“When you need her and do not want her, she must stay. When you want her and do not need her, she must go.”

***Click here for more stills and behind the scenes stuff***

“What you need is Nanny McPhee”, little “c” big “P”.  Emma Thompson brings you another installment to the McPhee franchise. The second adventure of the pretty much super nanny tells of a poor woman named Isabel  Green (Maggie Gyllenhal) who half-owns a farm with Uncle Phil (Rhys Ifans). From the intro scene you can pretty much assume that Isabel and her three children Megsie, Vincent, and Norman are broke as shit.  The farm is pretty much in ruins and Uncle Bill is just AMPED to sell this farm off.

They couldn’t afford to keep their tractor and therefore, can’t harvest the barley. Mr. Green, Isabel’s husband, is far away “at the war” and constantly writes his wife. The film doesn’t give on how long he has been gone but it was apparent that it has been quite a while. The house is all a mess…aged. Isabel can’t handle the kids alone, and the Uncle is completely and wholly set on getting this farm sold fast. You see, his life is literally on the line. The appearance of Miss Topsey and Miss Turvey (Sinead Matthews and Katy Brand respectively) reveals that the bastard may have gambled the farm away in some weird Casino! Hmph, if only he had Isabel’s consent to make the sale that would spare him.

To make matters worse, Isabel’s sister send her own two children to the farm…the cousins. Of course they are spoiled, rich, snobby, hilarious brats but they really do, surprisingly, grow on you…almost stealing the movie away from the “main kids.” From here, the plot develops to the point where “(Maggie) needs Nanny McPhee.”

Now we meet the hella ugly, Nanny McPhee and see what she is all about. (Note Emma Thompson is Prof. Trelawney from Harry Potter and Maggie Smith plays Prof. McGonagall!)
The acting was, woot woot, on point.

I have to admit, I was hesitant to watch something that looked like Mary Poppins WITHOUT singing. However, the children that were casted completely stole the show. Cyril is my personal favorite of the entire cast with his obnoxious retorts and complaints of his situation. His display of sarcasm and arrogance light the screen up and come, like a surprise ninja kick every time. No one was unbelievable and the whole film held a consistent “Nanny McPhee” aura, making it stand out from your usual kids films.

The move itself was shocking. Mostly because I found myself wanting to keep watching it, then, wanting it to be longer. The plot flowed very smoothly and there was no sign of foolishness anywhere. No unneeded extra characters or idiotic plot twists, or unexplainable “conveniences” here!  You can always tell when a movie’s engine has stopped running , followed by a swift kick in the ass to force-start it.

Eyegasm. The special effects were pretty much perfect and never seen before. There was not anything epic or spectacular done, but the effects added so much life and personally not only to the movie, but to Nanny McPhee. This movie has a life of its own and I didn’t even have the awkward looming feeling of enjoying a movie for kids.  It was geared towards children but presented adult problems like divorce, love, jealousy, and good morals. Everything was so clever and wrapped up so well.

I love it when a movie gives me closure. Speaking of closure, prepare yourself for a very unexpected ending (I am not sure how, just do it) that turns out to be rather suspenseful. The person next to me jumped to the edge of his chair and clutched the arm holders with anxiety! I hope you guys do enjoy it as much as I do, and as much as you want to hear more from me, I must go. *Thunk*

***Need more pix of these badasses? Click here***

Limacher Low Down:  The Expendables is just a throw back to the Action Genre of the 80′s and 90′s where violence was utilized just for the sake of violence. The movie has a cast of THOUSANDS, well not really, but action stars galore light up the screen. The viewer definitely gets their bang for the buck in this one, and you won’t leave saying “I thought there would be more explosions and violence and shit!”

The Expendables is a group of guys who are hired to do mercenary work for those who can afford to pay for their services. The movie opens showcasing what the group, led by Barney Ross (Sylvester Stallone), does best, “Peace Negotiations”.  The audience quickly learns there is a friendly rivalry of who can do the most damage between Ross and Lee Christmas (Jason Statham). Everything is fun and games, literally, as the team members try to out-kill and out-destroy each other.  But one guy, a “rogue” Expendable doesn’t always follow Ross’ orders, enter Gunner Jensen (Dolph Lundgren) who by taking action into his own hands gets into a spat with Ying Yang (Jet Li). Ross puts an end to the situation and alerts everyone that this behavior is not tolerated in the group.

