Posts by driftingeagle27

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 🙂.

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.

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 🙂.

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?

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. 🙂

goldenhound32 said:Like I mentioned before, Nicolas Cage just isn't convincing to me.

When you weigh everything together, the Werner Herzog film feels more positive than the one by Abel Ferrara.

Keitel's lieutenant actually has a purpose—not right from the jump, but once he decides to track down those guys who attacked the honorable officer. Nicolas Cage's character, on the other hand, just talks about his goal. His true objective remains murky to the viewer; at least, it certainly wasn't clear to me.

Nicolas Cage's officer is crazy in a "wacky" sense, whereas Keitel's character feels more "demented."

Both characters have scenes where they harass ordinary people. In the Werner Herzog film, that scene falls flat, largely due to Nicolas Cage. Roger Ebert brings up rape, but if the girl is acting like she wants it, without any actual coercion, then there isn't even a hint of rape happening.

Oh, and in the Werner Herzog film, the lead's mistress is played by Eva Mendes... she doesn't belong there. She's far too beautiful for the role. It reminds me of when Jeanne Moreau plays a maid in a Buñuel film; you simply can't believe she's a maid.

The character played by Val Kilmer, the lieutenant's partner, is absolutely nothing. It's like he isn't even there. He’s just like Melvin Purvis in Public Enemies, only with much less screen time.

As for Ebert... I just finished reading his review, and I see exactly what I always see when he writes about Werner Herzog films. Pure admiration. Personally, I don't care for Herzog.

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.

goldenhound32 said:Like I mentioned before, Nicolas Cage just isn't convincing to me.

When you weigh everything together, the Werner Herzog film feels more positive than the one by Abel Ferrara.

Keitel's lieutenant actually has a purpose—not right from the jump, but once he decides to track down those guys who attacked the honorable officer. Nicolas Cage's character, on the other hand, just talks about his goal. His true objective remains murky to the viewer; at least, it certainly wasn't clear to me.

Nicolas Cage's officer is crazy in a "wacky" sense, whereas Keitel's character feels more "demented."

Both characters have scenes where they harass ordinary people. In the Werner Herzog film, that scene falls flat, largely due to Nicolas Cage. Roger Ebert brings up rape, but if the girl is acting like she wants it, without any actual coercion, then there isn't even a hint of rape happening.

Oh, and in the Werner Herzog film, the lead's mistress is played by Eva Mendes... she doesn't belong there. She's far too beautiful for the role. It reminds me of when Jeanne Moreau plays a maid in a Buñuel film; you simply can't believe she's a maid.

The character played by Val Kilmer, the lieutenant's partner, is absolutely nothing. It's like he isn't even there. He’s just like Melvin Purvis in Public Enemies, only with much less screen time.

As for Ebert... I just finished reading his review, and I see exactly what I always see when he writes about Werner Herzog films. Pure admiration. Personally, I don't care for Herzog.

Exactly. 🙂

goldenhound32 said:Like I mentioned before, Nicolas Cage just isn't convincing to me.

When you weigh everything together, the Werner Herzog film feels more positive than the one by Abel Ferrara.

Keitel's lieutenant actually has a purpose—not right from the jump, but once he decides to track down those guys who attacked the honorable officer. Nicolas Cage's character, on the other hand, just talks about his goal. His true objective remains murky to the viewer; at least, it certainly wasn't clear to me.

Nicolas Cage's officer is crazy in a "wacky" sense, whereas Keitel's character feels more "demented."

Both characters have scenes where they harass ordinary people. In the Werner Herzog film, that scene falls flat, largely due to Nicolas Cage. Roger Ebert brings up rape, but if the girl is acting like she wants it, without any actual coercion, then there isn't even a hint of rape happening.

Oh, and in the Werner Herzog film, the lead's mistress is played by Eva Mendes... she doesn't belong there. She's far too beautiful for the role. It reminds me of when Jeanne Moreau plays a maid in a Buñuel film; you simply can't believe she's a maid.

The character played by Val Kilmer, the lieutenant's partner, is absolutely nothing. It's like he isn't even there. He’s just like Melvin Purvis in Public Enemies, only with much less screen time.

As for Ebert... I just finished reading his review, and I see exactly what I always see when he writes about Werner Herzog films. Pure admiration. Personally, I don't care for Herzog.

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.

goldenhound32 said:Like I mentioned before, Nicolas Cage just isn't convincing to me.

