EDIT - THIS REFERS TO THE 1992 HARVEY KEITEL ORIGINAL

Can't agree with you guys here, as I was very, very underwhelmed with this movie.

I'm sure I've seen it long ago, but I had little memory of anything, which goes to show that even back then, it didn't stick with me.

IMO, there are many problems here.

First of all, there's really no story whatsoever.  If you want to say it's about 4 or 5 days in the life of a fucked up police officer, OK, I'll buy that, but that does not a story make.  The nun rape side story wasn't played up nearly enough and came off as a last ditch effort at "adding" a story to the story-less plot.

The movie is so dark, that it actually comes off as comedy almost.  I mean, c'mon now.  There is nothing remotely rewarding or uplifting here, and that's a serious turnoff in a movie.  Unless this was supposed to take place in the 70's, it just doesn't fly in any sense of reality.  Keitel's unnamed character spends literally every waking minute ingesting, injecting, snorting, and smoking drugs which run the gambit from pot to heroin...and let's not forget the coke and crack.  Just too much to be able to function, especially in a high profile role of a police lieutenant.

The ending was what really sealed the deal for me, though.  Just so weak, so lame, so downright stupid.  A complete copout, IMO.

As a script or movie, it's lacking badly in so many ways.  Take a look at literally every single secondary character here and tell me what happens with them.  Nothing.  Absolutely nothing, as none of them have any bearing in the "story", or maybe because there is no story.  All the cops, all the drug buddies...we never hear from them again, once their time is past and why would we care anyways?

Finally, there's an interesting backstory to this film and its NC17 rating.  To be honest, I don't quite get why or how this got an NC17 rating and why the film makers let it slide.  IS there any violence that's shown onscreen?  Is there any sex?  Any nudity?  I don't think so.  It's all based on drug use and probably tone and subject matter.  I don't know if I've seen more, but I've seen it all before in numerous R rated movies, and for me, this only adds more nails to the coffin, as the movie seems to want to push the envelope, but IMO, it's nothing all that shocking, other than how dull, plodding, and bludgeoning it is.

Now, I like Harvey Keitel and I will give him credit here for sure, as he did a good job and really seemed to immerse himself in his role and the portrayal of a complete druggie like this. And his great performance carries the film as long as it can, but when nothing really changes or happens, it starts to drag, and even the power of the material and subject matter loses what it had.

Definitely not for everyone and IMO, not for many at all.

I have not seen that one Jeff. I was referring to the Nicholas Cage version that came out a couple of years ago.

Quoted from leitskev I have not seen that one Jeff. I was referring to the Nicholas Cage version that came out a couple of years ago.

Huh?  That's a completely different movie with a different title even.  There's a thread for that already.

It appears that everyone else thought you were referring to this 1992 "original" version as well.

Quoted from leitskev I have not seen that one Jeff. I was referring to the Nicholas Cage version that came out a couple of years ago.

Kev, you are talking about Port of Call New Orleans.  Thread title amended.

You should check out the original, which (to me) is more interesting than Jeff makes it out to be -- but I never argue Jeff's opinions with Jeff anymore  

Quoted from Dreamscale Finally, there's an interesting backstory to this film and its NC17 rating.  To be honest, I don't quite get why or how this got an NC17 rating and why the film makers let it slide.  IS there any violence that's shown onscreen?  Is there any sex?  Any nudity?  I don't think so.

If you have forgotten the full-frontal shot from Mr. Keitel, it has been a while since you've seen this movie.  Some guy with his dork hanging out will always get you an NC-17.

I just watched it on Netflix streaming over the weekend.  Maybe it was edited out?  I don't know, but I definitely didn't see any dorks hanging out.  It did say it was rated NC17 though.

I guess I'll delete my post, as it has nothing to do with the Cage Bad Lieutenant.

Thanks for changing Bert.

Damn, Jeff.

You didn't even like the original?

That's an all time classic!

The ending was anything but a copout..it was refreshingly bleak and honest. A copout would have been to have him redeem himself and then live happily ever after.
He's found spiritual redemption, but in the real world he still has to pay the price for the life he's lived.

There's a very strong story that looks at the nature of morality, religion, forgiveness and redemption.

It's a top, top film and the masturbation scene still hits as hard as ever to this day.


@Kev.

I agree with your assessment of the modern film. I thought it was excllent as well. It was a traditional police procedure film, but elevated by the strong and unusual direction and by some moments of real genius.

I also concur with your reading of the central character. He's essentially good (evidenced by saving the guy at the beginning from drowning) and by his remorseless hunting down of the bad guys.

It makes a great accompanying piece to the original, dealing with similar themes but in a much different way.

I'm glad you agree with the assessment, Rick, as I was wondering if I was crazy. I have not actually been able to see the film all in one sitting, and I haven't even seen the drowning scene you just mentioned. I've seen most of it, though, and it surprised me how refreshingly original I personally found it.

I had the chance to watch the first half of the original BL for the first time last night. Harvey K is simply brilliant. I've known cops that were kind of like this. Actually, the badge gets you into a lot of parties, and many cops end up on this road.

The Nicholas Cage version managed to be much more entertaining then the original, while retaining most of the grittiness. I'm a little surprised more people haven't chimed in positively about this film. I guess that's because no limbs were sawed off. I'm no film student, but I enjoyed it, found it original.

NOTE - This is in reference to the original 1992 film

Well, I did some digging, and the version streaming on Netflix is the R rated cut, not the NC17 version.  Netflix does say this is rated NC17, though, which is a bit strange.

If you do a Google search, you can easily find (and see) exactly what's different in the 2 cuts.  I now understand why the original got an NC 17 rating.

Mystery solved.

Now, there is another mystery I have to ask about...

Kevin, how can you start a thread on a movie you haven't seen in its entirety?  I don't understand...I really don't.  I mean, how can you say the movie's good or bad without seeing the whole thing?

I don't mean to give you shit, but every time I see a new post here, it's reaffirmed, and to me, it's just crazy.

I've seen pretty much the whole thing. I must have missed perhaps the first minutes. The hazards of surfing. When I posted this, I thought I had only missed the opening credits. But I did see the main part of the story, beginning with the killings witnessed by the black kid.  I stand by my recommendation to watch the film. It's not only entertaining and original, there is a depth to the character that I found memorable.

I don't mind if you give me shit. As long as it's to my face. Or the internet version of that. Can you do that?

Quoted from leitskev I don't mind if you give me shit. As long as it's to my face. Or the internet version of that. Can you do that?

I don't follow...are you saying you'd prefer if I had PM'd you as opposed to saying this in the thread?