Turns out Ross gets his mission intel from his tattoo artist, Tool (Mickey Rourke) who was once an Expendable himself.  Tool lets Ross know about a dangerous mission, and Ross and Christmas do some recon work.  They soon discover there is a former CIA Agent, James Munroe (Eric Roberts), who has bought his way into the small island for his own personal use – manipulating a local general to brutally control the local populace. General Garza (David Zayas) loves only two  things, money and his family, the rest are, well, expendable!

The recon work leads Ross and Christmas to initally shy away from the mission, hard to spend money when you are dead!  But, their contact, Sandra (Giselle Itie) gets into Ross’ head.
This part is the real drama of the movie – Ross decides to go it alone because it was time to live or die.  The others decide it is all in their best interest to join the mission as well, and not miss out on the fun. This is where the movie takes off and the audience knows that the shit is FINALLY going to hit the fan!

The mission itself is worth the price of admission. The explosions, the gunfire, the blood just take over the screen and the fun has truly begun. The action more than makes up for the acting, which is good cause the acting wasn’t that great. The cameos are given away in the previews, but the lines that are shot between the 3 are hilarious. There is some comedy in the movie, although some of it wasn’t supposed to be funny. I say if you miss action movies that just explode the screen with high body counts and explosions then RUN to see the Expendables!

A film about men who hate women, among other things…

The H-Bomb: Disgraced journalist Mikael Blomkvyst (Michael Nyqvyst) has just been convicted of libel and steps down from the magazine he created, Millennium. But before he has time to stew over his losses, he is hired by Henrik Vanger (Sven-Bertil Taube), an elderly business man who‘s a member of the wealthy and powerful Vanger family, to investigate the disappearance of his niece, Harriet, who vanished some four decades ago and is believed to have been murdered.

At first Blomkvyst seems to be getting absolutely nowhere in his investigation, but out of the blue he is helped by a computer hacker named Lisbeth Salander (Noomi Rapace), an emo-ish goth chick who has some… er… issues of her own, to put it kindly. Lisbeth ends up joining Blomkvyst’s investigation and the two strike up an unusual relationship while digging into the mystery, discovering a link to Harriet’s disappearance and the murders of other young women, and uncovering some very dark secrets about the Vanger brood.

Okay, where to start, where to start. “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” is a Swedish import that is the first part of the “Millennium” trilogy, which is based on a series of books that is insanely popular in Europe. I’ve been reading the hype and praise for this for a good long while, with reviewers giving it four and five star ratings and calling it things like “Brilliant!”, “Amazing!”, and “A Mind Bending Thriller!” I was actually really looking forward to this one… well, you know how too much praise can be a bad thing?

When I finished watching this for the first time (notice I say first time), my reaction was simply “Meh. That‘s it?” I mean, can we say over-hyped?! Don’t get me wrong, I thought it was a perfectly decent film, but I wasn‘t amazed or blown away. I certainly didn’t think it was any kind of a masterpiece, and I felt it had a lot of problems. Mainly, on first viewing, I found it to be very unfocused, where it kept going off on tangents that just seemed kind of pointless to me. Lisbeth being jumped in the subway by a pack of young hooligans, flashbacks to her as a child setting a car on fire, and an entire first act subplot about her being sexually exploited by her social guardian (Swedish version of a parole officer, I guess). These, amongst other things, seemed extraneous and distracted from the central murder mystery.

The mystery of the missing, dead girl was very intriguing, and that aspect of the film kept me completely immersed. I also thought the performances by both the leads were superb, and the chemistry between them was quite compelling. The film is also strikingly well directed (by All Niels Arden) in places… but goddamn, there just seemed to be so much fat in the movie – things that seemed irrelevant to the main plot that made it all seem so unnecessarily drawn out, that it really just muted the impact of the entire picture for me.

On top of all that, this movie also has enough false endings to give the third “Lord of the Rings” film a run for its money. At some point, during the fifteen minutes or so, I was literally chanting at my TV “End! End! End! End!!!!” Then it FINALLY ended… thank Christ for small favors.

