neighborhood doesn't mean they’re actually paying premium rent. And having one client who happens to be a well-connected face—even if that connection is just through a father or some relative rather than being direct—doesn't automatically make them expensive. A viewer might pick up on that as a suggestion, sure, but it wasn't explicitly stated. It doesn't have to be.

Now I can finally say it—you were watching with such incredible care and genuine insight. 🙂. Val shows he knows exactly what kind of addict he’s dealing with, and honestly, he’d rather just execute the criminal than bother with an arrest.

and that isn't even about the acting; it's about the character itself.

The screen would have been far too cluttered if his partner had been given too much spotlight; personally, I think that would have actually worked against the movie.

A hundred years ago, some old-school snack cracker used to say "small, but sweet." That’s basically Val here. He managed to nail the first half of that promise. He's definitely "small."

By the way, what am I supposed to take from those reptile scenes? To me, they feel like pure ornamentation. They don't force some heavy new theme onto the story, they just lean into that sense of strangeness the whole film radiates.

goldenhound32 said:The follicular judgment being passed here is completely irrelevant to the film itself when compared to previous hairstyles. It’s an absurd metric to use. It’s like sitting there and claiming that *Inglourious Basterds* is total garbage just because it doesn't measure up to *Reservoir Dogs*. It's a nonsensical comparison.

To my mind, Werner Herzog's films resonate so deeply because they center on people and the raw reality of their lives. It’s largely due to his refusal to pretend that cinema can be some linear, textbook, or documentary-style vessel used to "explain" or experience life through art. He doesn't buy into that academic nonsense.

I’m not entirely sure I follow what you’re actually trying to get at here.

That’s a bit like trying to wrap your head around Michael Haneke's Funny Games by treating it as nothing more than a standard slasher flick.

In my estimation, what lies beneath the surface of this film—beyond the basic mechanics of the central plot—is something far more layered. If you look closely, there is a certain subtextual weight that elevates it. What makes it truly genre-bending is how it refuses to settle into a comfortable category; it dances on the edge between grit and something much more existential. It’s that sense of unease, that refusal to provide easy answers, which gives the whole thing its unique, unsettling texture.

Once again, I find myself pondering: did seeing that gun in her hands trigger nothing more than simple fear, or was it the catalyst that pushed her toward such extreme action?

You know, I didn't even think of that. It’s actually quite a clever point. Very nice. 👍

Oh, right—there’s that other film too. I seem to have a habit of letting it slip my mind constantly. 😛

Have you actually sat down and watched it?

Well, you’ve seen her neighborhood, and you certainly know the type of clientele she deals with. 😕.

Just because someone lives in a certain neighborhood doesn't mean they’re actually paying premium rent. And having one client who happens to be a well-connected face—even if that connection is just through a father or some relative rather than being direct—doesn't automatically make them expensive. A viewer might pick up on that as a suggestion, sure, but it wasn't explicitly stated. It doesn't have to be.

Now I can finally say it—you were watching with such incredible care and genuine insight. 🙂. Val shows he knows exactly what kind of addict he’s dealing with, and honestly, he’d rather just execute the criminal than bother with an arrest.

and that isn't even about the acting; it's about the character itself.

The screen would have been far too cluttered if his partner had been given too much spotlight; personally, I think that would have actually worked against the movie.

A hundred years ago, some old-school snack cracker used to say "small, but sweet." That’s basically Val here. He managed to nail the first half of that promise. He's definitely "small."

By the way, what am I supposed to take from those reptile scenes? To me, they feel like pure ornamentation. They don't force some heavy new theme onto the story, they just lean into that sense of strangeness the whole film radiates.

Those follicles are part of the character. As such, they're devastating 😁.

Inglourious Basterds is too massive a film for me to drop some clever little comment here on the fly.

goldenhound32 said:The follicular judgment being passed here is completely irrelevant to the film itself when compared to previous hairstyles. It’s an absurd metric to use. It’s like sitting there and claiming that *Inglourious Basterds* is total garbage just because it doesn't measure up to *Reservoir Dogs*. It's a nonsensical comparison.