When you weigh everything together, the Werner Herzog film feels more positive than the one by Abel Ferrara.

Keitel's lieutenant actually has a purpose—not right from the jump, but once he decides to track down those guys who attacked the honorable officer. Nicolas Cage's character, on the other hand, just talks about his goal. His true objective remains murky to the viewer; at least, it certainly wasn't clear to me.

Nicolas Cage's officer is crazy in a "wacky" sense, whereas Keitel's character feels more "demented."

Both characters have scenes where they harass ordinary people. In the Werner Herzog film, that scene falls flat, largely due to Nicolas Cage. Roger Ebert brings up rape, but if the girl is acting like she wants it, without any actual coercion, then there isn't even a hint of rape happening.

Oh, and in the Werner Herzog film, the lead's mistress is played by Eva Mendes... she doesn't belong there. She's far too beautiful for the role. It reminds me of when Jeanne Moreau plays a maid in a Buñuel film; you simply can't believe she's a maid.

The character played by Val Kilmer, the lieutenant's partner, is absolutely nothing. It's like he isn't even there. He’s just like Melvin Purvis in Public Enemies, only with much less screen time.

As for Ebert... I just finished reading his review, and I see exactly what I always see when he writes about Werner Herzog films. Pure admiration. Personally, I don't care for Herzog.

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

goldenhound32 said:Like I mentioned before, Nicolas Cage just isn't convincing to me.

When you weigh everything together, the Werner Herzog film feels more positive than the one by Abel Ferrara.

Keitel's lieutenant actually has a purpose—not right from the jump, but once he decides to track down those guys who attacked the honorable officer. Nicolas Cage's character, on the other hand, just talks about his goal. His true objective remains murky to the viewer; at least, it certainly wasn't clear to me.

Nicolas Cage's officer is crazy in a "wacky" sense, whereas Keitel's character feels more "demented."

Both characters have scenes where they harass ordinary people. In the Werner Herzog film, that scene falls flat, largely due to Nicolas Cage. Roger Ebert brings up rape, but if the girl is acting like she wants it, without any actual coercion, then there isn't even a hint of rape happening.

Oh, and in the Werner Herzog film, the lead's mistress is played by Eva Mendes... she doesn't belong there. She's far too beautiful for the role. It reminds me of when Jeanne Moreau plays a maid in a Buñuel film; you simply can't believe she's a maid.

The character played by Val Kilmer, the lieutenant's partner, is absolutely nothing. It's like he isn't even there. He’s just like Melvin Purvis in Public Enemies, only with much less screen time.

As for Ebert... I just finished reading his review, and I see exactly what I always see when he writes about Werner Herzog films. Pure admiration. Personally, I don't care for Herzog.

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.

goldenhound32 said:Like I mentioned before, Nicolas Cage just isn't convincing to me.

When you weigh everything together, the Werner Herzog film feels more positive than the one by Abel Ferrara.

Keitel's lieutenant actually has a purpose—not right from the jump, but once he decides to track down those guys who attacked the honorable officer. Nicolas Cage's character, on the other hand, just talks about his goal. His true objective remains murky to the viewer; at least, it certainly wasn't clear to me.

Nicolas Cage's officer is crazy in a "wacky" sense, whereas Keitel's character feels more "demented."

Both characters have scenes where they harass ordinary people. In the Werner Herzog film, that scene falls flat, largely due to Nicolas Cage. Roger Ebert brings up rape, but if the girl is acting like she wants it, without any actual coercion, then there isn't even a hint of rape happening.

Oh, and in the Werner Herzog film, the lead's mistress is played by Eva Mendes... she doesn't belong there. She's far too beautiful for the role. It reminds me of when Jeanne Moreau plays a maid in a Buñuel film; you simply can't believe she's a maid.

The character played by Val Kilmer, the lieutenant's partner, is absolutely nothing. It's like he isn't even there. He’s just like Melvin Purvis in Public Enemies, only with much less screen time.

As for Ebert... I just finished reading his review, and I see exactly what I always see when he writes about Werner Herzog films. Pure admiration. Personally, I don't care for Herzog.

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.

goldenhound32 said:Like I mentioned before, Nicolas Cage just isn't convincing to me.

When you weigh everything together, the Werner Herzog film feels more positive than the one by Abel Ferrara.

Keitel's lieutenant actually has a purpose—not right from the jump, but once he decides to track down those guys who attacked the honorable officer. Nicolas Cage's character, on the other hand, just talks about his goal. His true objective remains murky to the viewer; at least, it certainly wasn't clear to me.

