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 🙂. 🤷