To my mind, Werner Herzog's films resonate so deeply because they center on people and the raw reality of their lives. It’s largely due to his refusal to pretend that cinema can be some linear, textbook, or documentary-style vessel used to "explain" or experience life through art. He doesn't buy into that academic nonsense.

I’m not entirely sure I follow what you’re actually trying to get at here.

That’s a bit like trying to wrap your head around Michael Haneke's Funny Games by treating it as nothing more than a standard slasher flick.

In my estimation, what lies beneath the surface of this film—beyond the basic mechanics of the central plot—is something far more layered. If you look closely, there is a certain subtextual weight that elevates it. What makes it truly genre-bending is how it refuses to settle into a comfortable category; it dances on the edge between grit and something much more existential. It’s that sense of unease, that refusal to provide easy answers, which gives the whole thing its unique, unsettling texture.

Once again, I find myself pondering: did seeing that gun in her hands trigger nothing more than simple fear, or was it the catalyst that pushed her toward such extreme action?

You know, I didn't even think of that. It’s actually quite a clever point. Very nice. 👍

Oh, right—there’s that other film too. I seem to have a habit of letting it slip my mind constantly. 😛

Have you actually sat down and watched it?

Well, you’ve seen her neighborhood, and you certainly know the type of clientele she deals with. 😕.

Just because someone lives in a certain neighborhood doesn't mean they’re actually paying premium rent. And having one client who happens to be a well-connected face—even if that connection is just through a father or some relative rather than being direct—doesn't automatically make them expensive. A viewer might pick up on that as a suggestion, sure, but it wasn't explicitly stated. It doesn't have to be.

Now I can finally say it—you were watching with such incredible care and genuine insight. 🙂. Val shows he knows exactly what kind of addict he’s dealing with, and honestly, he’d rather just execute the criminal than bother with an arrest.

and that isn't even about the acting; it's about the character itself.

The screen would have been far too cluttered if his partner had been given too much spotlight; personally, I think that would have actually worked against the movie.

A hundred years ago, some old-school snack cracker used to say "small, but sweet." That’s basically Val here. He managed to nail the first half of that promise. He's definitely "small."

By the way, what am I supposed to take from those reptile scenes? To me, they feel like pure ornamentation. They don't force some heavy new theme onto the story, they just lean into that sense of strangeness the whole film radiates.

Well, yeah. That's why there's so much talk about it... I'll try to wrap it up at the end of this post.

goldenhound32 said:The follicular judgment being passed here is completely irrelevant to the film itself when compared to previous hairstyles. It’s an absurd metric to use. It’s like sitting there and claiming that *Inglourious Basterds* is total garbage just because it doesn't measure up to *Reservoir Dogs*. It's a nonsensical comparison.

To my mind, Werner Herzog's films resonate so deeply because they center on people and the raw reality of their lives. It’s largely due to his refusal to pretend that cinema can be some linear, textbook, or documentary-style vessel used to "explain" or experience life through art. He doesn't buy into that academic nonsense.

I’m not entirely sure I follow what you’re actually trying to get at here.

That’s a bit like trying to wrap your head around Michael Haneke's Funny Games by treating it as nothing more than a standard slasher flick.

In my estimation, what lies beneath the surface of this film—beyond the basic mechanics of the central plot—is something far more layered. If you look closely, there is a certain subtextual weight that elevates it. What makes it truly genre-bending is how it refuses to settle into a comfortable category; it dances on the edge between grit and something much more existential. It’s that sense of unease, that refusal to provide easy answers, which gives the whole thing its unique, unsettling texture.

Once again, I find myself pondering: did seeing that gun in her hands trigger nothing more than simple fear, or was it the catalyst that pushed her toward such extreme action?

You know, I didn't even think of that. It’s actually quite a clever point. Very nice. 👍

Oh, right—there’s that other film too. I seem to have a habit of letting it slip my mind constantly. 😛

Have you actually sat down and watched it?

Well, you’ve seen her neighborhood, and you certainly know the type of clientele she deals with. 😕.

