Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans at DVinfo.net

Cole Seidl · April 10th, 2010, 08:02 PM

I finally got a chance to check out Herzog's Bad Lieutenant remake.
I quite enjoyed it. Definitely a high point in the career of Nicholas Cage, as well as a fun departure for good ol' Werner.

Steve Struthers · April 18th, 2010, 03:32 PM

I rented it, and didn't like it at all. In fact, I found it so unwatchable that I couldn't get through the first hour. The script is very weak. The cinematography is bad, too - many of the shots lacked any appreciable depth of field, a sign they were probably shot using small-sensor video cameras, with the end result transferred to film and back to video again via DVD. The pacing of the shots was poor, too.

The whole thing had a very thin and cheap, lower-than-low-budget feel to it and seemed amateurish, which was surprising to see, considering director Werner Herzog's considerable talents.

Overall, I have a lot of respect for Nicholas Cage, but found his acting was stilted and forced. I felt like I was watching him play himself rather than the character he was supposed to be playing.

In short, this was one of the worst movies I have ever seen.

Cole Seidl · April 18th, 2010, 03:49 PM

That's interesting to me. I'm sorry you didn't enjoy it.
However, I know that this was indeed shot on 35mm and not video as you suggested.
Also, even I am willing to admit that the shots were awkwardly paced at times, the difference is I don't see it as a negative. It kept my interest into the offbeat unnatural vibe that the movie had going for it.

And as for Cage, I'm surprised you thought he was playing himself. As much as I love him, I feel he can fall into that trap for many of his roles, but this I thought was one of the great exceptions (along with Adaptation.)

But of course ( as with a lot of Herzog) it's definitely not for everyone, (or possibly even most) but one of worst movies ever seems a tad harsh, and makes me wonder if you've ever watched the Sci-Fi channel at 2:00 am.

Lori Starfelt · May 1st, 2010, 01:22 PM

Well, I don't love Nick Cage - in fact, his movies are a staple of Bad Movie Night over here. I think he's a god-awful actor more often than not. Which is why we watch him. He has impeccably bad taste in projects.

But I thought Port of Call was a great movie. Weird. Crazy. But that it made overall sense. I loved iguana-cam. Maybe I'm alone in this but I thought it was an homage to David Lynch's Blue Velvet/Mr. Sandman scene.

Sherif Choudhry · September 29th, 2010, 02:44 PM

I saw this on bluray on my 50" 1080 screen and it looked so SHARP! (In fact I am now so addicted to bluray i can hardly make myself watch anything on TV or DVD!!) but according to IMDB this was shot on 35mm negative. But frankly i reckon if they had shot it on RED I wouldnt be able to tell the difference. Films just look over-processed these days, its weird, like if theyve dropped a magic bullet preset on it.

I think Cage did absolutely ham some of the scenes, but compared to Abel Ferrera and Harvey Keitels Bad Lieutenant he came across as too clean. Keitel was wracked in agony, despair and was filthy, Cage is a lucky smart-aleck.

StillI enjoyed the film, but I dont think Cage will better Leaving Las Vegas for performance.

And now i just want to replace my DVDs with bluray - the cost!!!

April 10th, 2010, 08:02 PM	#1
Cole Seidl Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Minneapolis, MN Posts: 126	Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans I finally got a chance to check out Herzog's Bad Lieutenant remake. I quite enjoyed it. Definitely a high point in the career of Nicholas Cage, as well as a fun departure for good ol' Werner.

April 18th, 2010, 03:32 PM	#2
Steve Struthers Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Canada Posts: 170	I rented it, and didn't like it at all. In fact, I found it so unwatchable that I couldn't get through the first hour. The script is very weak. The cinematography is bad, too - many of the shots lacked any appreciable depth of field, a sign they were probably shot using small-sensor video cameras, with the end result transferred to film and back to video again via DVD. The pacing of the shots was poor, too. The whole thing had a very thin and cheap, lower-than-low-budget feel to it and seemed amateurish, which was surprising to see, considering director Werner Herzog's considerable talents. Overall, I have a lot of respect for Nicholas Cage, but found his acting was stilted and forced. I felt like I was watching him play himself rather than the character he was supposed to be playing. In short, this was one of the worst movies I have ever seen.

April 18th, 2010, 03:49 PM	#3
Cole Seidl Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Minneapolis, MN Posts: 126	That's interesting to me. I'm sorry you didn't enjoy it. However, I know that this was indeed shot on 35mm and not video as you suggested. Also, even I am willing to admit that the shots were awkwardly paced at times, the difference is I don't see it as a negative. It kept my interest into the offbeat unnatural vibe that the movie had going for it. And as for Cage, I'm surprised you thought he was playing himself. As much as I love him, I feel he can fall into that trap for many of his roles, but this I thought was one of the great exceptions (along with Adaptation.) But of course ( as with a lot of Herzog) it's definitely not for everyone, (or possibly even most) but one of worst movies ever seems a tad harsh, and makes me wonder if you've ever watched the Sci-Fi channel at 2:00 am.

May 1st, 2010, 01:22 PM	#4
Lori Starfelt Major Player Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Los Angeles, california Posts: 228	Well, I don't love Nick Cage - in fact, his movies are a staple of Bad Movie Night over here. I think he's a god-awful actor more often than not. Which is why we watch him. He has impeccably bad taste in projects. But I thought Port of Call was a great movie. Weird. Crazy. But that it made overall sense. I loved iguana-cam. Maybe I'm alone in this but I thought it was an homage to David Lynch's Blue Velvet/Mr. Sandman scene.

September 29th, 2010, 02:44 PM	#5
Sherif Choudhry Major Player Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: London Posts: 222	I saw this on bluray on my 50" 1080 screen and it looked so SHARP! (In fact I am now so addicted to bluray i can hardly make myself watch anything on TV or DVD!!) but according to IMDB this was shot on 35mm negative. But frankly i reckon if they had shot it on RED I wouldnt be able to tell the difference. Films just look over-processed these days, its weird, like if theyve dropped a magic bullet preset on it. I think Cage did absolutely ham some of the scenes, but compared to Abel Ferrera and Harvey Keitels Bad Lieutenant he came across as too clean. Keitel was wracked in agony, despair and was filthy, Cage is a lucky smart-aleck. StillI enjoyed the film, but I dont think Cage will better Leaving Las Vegas for performance. And now i just want to replace my DVDs with bluray - the cost!!!