Now, that was how I reacted the first time I saw the film. I did give it a second go, and while I still find it bizarrely over-rated by the uber-hip, we-love-all-things-foreign latte slurping cinephiles, something did strike me on the second viewing. Bear in mind, I have not read the books or seen the later films, so I’m simply venturing a guess, but it occurred to me that this is the first part of a trilogy, so many of the elements that seemed out of place and gratuitous to me the first time around will probably be of greater significance in the sequels, as the characters are developed further, particularly Lisbeth (like why she’s as royally fucked up as she is). So that considered, I was more forgiving of those elements on my second viewing and enjoyed the film considerably more.

Again, though, I still don’t think this is the modern classic that many proclaim it to be. There are still pacing issues, the movie is still too long, and there are many, many scenes of characters looking at old photos, newspaper stories, and doing online research, which I’m sure work fine in the book, but in the film, they’re not very cinematic nor exciting to watch. Another issue is that there are so many characters and names to remember that unless you’re paying the strictest attention, you could lose track of who’s who and who’s what to who very quickly. This is definitely not a “check your brain at the door” type of film.

After all is said and done, I did like this movie, despite my criticisms. It’s a sophisticated, well crafted, ambitious film with very richly developed characters and the performances are top notch. It, as I’m sure you’ve heard, is being remade in the U.S. with David Fincher directing and Daniel Craig starring, and even though I loathe this remake trend, I must confess that I am interested in seeing what they do with this story. I do recommend it overall, but I must warn you to take the hype with a grain of salt.

“It’s halothane.”

Swift shot:  A Swedish vampire film, complete with awkward attire, dated dialog and a touch of the surreal.  If you are sick of the melodramatic crap America is forcing you to endure – romantic, gift-wrapped vampires – add this to your Netflix instant-play and grab some Absolut, you’ll need it.  Lina Leandersson portrays the wretched creature in a commanding on-screen performance that all aspiring actresses should follow.  Her character, Eli, simply . . . IS – and this little Swedish actress will terrify you with her pragmatic delivery.  At times, you’ll forget she is just wearing a mask for your entertainment.  It’s one of those roles you are pretty sure still stares back at her in the mirror long after director Tomas Alfredson called a wrap.

“Låt den Rätte Komma In” is based on a 2004 novel written by John Ajvide Lindqvist of Sweden.  The novel gained international attention and was finally realized as a film in 2008.  I saw some screen captures of this film via a Facebook acquaintance and decided it deserved a screening, despite the lame title.  Glad I opted in on this one, because it didn’t disappoint . . . mostly.

Immediately, I was drawn to the almost albino teen, Oskar (Kåre Hedebrant) who essentially reminded me a lot of myself at that age . . . brooding and twisted. Living with his mother most of the time and seeing his father occasionally, Oskar lives in the periphery of life.  He has a voyeuristic nature and is a curious spectator to his surroundings.  Oskar is constantly bullied at school by a group of kids not much bigger than him and not much different than him ultimately.

But with one interesting utterance “Squeal like a pig” Oskar attracts a spectre, Eli.  From her first line, she makes it clear that she can’t be friends with Oskar, to which Oskar replies, “What makes you think I want to be friends with you?”  Perhaps it was this small act of defiance that ultimately draws Eli to Oskar – or maybe there is a more sinister desire behind her attraction.  To the outside world, she is all of twelve years old, but inside she is an ancient force, a monster in every sense of the word.  The creature your grandparents warned you about in the woods or the creep up your spine when you think you are alone in some desolate place.

Some of the acting by supporting cast really sucked, even with the subtitles, I can tell a forced delivery when I see and hear it.  The townspeople, notably failed to impress me and cost this one a higher rating – calling you out Peter Carlberg and Ika Nord.  The special effects will underwhelm most American audiences, but it’s clear director Alfredson wanted a subtle, believable approach to the super-natural.  And, really, American audiences are spoiled with the stuff we see nowadays – it was refreshing to see toned down special effects, which turned out to be the creepiest scenes anyway.  I already see the American version, “Let Me In” is going with a more fantastic approach, shame really.

Overall, this film will crawl up your spine and force you to think, is it love that drives Eli, or is it sinister survival.  If nothing else, this film will get you talking with all your horror-film loving friends about what they took from it.  And, oh, be warned, there is some very inappropriate content towards the end that you will NEVER find in an American film.  Don’t say you haven’t been prepared.  Watch this one, then let me hear your comments, was it love or something else?