Just because someone lives in a certain neighborhood doesn't mean they’re actually paying premium rent. And having one client who happens to be a well-connected face—even if that connection is just through a father or some relative rather than being direct—doesn't automatically make them expensive. A viewer might pick up on that as a suggestion, sure, but it wasn't explicitly stated. It doesn't have to be.

Now I can finally say it—you were watching with such incredible care and genuine insight. 🙂. Val shows he knows exactly what kind of addict he’s dealing with, and honestly, he’d rather just execute the criminal than bother with an arrest.

and that isn't even about the acting; it's about the character itself.

The screen would have been far too cluttered if his partner had been given too much spotlight; personally, I think that would have actually worked against the movie.

A hundred years ago, some old-school snack cracker used to say "small, but sweet." That’s basically Val here. He managed to nail the first half of that promise. He's definitely "small."

By the way, what am I supposed to take from those reptile scenes? To me, they feel like pure ornamentation. They don't force some heavy new theme onto the story, they just lean into that sense of strangeness the whole film radiates.

The human condition. 😳

goldenhound32 said:The follicular judgment being passed here is completely irrelevant to the film itself when compared to previous hairstyles. It’s an absurd metric to use. It’s like sitting there and claiming that *Inglourious Basterds* is total garbage just because it doesn't measure up to *Reservoir Dogs*. It's a nonsensical comparison.

To my mind, Werner Herzog's films resonate so deeply because they center on people and the raw reality of their lives. It’s largely due to his refusal to pretend that cinema can be some linear, textbook, or documentary-style vessel used to "explain" or experience life through art. He doesn't buy into that academic nonsense.

I’m not entirely sure I follow what you’re actually trying to get at here.

That’s a bit like trying to wrap your head around Michael Haneke's Funny Games by treating it as nothing more than a standard slasher flick.

In my estimation, what lies beneath the surface of this film—beyond the basic mechanics of the central plot—is something far more layered. If you look closely, there is a certain subtextual weight that elevates it. What makes it truly genre-bending is how it refuses to settle into a comfortable category; it dances on the edge between grit and something much more existential. It’s that sense of unease, that refusal to provide easy answers, which gives the whole thing its unique, unsettling texture.

Once again, I find myself pondering: did seeing that gun in her hands trigger nothing more than simple fear, or was it the catalyst that pushed her toward such extreme action?

You know, I didn't even think of that. It’s actually quite a clever point. Very nice. 👍

Oh, right—there’s that other film too. I seem to have a habit of letting it slip my mind constantly. 😛

Have you actually sat down and watched it?

Well, you’ve seen her neighborhood, and you certainly know the type of clientele she deals with. 😕.

Just because someone lives in a certain neighborhood doesn't mean they’re actually paying premium rent. And having one client who happens to be a well-connected face—even if that connection is just through a father or some relative rather than being direct—doesn't automatically make them expensive. A viewer might pick up on that as a suggestion, sure, but it wasn't explicitly stated. It doesn't have to be.

Now I can finally say it—you were watching with such incredible care and genuine insight. 🙂. Val shows he knows exactly what kind of addict he’s dealing with, and honestly, he’d rather just execute the criminal than bother with an arrest.

and that isn't even about the acting; it's about the character itself.

The screen would have been far too cluttered if his partner had been given too much spotlight; personally, I think that would have actually worked against the movie.

A hundred years ago, some old-school snack cracker used to say "small, but sweet." That’s basically Val here. He managed to nail the first half of that promise. He's definitely "small."

By the way, what am I supposed to take from those reptile scenes? To me, they feel like pure ornamentation. They don't force some heavy new theme onto the story, they just lean into that sense of strangeness the whole film radiates.

Yeah, exactly 🙂.

I'm telling you, it's a heavy scene.

goldenhound32 said:The follicular judgment being passed here is completely irrelevant to the film itself when compared to previous hairstyles. It’s an absurd metric to use. It’s like sitting there and claiming that *Inglourious Basterds* is total garbage just because it doesn't measure up to *Reservoir Dogs*. It's a nonsensical comparison.

