Posts by driftingeagle27

Emily Parker32 said:I honestly think that area is such a minefield that it’s probably smarter to just stay far away from it.

Look, someone’s gotta walk through the thorns every now and then.😁.

Emily Parker32 said:And why the hell does it even have to be pop or rock & roll? 😕 You really think music can't be "good" unless it fits into some narrow little pop or rock & roll box, huh?

So you actually think this isn't a place for classical music?

Why even bother sticking to genre boundaries anyway? The world would be so damn boring if everything was just pop or rock.

Look, it doesn't have to be pop or rock to actually be good; far from it. I split my initial thoughts into two distinct buckets—the intimate vibe versus the objective quality—just to make it clear that something can be technically flawless while still being something I have zero interest in listening to, because I’m just wired this way and there's no point pretending otherwise.

I don't think anyone's saying classical doesn't belong here since this whole sub is dedicated to music, but let's be real, it’s always been dominated by pop in its broadest sense. I highly doubt anyone thinks classical fans aren't welcome, but honestly, how many people are actually going to find someone to talk to about harps, lyres, or harpsichords—unless we're talking about a Joanna Newsom album—so it's a bit of an uphill battle. 🙂.

Honestly, rock pretty much covers all my bases, and I’m not trying to be some elitist snob about the classics because I'm not that kind of person, but I've just realized that this is what hits for me right now, so I don't really feel the urge to constantly dig through jazz or folk unless I actually want to, though that doesn't mean I'm too clueless to know what they're about. 🙂.

Emily Parker32 said:So what if you think it sucks. Not like I'm actually going to waste my breath trying to talk you out of it.

Look, at the end of the day, the problem is really just me. yeah I really don't have the energy to pretend that absolute garbage is actually something worthwhile. 🙂

Emily Parker32 said:We’re all just out here chasing some sonic landscape that actually fits our vibe. Joanna Newsom isn't your world and the Arctic Monkeys aren't mine, so who cares, honestly. Everyone does their own thing. I don't see why anyone would even bother complaining about it. had to. Got it. 😉

Look, at the end of the day, we're all stuck on this same spinning rock, and I've got zero interest in living in some delusional fantasy land. That's just how it is. 🙂

(And honestly, I kind of dig being on the same wavelength as people, it’s a nice change of pace.)

Emily Parker32 said:Happy? Please. 🙂

Glad you went on a bit of a rant there, honestly. I'm always down to talk music.

Emily Parker32 said:Music is basically just one big emotional trip. It doesn't matter if you're into death metal, jazz, Britney Spears, or Joanna Newsom, the whole reason it hits is because it triggers these specific memories and cravings that belong entirely to you. No one else is ever going to see the world through your lens, no matter how hard they try.

I'm not saying it isn't like that, but let's be real—there's such a thing as quality, and I actually want to wrap my head around and respect the kind of excellence that doesn't even hit my vibe.

Maybe there’s an actual artistic relevance to the aesthetic, but for some reason—probably just my detached sensibilities mixed with some good old-fashioned... pure ignorance. I don't get the whole cimbalom and harp thing.

Why wouldn't I figure it out eventually? If it actually holds any weight, at least I won't be stuck thinking this whole thing is total garbage anymore. And honestly, if it turns out there was something incredible right in front of me that I just failed to notice, maybe once I finally wrap my head around it, I'll actually start enjoying it.

Emily Parker32 said:First off, I’m just obsessed with her voice and that singing technique—it’s totally one-of-a-kind and incredibly bold. On one hand, she completely ignores every rule in the book, singing in a way that would probably give any vocal coach a literal heart attack, but then on the other hand, she hits every single note perfectly because she’s got that flawless ear and vocal cords capable of producing these insanely pure frequencies.

If she’s actually that kind of singer, she'd basically be a walking nightmare. just more of the same garbage. Not every singing teacher. Not even close.

Emily Parker32 said:Then there's the way she performs, acting out the songs while she sings them. She’s got this insane ability to channel every possible mood—humor, sarcasm, pure euphoria, or just straight-up defiance—not even through the lyrics, but just by shifting her tone. It's heavy stuff, and honestly, you don't see many singers with that kind of instinct.

Look, I get what you're saying, and next time I spin her stuff I'll definitely try to spot that specific merit, assuming a) it actually exists and b) I can even recognize it when I see it.

It doesn't personally hit home for me, and honestly, it doesn't move the needle much on the quality scale either, since we're talking about music here, not some Broadway play or a Hollywood drama.

Emily Parker32 said:Another reason I dig Joanna Newsom is that harp of hers—it’s easily one of my favorite instruments, right up there with the cello.

And there it is, the same old issue. My go-to instruments are guitar, bass, and drums, which is basically why I'm hanging out on this forum instead of some pretentious site dedicated to classical music from back in the day—before they invented the piano, or whatever! 😛

Emily Parker32 said:The third thing is her lyrics; she could publish them as books and still be impressive. I love how her unconventional, almost childlike voice clashes with those archaic, old-school verses. Her songs feel like epics, and it’s hard to believe someone so young wrote them because they have so much maturity. She can weave different characters into a song and play all of them while acting as the narrator. Sometimes it feels less like listening to a track and more like watching a stage play. I mostly just picture her as a character in a production, and that persona is incredibly magnetic and charismatic.

So it’s got everything: acting, literature, classical vibes, history, theater.