Nicolas Cage's officer is crazy in a "wacky" sense, whereas Keitel's character feels more "demented."

Both characters have scenes where they harass ordinary people. In the Werner Herzog film, that scene falls flat, largely due to Nicolas Cage. Roger Ebert brings up rape, but if the girl is acting like she wants it, without any actual coercion, then there isn't even a hint of rape happening.

Oh, and in the Werner Herzog film, the lead's mistress is played by Eva Mendes... she doesn't belong there. She's far too beautiful for the role. It reminds me of when Jeanne Moreau plays a maid in a Buñuel film; you simply can't believe she's a maid.

The character played by Val Kilmer, the lieutenant's partner, is absolutely nothing. It's like he isn't even there. He’s just like Melvin Purvis in Public Enemies, only with much less screen time.

As for Ebert... I just finished reading his review, and I see exactly what I always see when he writes about Werner Herzog films. Pure admiration. Personally, I don't care for Herzog.

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.

goldenhound32 said:Like I mentioned before, Nicolas Cage just isn't convincing to me.

When you weigh everything together, the Werner Herzog film feels more positive than the one by Abel Ferrara.

Keitel's lieutenant actually has a purpose—not right from the jump, but once he decides to track down those guys who attacked the honorable officer. Nicolas Cage's character, on the other hand, just talks about his goal. His true objective remains murky to the viewer; at least, it certainly wasn't clear to me.

Nicolas Cage's officer is crazy in a "wacky" sense, whereas Keitel's character feels more "demented."

Both characters have scenes where they harass ordinary people. In the Werner Herzog film, that scene falls flat, largely due to Nicolas Cage. Roger Ebert brings up rape, but if the girl is acting like she wants it, without any actual coercion, then there isn't even a hint of rape happening.

Oh, and in the Werner Herzog film, the lead's mistress is played by Eva Mendes... she doesn't belong there. She's far too beautiful for the role. It reminds me of when Jeanne Moreau plays a maid in a Buñuel film; you simply can't believe she's a maid.

The character played by Val Kilmer, the lieutenant's partner, is absolutely nothing. It's like he isn't even there. He’s just like Melvin Purvis in Public Enemies, only with much less screen time.

As for Ebert... I just finished reading his review, and I see exactly what I always see when he writes about Werner Herzog films. Pure admiration. Personally, I don't care for Herzog.

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.

goldenhound32 said:Like I mentioned before, Nicolas Cage just isn't convincing to me.

When you weigh everything together, the Werner Herzog film feels more positive than the one by Abel Ferrara.

Keitel's lieutenant actually has a purpose—not right from the jump, but once he decides to track down those guys who attacked the honorable officer. Nicolas Cage's character, on the other hand, just talks about his goal. His true objective remains murky to the viewer; at least, it certainly wasn't clear to me.

Nicolas Cage's officer is crazy in a "wacky" sense, whereas Keitel's character feels more "demented."

Both characters have scenes where they harass ordinary people. In the Werner Herzog film, that scene falls flat, largely due to Nicolas Cage. Roger Ebert brings up rape, but if the girl is acting like she wants it, without any actual coercion, then there isn't even a hint of rape happening.

Oh, and in the Werner Herzog film, the lead's mistress is played by Eva Mendes... she doesn't belong there. She's far too beautiful for the role. It reminds me of when Jeanne Moreau plays a maid in a Buñuel film; you simply can't believe she's a maid.

The character played by Val Kilmer, the lieutenant's partner, is absolutely nothing. It's like he isn't even there. He’s just like Melvin Purvis in Public Enemies, only with much less screen time.

As for Ebert... I just finished reading his review, and I see exactly what I always see when he writes about Werner Herzog films. Pure admiration. Personally, I don't care for Herzog.

Pure admiration right here 🙂. 🤷

Anthony Smith3:

🍿😂🙂🤣🙂

:clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping:

Just being real here, trying to be funny or actually entertaining when you're praising something is way harder than just tearing it all to pieces.

Honestly, just try to think back to any album reviews or concert write-ups that actually stuck with you. In this day and age, it feels like most people just remember the absolute train wrecks, right?

Joshua Smith5 said:I can't tell you how many times my buddies have told me they spotted Dragash at some show, hanging out by the bar with a few heavy-set friends, completely wasted, so what am I supposed to expect from his review?