To my mind, Werner Herzog's films resonate so deeply because they center on people and the raw reality of their lives. It’s largely due to his refusal to pretend that cinema can be some linear, textbook, or documentary-style vessel used to "explain" or experience life through art. He doesn't buy into that academic nonsense.

I’m not entirely sure I follow what you’re actually trying to get at here.

That’s a bit like trying to wrap your head around Michael Haneke's Funny Games by treating it as nothing more than a standard slasher flick.

In my estimation, what lies beneath the surface of this film—beyond the basic mechanics of the central plot—is something far more layered. If you look closely, there is a certain subtextual weight that elevates it. What makes it truly genre-bending is how it refuses to settle into a comfortable category; it dances on the edge between grit and something much more existential. It’s that sense of unease, that refusal to provide easy answers, which gives the whole thing its unique, unsettling texture.

Once again, I find myself pondering: did seeing that gun in her hands trigger nothing more than simple fear, or was it the catalyst that pushed her toward such extreme action?

You know, I didn't even think of that. It’s actually quite a clever point. Very nice. 👍

Oh, right—there’s that other film too. I seem to have a habit of letting it slip my mind constantly. 😛

Have you actually sat down and watched it?

Well, you’ve seen her neighborhood, and you certainly know the type of clientele she deals with. 😕.

Just because someone lives in a certain neighborhood doesn't mean they’re actually paying premium rent. And having one client who happens to be a well-connected face—even if that connection is just through a father or some relative rather than being direct—doesn't automatically make them expensive. A viewer might pick up on that as a suggestion, sure, but it wasn't explicitly stated. It doesn't have to be.

Now I can finally say it—you were watching with such incredible care and genuine insight. 🙂. Val shows he knows exactly what kind of addict he’s dealing with, and honestly, he’d rather just execute the criminal than bother with an arrest.

and that isn't even about the acting; it's about the character itself.

The screen would have been far too cluttered if his partner had been given too much spotlight; personally, I think that would have actually worked against the movie.

A hundred years ago, some old-school snack cracker used to say "small, but sweet." That’s basically Val here. He managed to nail the first half of that promise. He's definitely "small."

By the way, what am I supposed to take from those reptile scenes? To me, they feel like pure ornamentation. They don't force some heavy new theme onto the story, they just lean into that sense of strangeness the whole film radiates.

I have. It's bleak, claustrophobic, intentionally grueling, and strašno ozbiljan. None of that necessarily has to be bad, but in this case, it just didn't work for me.

goldenhound32 said:The follicular judgment being passed here is completely irrelevant to the film itself when compared to previous hairstyles. It’s an absurd metric to use. It’s like sitting there and claiming that *Inglourious Basterds* is total garbage just because it doesn't measure up to *Reservoir Dogs*. It's a nonsensical comparison.

To my mind, Werner Herzog's films resonate so deeply because they center on people and the raw reality of their lives. It’s largely due to his refusal to pretend that cinema can be some linear, textbook, or documentary-style vessel used to "explain" or experience life through art. He doesn't buy into that academic nonsense.

I’m not entirely sure I follow what you’re actually trying to get at here.

That’s a bit like trying to wrap your head around Michael Haneke's Funny Games by treating it as nothing more than a standard slasher flick.

In my estimation, what lies beneath the surface of this film—beyond the basic mechanics of the central plot—is something far more layered. If you look closely, there is a certain subtextual weight that elevates it. What makes it truly genre-bending is how it refuses to settle into a comfortable category; it dances on the edge between grit and something much more existential. It’s that sense of unease, that refusal to provide easy answers, which gives the whole thing its unique, unsettling texture.

Once again, I find myself pondering: did seeing that gun in her hands trigger nothing more than simple fear, or was it the catalyst that pushed her toward such extreme action?

You know, I didn't even think of that. It’s actually quite a clever point. Very nice. 👍

Oh, right—there’s that other film too. I seem to have a habit of letting it slip my mind constantly. 😛

Have you actually sat down and watched it?

Well, you’ve seen her neighborhood, and you certainly know the type of clientele she deals with. 😕.