Sure, maybe, but I still don't see where the pop is, let alone any rock and roll. 🙂

So, long story short: you were really patient and thorough in explaining why you're into it.

a) If nothing else, maybe now I understand better why it just isn't my thing.
b) Next time I listen, I might actually be able to pick up on those qualities—maybe even enough to tell someone, "Yeah, it's actually objectively great, it just doesn't do anything for me."

🙂

hiddenhound3 said:Big deal. Either you dig it or you don't, and once we decide it's all just a matter of taste, I'm not about to try and change anyone's mind because I totally get that some people just aren't going to vibe with the kind of poetry that hits for me.

Look, it’s not all just subjective preference; quality actually exists, 😉period.

Btw Antony is easily the most grating guy out of that whole colorful mess; compared to him, JN is almost likable.

wiredharbor22 said:It's just because you were one of the first people to jump in on this thread. 🙏

Look, let's not get ahead of ourselves here, I'm not the main attraction, Joanna Newsom is.

Anyway, it's about time this thread actually had some substance worth reading 🙂.

wiredharbor22 said:Look, if you actually bother to read what people were posting, they weren't just raising their hands when asked if there were fans, they were actually sharing what they liked about the music.

Yeah, sure, but most of them only started talking after I showed up.😉.

wiredharbor22 said:I don't get why you need us to spell out exactly why we dig it. 🤷

Why not? 😕 So what, if someone likes it, that’s an axiom, and if they don't, that's just another axiom, so what, we gonna open two separate threads now?

I can't even begin to process this first one.

I'm actually a huge fan of Joanna Newsom.

Same here.

Same here.

I'm a fan too.

Second:

Newsomov really gets on my nerves.

Man, tell me about it. Same here.

Same here, honestly...

Whatever.

And now they’re actually coming after me for not laying out a formal argument like they wanted. 🤷

Why wouldn't we? They were just talking. So, what's the deal with Joanna Newsom?

hiddenhound3 said:Honestly, Joanna does a pretty killer job blending those vintage, classic instruments with modern pop sounds.

Sure, that’s fine, and I get that’s basically the whole point... more or less. But on one hand, there isn't enough actual pop here, and on the other, all this heavy seriousness doesn't feel particularly convincing or even real to me... or maybe I just can't stand that specific poetic vibe. When you put it all together, the whole thing feels incredibly pretentious, and with all that intense, colorful layering—which isn't really my thing—it just leaves a bad taste in my mouth; if I'm being honest, it actually kind of grates on my nerves.

Like I said, maybe I'm just missing something. But that shouldn't be a reason to get wiped, blacklisted, or banned, or for people to start throwing insults around.

Look, if someone thinks they can actually explain it to me or help me see where they're coming from, cool; I guess that's what a forum is for. If not, that's fine too, though I'm just the type of person who, when I think something is great, likes to occasionally explain to someone who hates it why they're wrong.

I'm just saying, you shouldn't have to be a die-hard Joanna Newsom fan just to be treated like a decent person to talk to, or at least to be tolerated.

wiredharbor22 said:I actually liked the harpsichord the most.

Yeah, maybe that's where my issue with this whole genre lies, since honestly, I don't even know what a harpsichord actually is. 😳.

Ever since I was a kid, I’ve been hooked on pop-rock, and pretty much everything I've listened to or felt like I understood falls somewhere under that big umbrella.

Don't get me wrong, it doesn't always have to be just guitars and catchy hooks.

Besides, I'm pretty sure even The Beatles used a harpsichord in at least one track, but once the harpsichord takes center stage—or a harp, which I think I recognize, though I'm probably wrong, is a harp just a lyre? I'm totally lost here—that's when things start getting complicated for me. 🤷

Adam Moore said:I’m obsessed with Joanna News. Milk-Eyed Mender is easily one of my top ten albums of the decade, and honestly, Peach Plum Pear hits just as hard when you look at the songwriting. Ys is stunning too, and her live shows are just incredible. fuck yeah!

Can you actually back that up? Like, what's the draw for you specifically?

I really don't get the hype around JN, or the whole Banharta thing, none of it. I'm not feeling the music, the vocals, the lyrics, or even the vibe—even if Devendra is a pretty good-looking guy, his whole aesthetic just grates on me.

The entire aesthetic feels totally foreign to me, which is why I mentioned how little it relates to my actual life (in some post that got nuked for whatever reason). (Just so everyone knows, including the mods, that was a nod to the Smiths, not some random attempt to troll this serious thread.)

And there’s always that nagging little doubt in the back of my head that— hold on, driftingeagle27, maybe you just don't get it 😢.

Wait, what exactly was I not supposed to say?

Since when did expressing a dislike for something become off-limits? 😕

Sandra Ross82 said:It's a decent little flick, but honestly, nothing more. It feels like your run-of-the-mill American script where the writers are so obsessed with tying the beginning and end together perfectly that they completely lose track of the actual characters along the way.

Then again, considering that overactor Nicolas Cage looks like he just escaped from a wax museum, Eva Mendes is about as convincing as a cardboard cutout, and Val Kilmer’s role is just plain baffling—it actually turned out pretty great. There were moments where I genuinely thought they were rewriting the script on the fly—like that part where Cage transitions from his old lady to the new woman; I was sure they were going to pull a crazy twist there, but they ended up playing it safe instead.

Personally, I thought the scenes with the reptiles were totally fine. 😁

I honestly thought I was awake until just a second ago.

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.

Foo Fighters? 🥳

wanderingraven11 said:Back: http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/9428/backkn.jpg

Through.

Avatar 🤷.

Honestly, this whole thing feels like some kind of sick joke to me 🤷.

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 🙂.

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 😁.

(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.