Passion without pretense.

***Some sexy, choice images await you here***

“Coco Chanel & Igor Stravinsky” portrays an affair between two of the most recognizable, egocentric geniuses of the 20th century. They both revolutionized their industries: Chanel in fashion and Stravinsky in music. They were also both under the harsh lens of public scrutiny, who didn’t always understand what these two artists offered.

The film commences with a recreation of the 1913 Parisian opening of Stravinsky’s “The Rite of Spring.” In it, the bourgeoisie are introduced to his jarring and uncomfortable tune that appears to spit in the face of everything they’re used to (“Swan Lake” and similar engagements). They boo, hiss, and start fights. The cops are called in. Suddenly, an elegant night at the ballet feels more like a soccer riot. All of it gives viewers some insight into how Stravinsky’s music first influenced the world and the type of people it attracted (the contemplative and modern Coco Chanel, for one).

Seven years pass, and Europe is licking its wounds after World War I. Coco Chanel is mourning the loss of her lover and financier, Boy Capel, and Igor Stravinsky, his wife Katherine, and their children have been exiled from Russia. Chanel invites them to stay at her Chateau in France, to which the composer agrees. And, so, we have the perfect arrangement for a tense and sexual ménage.

Anna Mouglalis and Mads Mikkelsen portray Chanel and Stravinsky, respectfully, in a way that isn’t commonly seen on screen. They flaunt the aspects of their characters’ personalities that audiences generally would like to ignore – Egoism, arrogance, and something of a god complex – in favor of creative brilliance. In one scene, Katherine asks Chanel if she ever feels guilty, to which the designer simply responds, “No.”

The relationship between these two characters is an interesting one because it is so simple. These two people are attracted to the creative power they both wield, and this becomes cause for a physical relationship that suggests passion, though never reaches a peak amounting to more than lust. Essentially, it’s all just fucking, pure and simple.

It would almost be too much to handle if it weren’t for Katherine, who is a passive force in a household of strong wills. The affair is pretty much out in the open, and Katherine knows about it from the beginning. She also knows that there is no love at work, and that her husband has been more creatively active than ever before. She allows it to happen, to a point, and is able to ground the two titular characters before they float away on their high horses.

While the affair in question falls short of its emotional mark, though it successfully says what the director wants, the film flourishes as a feast for the eyes. Chanel’s home is decorated in a way that will make design nuts go gooey, and it couldn’t have been any other way. Her favorite room, composed mainly in black and white, is an homage to her sense of style and a representation of the cold and composed aura she walks around with. The costuming, too, is perfect. Mouglalis, also a model for the current Chanel line, wears old gowns from the company that you simply can’t look away from. She’s gorgeous and when she speaks, her deep, sultry voice demands attention.

This film is one that should be watched with some prior knowledge of the characters, because director Jan Kounen leaves their pasts mysterious. All that is really on display here is their affair and the creative endeavors they were both able to pursue because of it. When boiled down to its roots, it’s a very simple film; one that has more power than you might expect, but less than its potential offered.

Swift shot:  Emotional, superb acting and believable performances that will haunt you – sometimes the best horror films aren’t horrors at all.  Sometimes survival is its own hell.  To my brothers in harm’s way, know that you can always rely on the truth – Semper Fidelis.

Took me a long time to finally watch this one, it sat on my desk . . . daring me to open the oddly fastened Netflix sleeve for a whole week.  I was afraid it would be yet another pandering Hollywood sneer at our forward operating troops deployed in combat zones.  It’s hard to pin down if this was an out and out criticism of our efforts overseas, or if it was just a matter-of-fact – War is truly horrible – message film.

Certain elements in the film brought me back to an abandoned rail-station in Albania, where we were debriefing prisoners of the Kosovo conflict and I was reminded of soulless eyes, shells of men, broken hearts and minds – desperate to embrace normalcy. To endure all manner of torture, you must have something to live for, some “other” that keeps you moving when the easiest thing is to just shut down and die.

I have often wondered about those souls, the “survivors” what were their lives like after the war?  Were they able to embrace that normalcy again?  Were their minds so twisted that even the slightest nuance of happiness was robbed from them?  Do they sleep?