Well, you know how it goes, you just expect an Alexander Dragash review. I’ve never actually seen him hammered, but I did see him acting all happy and drunk at a concert once and honestly, it was pretty charming. That feeling was definitely helped along by the fact that the show itself was absolutely killer.

Kyle Wilson74 said:It’s way easier to build something useful out of a fight than it is to actually say something good about someone.

Spot on.

(Well put, pride 🙂.)

Kate Sullivan22 said:I messed up a typo. I was trying really hard not to go back and read my own posts once they're live, but clearly that plan failed. You never make mistakes? Oh wait, yeah, you do.

Yeah, okay, my bad, I guess I totally misread 😳.

Wait, are you actually telling me that a professional journalist like yourself needs some extra effort just to figure out whether a negation is one word or two?

Honestly, I probably would’ve just kept my mouth shut if that other part hadn't happened.

Usually, I just turn down half the invites and tickets that come my way

So, maybe you were looking for a round of applause and ended up disappointed, sorry, but I can't help but chime in sometimes when things get this ridiculous...

🤷

George Garcia24 said:Is America really this primitive and uncultured, where nobody even possesses a decent sense of taste, let alone an average American one?

America is just indie!

Robin Rodriguez5 said:I’ll never forget that "(O)Duran (O)Duran" moment 😁

It’s also a real drag when some high-brow critic shows up to a show where they already know deep down they just have to fake it through the night, and honestly, I can't stand that kind of cheap gimmickry...

I don't recall the exact wording of that piece, but I'd actually be curious to hear what they found so unbearable about it since that NYC show was killer (and trust me, I'm no less much of a punk than Dragaš 😛).

Then again, people always eat up it when someone takes a swing at an easy target, like those Lukovićev reviews...

Yeah, that's just not my style 🤷.

Honestly, it’s probably just the way things work where serious critics mostly stick to shows they already know they're going to enjoy, while the rest of the press just feels this automatic pressure to hype everything up because if the crowd had a blast, then clearly the show was a hit, even though people usually have a great time regardless.

I'll give you that, the whole setup is pretty far from ideal.

It’s basically that tired old tradition in comedies and sitcoms where they assume we’re all supposed to find human stupidity charming, like we’re just meant to laugh at these idiots and somehow end up loving them because they're harmless fools.

As far as I can tell, that whole concept hit its peak with Friends and then basically went into overdrive with Will and Grace.

Personally, I never really got the appeal. 🤷 To be honest, the whole thing actually kind of creeps me out. 😢

So, I managed to conjure up two absolute masterpieces that I honestly couldn't stomach watching again anytime soon: Breaking the Waves and Straw Dogs.

Maybe, just maybe: the movies we can't bring ourselves to watch are actually the best ones.😕

Christian Taylor3 said:film censorship

Amy does enjoy being raped, and honestly, that’s the best part—or the absolute worst, depending on how much you hate this godforsaken movie.

Straw Dogs.

One of my all-time favorites, honestly. If I had to pick the one movie that truly rattled me, this might just be at the top of the list.

Then again, it’s probably the one film I’ve actually watched the fewest times out of all my old classics. Heavy, heavy, heavy stuff.

But hey, it’s a hell of a lesson.

I guess.

🤷

Christian Taylor3 said:

Should I weigh in on the acting, the vibe, or just the general mood, or maybe I should just shut up and stay out of it 😳.

I watched Gummo, which is why I was rambling about it earlier, and if my memory serves me right, all those kids in the movie feel pretty... raw.

I’m not saying they shouldn't go out and live their lives, obviously, but look, I know she’s supposed to be this massive indie icon or whatever, though I personally haven't seen anything particularly special in her work.

It might just be that old "casting whoever" mentality when it comes to young actresses; honestly, I get the feeling there’s never been a better crop of young male actors in the USA, yet somehow we've never had fewer talented young women. But that's a whole other conversation.

Christian Taylor3 said:🤔 I don't know why you're hating on Chloe Sevigny

I guess I just get this vibe that she just shows up in movies and, like, everyone acts like she's this huge deal now, but to me, she just feels like some poser walking around acting cool. I don't think I actually watched Boys Don't Cry; I have a feeling it's actually decent, but I can't quite place it... Let me check... Oh yeah, Zodiac. (I didn't even recognize her when I saw it).

Anyway, I know she lives off her reputation—hanging out with Korine, being tight with Sonic Youth, all that stuff.

She does look pretty good in that wiki shot from Boys Don't Cry, though.