SHERDOG MOVIE CLUB: Week 70 Discussion - Bad Lieutenant

Harvey Keitels best perfromance, I think the guy was jacked up on cocaine and forced himself not to sleep to play that role. Dude was straight up insane

Bad Lieutenant is a disgusting and gritty film, I dont care for those type of stuff but I can respect Keitels performance the movie is one of those far out movies where you laugh because you cant believe how messed up this dude is.

This was the scene that most people remember from it lol
 
This is my favorite Abel Ferrara film "FEAR CITY" reminds me so much of that 80s styling, its quintessential 80s
 
Also have not seen Herzog's Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans. This has me confused though, is it connected to the Bad Lieutenant we just watched in any way?

Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans is a 2009 American black comedy film directed by Werner Herzog and starring Nicolas Cage, Eva Mendes, Tom Bower, Jennifer Coolidge, Alvin 'Xzibit' Joiner, Val Kilmer, and Brad Dourif. Though the film's title resembles that of Abel Ferrara's 1992 film Bad Lieutenant;[4] it is neither a sequel nor a remake; according to Herzog, its only commonality is a corrupt policeman as the central character.[5] Both Bad Lieutenant films were produced by Edward R. Pressman.

I saw it once when it first came out.

Like the article says, it's neither a sequel nor a remake. But it's another, independent story with the same idea: A cop's life spirals out of control when he goes down the path of vice and corruption.
 
I saw it once when it first came out.

Like the article says, it's neither a sequel nor a remake. But it's another, independent story with the same idea: A cop's life spirals out of control when he goes down the path of vice and corruption.

I'm still confused. Its just blatant ripping off of intellectual property? What are we saying here? Herzog made a movie called Bad Lieutenant about a bad lieutenant but then claims it has no relation to Bad Lieutenant?

Mark-Wahlberg-Shock-and-Confused-Look.gif
 
I'm still confused. Its just blatant ripping off of intellectual property? What are we saying here? Herzog made a movie called Bad Lieutenant about a bad lieutenant but then claims it has no relation to Bad Lieutenant?

Mark-Wahlberg-Shock-and-Confused-Look.gif

LOL. Yeah, I dunno. I don't fully understand the films' relationship to each other but I have to assume that some kind of money had to change hands in order to use the name.

According to one of the IMDB trivia entries:

Although being promoted as a remake of Bad Lieutenant (1992) during its early production, director Werner Herzog claims that this is not a remake. He says he has never seen the original and therefore does not consider this movie a remake. Additionally, producers seemed to have added "Bad Lieutenant" to the title in order to get a better marketing. Whether remake, re-imagining, follow-up or none of the aforementioned, both movies are clearly connected by the basic plot of following a drug addicted, violent cop during his encounters with crime and sex.

I guess that just muddies the waters even more. I find it a bit difficult to believe that Herzog never saw the first film.
 
Fantastic film, it psychologically goes inside the mind of a psychopath who is having a melt down. Very underrated film.

A remake will not do this film justice. Only Harvey Keitel can play that part that well, and it was the performance of his lifetime.
 
BTW, can we just take a minute to talk about the title.

This motherfucker's called "Bad Lieutenant." Ferrara was just like, "Okay look, let's not beat around the bush, we're gonna be real fucking specific about what this movie is."

It's as if Fast and the Furious was called "Outlaw Street Racers" or Top Gun was called "Navy Fighter Pilot."
 
Fantastic film, it psychologically goes inside the mind of a psychopath who is having a melt down. Very underrated film.

A remake will not do this film justice. Only Harvey Keitel can play that part that well, and it was the performance of his lifetime.

I'd definitely have to disagree with the psychopath part.

The whole point of the movie is his redemption and the fact that there's a good man deep down inside of him, and that he's NOT some inhuman thing who is incapable of empathy and goodness.
 
I'd definitely have to disagree with the psychopath part.

The whole point of the movie is his redemption and the fact that there's a good man deep down inside of him, and that he's NOT some inhuman thing who is incapable of empathy and goodness.

The Lieutenant was corrupt, a degenerate drug abuser, a degenerate gambler, he was morally and sexually deviant. My take is that he indeed was a psychopath, who grew up Catholic, and had a drug fueled religious experience that made him want to do something good. All in all I think he was psychopathic 99% of the time. If he wasn't a full blown psychopath then he certainly had psychopathic tendencies.
 
The Lieutenant was corrupt, a degenerate drug abuser, a degenerate gambler, he was morally and sexually deviant. My take is that he indeed was a psychopath, who grew up Catholic, and had a drug fueled religious experience that made him want to do something good. All in all I think he was psychopathic 99% of the time. If he wasn't a full blown psychopath then he certainly had psychopathic tendencies.

Well I'm thinking of psychopath in the actual scientific sense: A person with a brain defect that prevents them from feeling empathy for others.

I'll agree with psychopathic tendencies, though.
 
Well I'm thinking of psychopath in the actual scientific sense: A person with a brain defect that prevents them from feeling empathy for others.

I'll agree with psychopathic tendencies, though.

Until he had the religious experience where he had the vision of the crucified Christ I did not see any empathy from him, maybe he had some deep inside and he just had psychopathic tendencies, however he was still a very bad individual.
 
A really good book that deals with an out of control cop is "Filth" by Irvine Welsh, I often wonder if the movie influenced his book.
 
LOL. Yeah, I dunno. I don't fully understand the films' relationship to each other but I have to assume that some kind of money had to change hands in order to use the name.

According to one of the IMDB trivia entries:

Although being promoted as a remake of Bad Lieutenant (1992) during its early production, director Werner Herzog claims that this is not a remake. He says he has never seen the original and therefore does not consider this movie a remake. Additionally, producers seemed to have added "Bad Lieutenant" to the title in order to get a better marketing. Whether remake, re-imagining, follow-up or none of the aforementioned, both movies are clearly connected by the basic plot of following a drug addicted, violent cop during his encounters with crime and sex.