This film brought the war home, but the sadness and hostility were underground, buried in some chasm of moral apnea.  Watching Captain Cahill interact with his family before “breaking” and afterward was expertly portrayed by the dedicated Tobey Maguire.  For his dedication to the role, I applaud him; at no time did he disappoint.

Brothers will have you struggling to fathom your own mortality.  Choices we make to survive remind us we are all gonna end up in the dirt.  It is what we live for outside of ourselves that dares us to stand up to death and say with baneful conviction, “Fuck you, death, not today!”

While the juxtaposed sequences danced back and forth between the war and the family, the overall transitions were somehow diluted and less powerful than the rest of the film.  Perhaps some stronger scoring was in order, but overall the film intellectually was stimulating.  The acting, as mentioned earlier, was precise – even the youngest actors were amazing – well disciplined (if you will permit a little jarhead inside joke).

It isn’t easy to talk about the wars, it isn’t something that should be taken lightly.  War is hell; Brothers does a decent job exploring this theme, but it doesn’t have enough balance to be a really incredible film.

Three reviews to choose from!

For an up and coming critic from the Windy City – just click Limacher or on Jacob’s pic.

Or a no-nonsense mom about town –  just click Starshine or Bella’s pic. 

Finally, for an uber cynic - just click H-Man or on Edward’s

Who got it right?  Let the battle commence!

***click the image above for more pictures on our fan page***

If Iron Man 2′s AC/DC injected soundtrack is any indication, one could expect their socks to be effectively rocked off on May 7th. Jon Favreau reprises his dual roles as director and affable chauffeur, Harold “Happy” Hogan, bringing with him almost the entire main cast from the first film, keeping hopes up that this sequel will stand up to the first incarnation of our favorite red and gold tin man.

I don’t think it disappoints . . .

Right off the bat, Iron Man 2 gets the story going the minute the previews are over, barely giving you a chance to settle in to enjoy the title sequence. The opening montage both introduces you to our (almost) sympathetic villain, Whiplash, a.k.a. Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke) and shows what has transpired since Iron Man’s big reveal in the first film. Who said the cold war was over? Vanko, armed with a family grudge and a little elbow grease, is able to modify the plans of Tony Stark’s chest piece to suit his own diabolical needs, leading to my favorite scene in the movie – the carnage at Monaco.

The opening scene after the montage gave me 2 pauses. In this scene, the United States wanted to get Tony Stark (Robert Downey JR.) to turn over the Iron Man “weapon” to be utilized by the military. The first pause came when we’re introduced to James “Rhodey” Rhodes (Don Cheadle). The first thing I noticed was that he got a tan and lost some weight since the last movie. Somehow he shrunk a little as well. The second pause came when I recognized Garry Shandling as the lead senator. The reason it took me a second to realize it was actually Shandling was because whoever administered the botox was a little over zealous. I don’t think there was a spot that missed on his face. It was almost as if someone whacked it with a wooden plank before each scene. How he was able to move that mouth to form words was beyond me.

All kidding aside, Cheadle did very well reprising the role set forth by Terence Howard. In fact, I didn’t even notice Howard was missing. Shandling, on the other hand. Dude…get some ice on that thing.

Iron Man 2 succeeded where Spiderman 3 failed. It was able to weave multiple villains into a relatively simple story without killing it. First villain, the palladium in the chest piece, was killing Stark slowly by making his blood toxic. Second villain, Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell), a sleazy used car salesman type of guy and former competitor to Stark Enterprises, is dying to get his hands on Stark tech to win back the favor of the military. And the third villain, Vanko, who peaked early and fizzled as he played computer nerd for the last half of the movie. You could probably add Tony Stark to that list, since his daddy issues and reckless/eccentric behavior always drives his handlers crazy. All these were masterfully intertwined to make a solid, if not fantastic, story. Sony should take notes.

Now, after all that, I have to say, there are some places that left me a little flat. Rourke’s portrayal of Vanko was pretty well done. I’m no language expert, but I think his Russian accent was spot on. Unfortunately, Vanko was too calm for me. For someone with such a deep rooted hatred for all that is Stark, the final fight scene with Whiplash was very emotionless on Rourke’s part. Leading up to that, the action was done pretty well and the CGI was great, but I never really felt Iron Man was in mortal danger. Even Michael Knight had to get out of K.I.T.T. every once in awhile to keep up the drama.