Just because someone lives in a certain neighborhood doesn't mean they’re actually paying premium rent. And having one client who happens to be a well-connected face—even if that connection is just through a father or some relative rather than being direct—doesn't automatically make them expensive. A viewer might pick up on that as a suggestion, sure, but it wasn't explicitly stated. It doesn't have to be.

Now I can finally say it—you were watching with such incredible care and genuine insight. 🙂. Val shows he knows exactly what kind of addict he’s dealing with, and honestly, he’d rather just execute the criminal than bother with an arrest.

and that isn't even about the acting; it's about the character itself.

The screen would have been far too cluttered if his partner had been given too much spotlight; personally, I think that would have actually worked against the movie.

A hundred years ago, some old-school snack cracker used to say "small, but sweet." That’s basically Val here. He managed to nail the first half of that promise. He's definitely "small."

By the way, what am I supposed to take from those reptile scenes? To me, they feel like pure ornamentation. They don't force some heavy new theme onto the story, they just lean into that sense of strangeness the whole film radiates.

Yeah, maybe she inherited that whole "big shot" persona from her grandma or something... could be, but that still doesn't explain why she shouldn't be attractive.

goldenhound32 said:The follicular judgment being passed here is completely irrelevant to the film itself when compared to previous hairstyles. It’s an absurd metric to use. It’s like sitting there and claiming that *Inglourious Basterds* is total garbage just because it doesn't measure up to *Reservoir Dogs*. It's a nonsensical comparison.

To my mind, Werner Herzog's films resonate so deeply because they center on people and the raw reality of their lives. It’s largely due to his refusal to pretend that cinema can be some linear, textbook, or documentary-style vessel used to "explain" or experience life through art. He doesn't buy into that academic nonsense.

I’m not entirely sure I follow what you’re actually trying to get at here.

That’s a bit like trying to wrap your head around Michael Haneke's Funny Games by treating it as nothing more than a standard slasher flick.

In my estimation, what lies beneath the surface of this film—beyond the basic mechanics of the central plot—is something far more layered. If you look closely, there is a certain subtextual weight that elevates it. What makes it truly genre-bending is how it refuses to settle into a comfortable category; it dances on the edge between grit and something much more existential. It’s that sense of unease, that refusal to provide easy answers, which gives the whole thing its unique, unsettling texture.

Once again, I find myself pondering: did seeing that gun in her hands trigger nothing more than simple fear, or was it the catalyst that pushed her toward such extreme action?

You know, I didn't even think of that. It’s actually quite a clever point. Very nice. 👍

Oh, right—there’s that other film too. I seem to have a habit of letting it slip my mind constantly. 😛

Have you actually sat down and watched it?

Well, you’ve seen her neighborhood, and you certainly know the type of clientele she deals with. 😕.

Just because someone lives in a certain neighborhood doesn't mean they’re actually paying premium rent. And having one client who happens to be a well-connected face—even if that connection is just through a father or some relative rather than being direct—doesn't automatically make them expensive. A viewer might pick up on that as a suggestion, sure, but it wasn't explicitly stated. It doesn't have to be.

Now I can finally say it—you were watching with such incredible care and genuine insight. 🙂. Val shows he knows exactly what kind of addict he’s dealing with, and honestly, he’d rather just execute the criminal than bother with an arrest.

and that isn't even about the acting; it's about the character itself.

The screen would have been far too cluttered if his partner had been given too much spotlight; personally, I think that would have actually worked against the movie.

A hundred years ago, some old-school snack cracker used to say "small, but sweet." That’s basically Val here. He managed to nail the first half of that promise. He's definitely "small."

By the way, what am I supposed to take from those reptile scenes? To me, they feel like pure ornamentation. They don't force some heavy new theme onto the story, they just lean into that sense of strangeness the whole film radiates.

Like I said—in my view, the character is incredibly well-planned and executed.

goldenhound32 said:The follicular judgment being passed here is completely irrelevant to the film itself when compared to previous hairstyles. It’s an absurd metric to use. It’s like sitting there and claiming that *Inglourious Basterds* is total garbage just because it doesn't measure up to *Reservoir Dogs*. It's a nonsensical comparison.

