ElWormo A 2 hour long mess that looks like a big collection of deleted scenes from a movie that was never finished, and then scrapped.Aside from being all over the place, the whole thing comes off like too much of a generic macho gunz-drugz-n-babez type cop flick to carve out any kind of original niche for itself - but at the same time it tries to break the mould with some totally ill advised stabs at 'wacky' humour that absolutely don't work. You never know if you're watching a serious film here or a comedy, and ultimately neither style succeeds.Too many problems to mention, but the cringe inducing dialogue and line delivery (not just from Cage, although he's definitely Mr. Ham Sandwich here), plus some pretty blatant racial character stereotyping, all help to push this into the bad zone. It's just about un-awful enough to stick with though. There's worse out there in this genre...

freemantle_uk The idea of remakes are normally abhorrent to film fans, a sign that there is a lack of originality or ideas and normally results in the question why bother. However the 2009 version of Bad Lieutenant had a better chance then it most - it was directed German auteur Werner Herzog and had cast figuring Nicolas Cage, Eva Mendes, Val Kilmer and rapper Xzibit.Set during the aftermath of Hurricane Karina Terence McDonagh is considered a hero for saving a criminal and promoted to police lieutenant. However, he has also become addicted to a variety of narcotics. Terence is assigned to investigate a gang murder of a immigrant drug dealer and his family whilst he also has to battle all problems involving finding drugs, getting in debt with his bookie and crossing powerful people.The original Bad Lieutenant was a dark, grimy film that was covered in Catholic iconography and Harvey Kietel gave a fantastic performance as the unnamed Lieutenant. It was an underrated gem from 90s. Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans is a remake in the loosest sense - sharing a similar premise and telling its own story. Herzog even claimed his version wasn't a remake because he never heard of the original.The 1992 version was a more akin to a film like Taxi Driver or Serpico, a film that showed New York to be a cesspool of crime and was shot in a grounded style. The Werzog version is a much more glossy film, having a score that sounds like a film noir detective story and takes away most of the grit of the original. Despite the quality of the director the 2009 film was more a run-in-the-mill story, taking away the themes of Catholic guilt and redemption that were prominent in the 1992 version. Some of the African migrants are shown to be Catholic which could have been an interesting avenue to go down especially since African-Americans are normally Baptists but nothing much was done with this.Both films also have a surreal edge, the 1992 version being based on the Lieutenant's Catholic guilt so had a logic to it. In the 2009 version it was based on Terence's drug addiction which results in the character seeing reptiles that no one else can. The idea is Terence's addiction is making him loose grip with reality, but these moment really do is allow Nicolas Cage to do his maniac Nic Cage performance - it is the stereotype of what people would expect from Cage. There is also a theme of characters getting clean from their vices but this is underdeveloped and undeserved.The 2009 version was highly praised by critics, it has a 87% rating compared to the original's 77% (amidst from a lower review count) - but audiences are more hostile towards the film. It is a case where critics praised a film because of its director's reputation rather than the quality of the film itself. 'Port of Call' is a more mainstream effort form Werzog but it lacks the complexity of the original and a plays like a neutered version. If this had been directed by a lesser known director this version would not have been so well received.This version is at its best during the midpoint when Terence is at his lowest because professionally and personally is building up against him. He is getting what he deserves and this is when the film has it biggest drive because everything in Terence's is colliding to each other.As a bad cop movie 'Port of Call' is a weak entry and swallow in its writing and character development. Try the original or the Scottish set Filth which shows a self-serving cop going to the edge because of his addictions and personal problems.

bowmanblue Once upon a time the word 'Nicholas' and 'Cage' were something to set the box office alight. Nowadays, pretty much everything he does is laughed at. The only real enjoyment found from a Nic Cage film is us trying to guess just how low he will descend this time around. However, although Bad Lieutenant (2?) is never going to be an absolute classic, it does the job for what it is.First of all, it didn't entirely escape criticism. Its full title is 'Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans' and it's actually a remake of the Harvey Keitel film of the same name (minus the bit about New Orleans). Therefore, you naturally had all the original's fanbase claiming how sacred the original was and how this was a travesty and a simple cash-in rip-off. Well I guess all remakes are to a degree, but this one does its best to try and steer clear of borrowing too much from the source material. In fact, some of the production team even go as far as to say that it's not a remake, more a sequel that only borrows from the same principal.And then there's Cage himself. He's actually pretty good (again). Yes, he specialises in some overacting from time to time, but anyone who's seen him before should be used to this. He's propped up by a decent supporting cast, including Eva Mendes and Val Kilmer, but it's generally Cage's baby and he carries the film well. As the title suggests, Cage plays the titular 'Bad Lieutenant' who, despite supposedly being a man of the law, is pretty broken and frequently bends the rules, especially when he's in need of drugs (legal and otherwise).It's a bit trippy, too. You have to concentrate on what's going on and you're going to have to be okay with some more 'arty' elements, such as singing iguanas (which I loved!). I think the more 'out there' parts of the film were trying to portray Cage's slow descent into drug-induced madness.I have to confess, I haven't seen the original, so I can't compare the two. But, seeing as I haven't watched it, I quite enjoyed it – it's a tale of a man who's on a slippery path to nowhere. So, if you like your cops 'dirty' and films a little dark and whacky, don't simply write it off as yet another of Cage's 'misfires' and give it a go.

grantss Excellent movie. (Don't be put off by the lame title, which makes it sound like it is part of a series, or a video game. It is neither). On the surface, a conventional cop drama. However, one of the cops, played by Nicholas Cage, is corrupt, and a drug addict. The movie is more about his life, and his descent into addiction, and more outlandish situations to feed his habit, than the murder case he is working on. The results are surreal, and darkly funny at times (look out for anything involving iguanas!).While the plot and direction are solid and original, it is the performance of Nicholas Cage which makes the movie. He acts out of his skin, relishing the opportunity to act insanely over the top. I would go so far as to say that this is his best performance since the superb "Leaving Las Vegas" (1995). That says a lot in that he won the Best Actor Oscar for that performance, and was nominated for his performance in "Adaptation" (2002).Solid performances from the supporting cast - Eva Mendes, Val Kilmer, rapper Xzibit (which was a surprise casting, and even more surprising performance, in a pleasant way).Probably won't be suitable for everyone's taste. If you're looking for straightforward cop drama, forget it. If you want something that's edgy, gritty, meaningful and different, this is it.