I guess that just muddies the waters even more. I find it a bit difficult to believe that Herzog never saw the first film.


Ummmm....

reading-ikea-intructions-big-lebowski-confused.gif


You literally just blew my mind by making the situation even more confusing.
 
Meh, the "sequel" doesn't do the original justice. And seems like some bullshit around not seeing the original. I just don't buy that.
 
Well, I'm caught up now since I was on vacation last week, and I just finished Bad Lieutenant, which I kinda think is a bad title, but whatever.

This looks very much like a gritty, controversial, no punches pulled, in your face drama you'd expect from the 70s. Seriously, if I didn't see that it was from the 90s, I would have thought it came out in the 70s, and I would have just thought Keital looked like an older, strungout dude on purpose. I liked the look and feel of this. Raw and unflinching.

A problem I had with it is that most of the movie seems pretty aimless. We have so many drawn out scenes of him abusing drugs that it got tiresome to watch. Knowing that the script was only 65 pages and a lot of the film was improvised and done on the fly is evident. There seemed to be a lot of padding in between the plot points.

I'm already a big fan of Harvey Keital, and seeing this only added on to my appreciation of him. His whale-like groans were sorta strange and comical, and maybe a tad bit over the top, but I still think he was awesome. Him and De Niro both play the angry, imposing man very similar. If this character was cursing and yelling at me while waiving a gun in my face, I'd be shitting myself. I've had a gun pulled on me before, and the punk was no Harvey Keital bad ass, which thank goodness for me.

The film's climax rests on him letting the two rapists go because he was trying to forgive them like the nun did. This final act of forgiveness was an attempt on his part to find forgiveness from God since he knew he was a deadman soon. It's up to the viewer to decide whether or not this act of redemption was good enough to send him to everlasting bliss, or was it a little too late after living a degenerate life of crime and corruption, and now he is damned to Hell. I thought of this, what if the Dodgers won game 7? Would he then have followed through with letting them go, or would he have booked them? We don't know for sure if the bookie would have even honored his bet, but he doesn't know that, and he seems like the type that would expect the bookie to honor the bet. I don't think he was really sorry, and instead he was a man who saw no way out from his impending death since the Mets won, so his act of forgiveness was disingenuous and just a last second saving grace attempt. He was a lousy cop, a lousy husband, a lousy father, a lousy catholic, a lousy man, a lousy soul, and his last attempt of redemption was lousy. The movie should have been called Lousy Lieutenant. It's still not a good title, but I like the alliteration better.

I wouldn't call this great, but it's not a bad movie in any sense. A little boring sometimes, but then it smacks ya with a scene like the one with the two girls in the car and him jerking off. Holy shit. I won't be forgetting that one. Also, Keital hangs dong in this, and that's pretty Thunder Gun of him.
 
I'm already a big fan of Harvey Keital, and seeing this only added on to my appreciation of him. His whale-like groans were sorta strange and comical, and maybe a tad bit over the top,

Holy shit I had forgotten about those:D

You really nailed it with "whale-like" description. So strange.



You get a tidbit of it in Resorvoir Dogs too.l
 
I also am not sure. I thought it was an interesting observation on @MusterX's part but it's not something that occurred to me while I was watching the movie. My thought was that he just likes to do any drug he can get his hands on and he's been deep into that shit for a long time.



I think so. Not positive, but it had some shit in that I think would've only made an NC-17 cut.



I saw it only once and don't remember it very well. It has an 86% on RT though and Ebert gave it 4/4 stars.

I'd need to rewatch it to comment but I have a natural instinct to defend Nic Cage.

If you didn't see HK cum when he pulls the teenage girls over, it was the R rated version which has a lot of stuff cut from it.
 
Holy shit I had forgotten about those:D

You really nailed it with "whale-like" description. So strange.



You get a tidbit of it in Resorvoir Dogs too.l


See, that video just made me laugh, and given the nature of this film, it probably shouldn't have that effect.
 
A problem I had with it is that most of the movie seems pretty aimless. We have so many drawn out scenes of him abusing drugs that it got tiresome to watch. Knowing that the script was only 65 pages and a lot of the film was improvised and done on the fly is evident. There seemed to be a lot of padding in between the plot points.

Agreed. One thing I remember hearing someone say a while back is that, "A story is not just a series of events. A story has a beginning, a middle and an end." While there is something approaching the three-act structure here, and there's a clear arc, I did think it often felt too much like just a series of events.

His whale-like groans were sorta strange and comical, and maybe a tad bit over the top, but I still think he was awesome.

Holy shit I had forgotten about those:D

You really nailed it with "whale-like" description. So strange.



You get a tidbit of it in Resorvoir Dogs too.l


One of the trivia pieces that I thought was kind of amusing:

Harvey Keitel was criticised in an extract from User Reviews for his extreme emotional outbursts at various points in Bad Lieutenant (1992) as follows: "In the scenes where Keitel is supposed to be "exploring the depths of this evil soul" and "wrestling with this man's self-hatred" (to quote some of the more overzealous reviewers), he scrunches up his face and makes a sort of howling/whining noise, akin to the noise an injured dog might make. Is this supposed to be a career defining performance? Looked more like someone who got kicked out of drama school to me".
 
Lousy Lieutenant? You can't be serious.

Regardless, I do agree parts may feel kind of aimless - but when you reach my age, you realize that's a part of life that people generally go through. The guy has kids, a job, but still feels aimless and broken inside. As for whale groans and such -- I've known and seen people with drug addicts who had a lot bigger problems than that lol.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top