To my mind, Werner Herzog's films resonate so deeply because they center on people and the raw reality of their lives. It’s largely due to his refusal to pretend that cinema can be some linear, textbook, or documentary-style vessel used to "explain" or experience life through art. He doesn't buy into that academic nonsense.

I’m not entirely sure I follow what you’re actually trying to get at here.

That’s a bit like trying to wrap your head around Michael Haneke's Funny Games by treating it as nothing more than a standard slasher flick.

In my estimation, what lies beneath the surface of this film—beyond the basic mechanics of the central plot—is something far more layered. If you look closely, there is a certain subtextual weight that elevates it. What makes it truly genre-bending is how it refuses to settle into a comfortable category; it dances on the edge between grit and something much more existential. It’s that sense of unease, that refusal to provide easy answers, which gives the whole thing its unique, unsettling texture.

Once again, I find myself pondering: did seeing that gun in her hands trigger nothing more than simple fear, or was it the catalyst that pushed her toward such extreme action?

You know, I didn't even think of that. It’s actually quite a clever point. Very nice. 👍

Oh, right—there’s that other film too. I seem to have a habit of letting it slip my mind constantly. 😛

Have you actually sat down and watched it?

Well, you’ve seen her neighborhood, and you certainly know the type of clientele she deals with. 😕.

Just because someone lives in a certain neighborhood doesn't mean they’re actually paying premium rent. And having one client who happens to be a well-connected face—even if that connection is just through a father or some relative rather than being direct—doesn't automatically make them expensive. A viewer might pick up on that as a suggestion, sure, but it wasn't explicitly stated. It doesn't have to be.

Now I can finally say it—you were watching with such incredible care and genuine insight. 🙂. Val shows he knows exactly what kind of addict he’s dealing with, and honestly, he’d rather just execute the criminal than bother with an arrest.

and that isn't even about the acting; it's about the character itself.

The screen would have been far too cluttered if his partner had been given too much spotlight; personally, I think that would have actually worked against the movie.

A hundred years ago, some old-school snack cracker used to say "small, but sweet." That’s basically Val here. He managed to nail the first half of that promise. He's definitely "small."

By the way, what am I supposed to take from those reptile scenes? To me, they feel like pure ornamentation. They don't force some heavy new theme onto the story, they just lean into that sense of strangeness the whole film radiates.

That's just how the character is. Nicolas Cage is the center of attention. For a movie like this, it would feel way too didactic if they tried to signal to me that whatever Val Kilmer says or does is actually significant.

goldenhound32 said:The follicular judgment being passed here is completely irrelevant to the film itself when compared to previous hairstyles. It’s an absurd metric to use. It’s like sitting there and claiming that *Inglourious Basterds* is total garbage just because it doesn't measure up to *Reservoir Dogs*. It's a nonsensical comparison.

To my mind, Werner Herzog's films resonate so deeply because they center on people and the raw reality of their lives. It’s largely due to his refusal to pretend that cinema can be some linear, textbook, or documentary-style vessel used to "explain" or experience life through art. He doesn't buy into that academic nonsense.

I’m not entirely sure I follow what you’re actually trying to get at here.

That’s a bit like trying to wrap your head around Michael Haneke's Funny Games by treating it as nothing more than a standard slasher flick.

In my estimation, what lies beneath the surface of this film—beyond the basic mechanics of the central plot—is something far more layered. If you look closely, there is a certain subtextual weight that elevates it. What makes it truly genre-bending is how it refuses to settle into a comfortable category; it dances on the edge between grit and something much more existential. It’s that sense of unease, that refusal to provide easy answers, which gives the whole thing its unique, unsettling texture.

Once again, I find myself pondering: did seeing that gun in her hands trigger nothing more than simple fear, or was it the catalyst that pushed her toward such extreme action?

You know, I didn't even think of that. It’s actually quite a clever point. Very nice. 👍

Oh, right—there’s that other film too. I seem to have a habit of letting it slip my mind constantly. 😛

Have you actually sat down and watched it?

Well, you’ve seen her neighborhood, and you certainly know the type of clientele she deals with. 😕.

Just because someone lives in a certain neighborhood doesn't mean they’re actually paying premium rent. And having one client who happens to be a well-connected face—even if that connection is just through a father or some relative rather than being direct—doesn't automatically make them expensive. A viewer might pick up on that as a suggestion, sure, but it wasn't explicitly stated. It doesn't have to be.

Now I can finally say it—you were watching with such incredible care and genuine insight. 🙂. Val shows he knows exactly what kind of addict he’s dealing with, and honestly, he’d rather just execute the criminal than bother with an arrest.

and that isn't even about the acting; it's about the character itself.

The screen would have been far too cluttered if his partner had been given too much spotlight; personally, I think that would have actually worked against the movie.

A hundred years ago, some old-school snack cracker used to say "small, but sweet." That’s basically Val here. He managed to nail the first half of that promise. He's definitely "small."

By the way, what am I supposed to take from those reptile scenes? To me, they feel like pure ornamentation. They don't force some heavy new theme onto the story, they just lean into that sense of strangeness the whole film radiates.

Man, I get a massive sense of wonder; entertainment; laughs; satisfaction... provocation...

"It doesn't force a new theme." Going back to what I mentioned earlier, I said I'd try to circle back to it eventually.

That chicken scene with Stroszek at the end is one of the most fascinating scenes in cinema history (not just in my book). Even Werner Herzog told me right away that he saw it as a fantastic metaphor. As for what it's actually for—I couldn't tell you 😁.

This movie is absolute garbage—the plot makes zero sense, the pacing is a complete train wreck, and the characters are shallow as hell, except for one guy who’s played in such an incredibly grating way (he’s neither touching nor funny, just swinging his "humanity" wildly between 0 and 100 like he's rolling dice).

The whole sequence of events feels totally absurd and pointless, contributing nothing to the actual story or any potential message, which pretty much sums up how the supporting cast behaves in most scenes.

Honestly, this feels less like a standalone feature film and more like a really bad pilot episode for some low-budget TV series.

Those quasi-artsy shots featuring extreme close-ups of various creeps aren't even weird or funny; they’re just provocative in the worst way possible—like, I felt personally insulted every single time and was right on the edge of switching the channel.

Still, I powered through to the end, and I can say this is easily one of the biggest piles of crap I’ve ever sat through; it’s a total insult to the legacy of a Ferrara masterpiece.
If it’s actually true that the director admitted he didn't even watch the original and had never even heard of Ferrara, then the guy has some serious nerve and is just a total hack who should be banned from ever directing again.

That's my two cents.

Joseph Miller3 said:This movie is absolute garbage—the plot makes zero sense, the pacing is a complete train wreck, and the characters are shallow as hell, except for one guy who’s played in such an incredibly grating way (he’s neither touching nor funny, just swinging his "humanity" wildly between 0 and 100 like he's rolling dice).

The whole sequence of events feels totally absurd and pointless, contributing nothing to the actual story or any potential message, which pretty much sums up how the supporting cast behaves in most scenes.

Honestly, this feels less like a standalone feature film and more like a really bad pilot episode for some low-budget TV series.

Those quasi-artsy shots featuring extreme close-ups of various creeps aren't even weird or funny; they’re just provocative in the worst way possible—like, I felt personally insulted every single time and was right on the edge of switching the channel.

Still, I powered through to the end, and I can say this is easily one of the biggest piles of crap I’ve ever sat through; it’s a total insult to the legacy of a Ferrara masterpiece.
If it’s actually true that the director admitted he didn't even watch the original and had never even heard of Ferrara, then the guy has some serious nerve and is just a total hack who should be banned from ever directing again.

That's my two cents.

That simply isn't true.

Joseph Miller3 said:This movie is absolute garbage—the plot makes zero sense, the pacing is a complete train wreck, and the characters are shallow as hell, except for one guy who’s played in such an incredibly grating way (he’s neither touching nor funny, just swinging his "humanity" wildly between 0 and 100 like he's rolling dice).

The whole sequence of events feels totally absurd and pointless, contributing nothing to the actual story or any potential message, which pretty much sums up how the supporting cast behaves in most scenes.

Honestly, this feels less like a standalone feature film and more like a really bad pilot episode for some low-budget TV series.

Those quasi-artsy shots featuring extreme close-ups of various creeps aren't even weird or funny; they’re just provocative in the worst way possible—like, I felt personally insulted every single time and was right on the edge of switching the channel.

Still, I powered through to the end, and I can say this is easily one of the biggest piles of crap I’ve ever sat through; it’s a total insult to the legacy of a Ferrara masterpiece.
If it’s actually true that the director admitted he didn't even watch the original and had never even heard of Ferrara, then the guy has some serious nerve and is just a total hack who should be banned from ever directing again.

That's my two cents.

Great that's all you have to say, since we aren't actually going to have a conversation this way anyway 🙂.

Look, it’s not like I was dying to start some massive debate here; I just wrote down my honest take on the movie,
and I barely even gave any of the nonsense you posted a second glance.

But honestly, it feels a little ridiculous that you're acting like my "!?" was somehow offensive or inappropriate or whatever else you want to call it.
I was actually pretty stunned that those scenes with the reptiles left you feeling "weirded out."
That exact sense of being caught off guard—that whole feeling—is what I was trying to express with those two little symbols (!?).
My bad if that rubbed you the wrong way.

🙂

I'll be brief. I am absolutely floored by this film; I truly believe the filmmakers achieved everything they set out to do.

In my opinion, this is Nicolas Cage's finest performance. What struck me most was how unpredictable every single moment felt—aside from that initial jump into the water, you simply never know what's coming next.

From start to finish, Cage's character never pauses to reflect. There is no introspection, no contemplation of fate, and zero remorse... he is the pure, unadulterated embodiment of a man lost to addiction. It is shocking, darkly humorous, and absurd... for me, it was nothing short of fantastic.

And that scene with the five-minute shot of the lizard... you either love it or you hate it. I was particularly captivated by the way Val Kilmer and Nicolas Cage stared through the window during that entire stretch. I can't wait to watch this again.

Amanda Ramirez said:I'll be brief. I am absolutely floored by this film; I truly believe the filmmakers achieved everything they set out to do.

In my opinion, this is Nicolas Cage's finest performance. What struck me most was how unpredictable every single moment felt—aside from that initial jump into the water, you simply never know what's coming next.

From start to finish, Cage's character never pauses to reflect. There is no introspection, no contemplation of fate, and zero remorse... he is the pure, unadulterated embodiment of a man lost to addiction. It is shocking, darkly humorous, and absurd... for me, it was nothing short of fantastic.

And that scene with the five-minute shot of the lizard... you either love it or you hate it. I was particularly captivated by the way Val Kilmer and Nicolas Cage stared through the window during that entire stretch. I can't wait to watch this again.

Glad you dug the movie so much, but I can't say I agree with you there.

I'd argue that part of why it feels so manic is because, deep down, it doesn't actually fit that description of yours.

I have to admit, I didn't express myself very clearly before.

The character is completely unrealistic, but he’s meant to be that way. In reality, anyone of us facing massive debt and the threat of being killed... we'd probably just fold and run, or take out a huge loan just to stay afloat. That’s the beauty of it: our protagonist does whatever the hell he wants without a single thought for the consequences. Wouldn't we all love to be that reckless sometimes?

For me, the biggest turning point happens about 25 minutes in. Just when you think Nicolas Cage is actually working the case, he suddenly grabs that pair coming out of the disco and starts using drugs and getting intimate with that guy's girlfriend... all while the porn is playing in the background.

Some people mentioned that the movie jumps from scene to scene like they aren't even part of the same film, and this is exactly where you see it. Personally, I love that. The intention was clearly to shock the audience and keep you guessing what's coming next.

But I have to bring up that lizard business again... I honestly think the director included that just for himself. I highly doubt even 2% of the people watching this movie will actually enjoy it.
It’s almost as if he’s drawing inspiration from that wild Tom Green flick. 🤣