And what kind of review would this be without a little nod to the red-headed bombshell that is Natalia Romanov a.k.a. Natalie Rushman a.k.a The Black Widow (Scarlett Johannson)? At first, I questioned the reason for this operative to even be in this film, but it was revealed in due time. In the meantime, guys can get some new visuals to play out their office fantasies. Johannson doesn’t really have to do much to get attention on the screen, but Black Widow’s high-octane fight scene reminded me of Hit Girl from Kick-Ass fame (go see it) – just a little older.

Her action was just as fast, just as awesome, if a little too short in duration and quantity also lacking on the musical accompaniment side. I bet Widow gets her own spin-off.

Iron Man 2 satisfied my action needs. It had humor, a little sexual tension, tons of explosions, nasty robot on robot action and an eye pleasing Black Widow performance. The only thing missing was ample unshackled boobage. Maybe Favreau will think about it in the next installment.

And if you like to wait ten minutes to see a two minute clip, you may want to stay after the credits. It was showered with thunderous applause from the audience I was with. For those with the quick eyes, I defy you to pick out Stan Lee’s cameo. It’s there, trust me. Excelsior!

The H-Bomb: Lt. Terence McDonagh (Nicolas Cage) is a highly decorated cop working the mean streets of a post-Hurricane Katrina New Orleans. After suffering a back injury, he is prescribed Vicodin and in six months time moves on to other (illegal) drugs and becomes a full blown addict, but that’s only part of McDonagh’s many nefarious activities. After a low level drug dealer and his family is found murdered, McDonagh does everything he can to function and solve the case, despite the fact that both his personal and professional lives are going on a seemingly unstoppable downward spiral.

As many of you probably already know, this is the sort-of-is but sort-of-isn’t remake of Abel Ferrara’s 1992 indie classic “Bad Lieutenant”, which starred Harvey Keitel as a woefully corrupt New York cop. Many critics have stated that there are no connections between the two films, but I think those critics need to pay a little more attention. Yes, the two films and their protagonists are very different. Ferrara’s film was grim, nasty, and entirely humorless, whereas Werner Herzog’s (“Rescue Dawn”, “Nosferatu: The Vampyre”) “remake” has a slightly more playful and darkly humorous tone. Cage’s McDonagh, as crooked as he is, is a considerably more sympathetic character than Keitel’s Lt., who was more or less a complete scumbag. The original “Bad Lieutenant” also had heavy(handed) religious overtones, whereas this one thankfully left out anything resembling Catholic guilt.

However, there are undeniable similarities that both films share. Both characters have chemical dependency problems. Both have gambling problems and owe money to bookies. Both often abuse the power that their badges give them, using their position to procure everything from drugs to sexual favors. Both carry gigantic revolvers that they wave around and fire off recklessly. Both are prone to hallucinations; Keitel had hallucinations of Jesus standing in front of him, while Cage has hallucinations of iguanas sitting on his coffee table. Most importantly, both films are character studies of men who gradually dig themselves deeper and deeper into holes that ultimately seem impossible to climb out of.

Which film do I prefer? Well, as great as the original is, it’s a very bleak and oppressively downbeat film that, while I do admire it, I don’t really enjoy it. The “remake,” however, as dark, raw, and appropriately sleazy as it is, also manages to be quite entertaining at the same time. So while I feel that Ferrara’s film is probably the better of the two, I personally like “Port of Call- New Orleans” more… if that makes sense.

It’s become quite fashionable to rag on Nicolas Cage lately, as many of his more recent choices in projects has been unfortunate, to say the least (“Wicker Man“ remake, anyone?). But he is a damn fine actor and when given quality material, he is more than capable of delivering an impressive performance. Such is the case here. He really puts his back into this role and gives us a character who is fully rounded and compelling. Everything about his Bad Lt., from his voice, to his gestures, his postures, and his horrible haircut, really suggests a man who was perhaps once good and honest, but who has gone horribly astray over the years, and now has to struggle every waking second to keep his shit together.

As we’ve seen in “Leaving Las Vegas”, Cage is very adept at portraying hopelessly self-destructive characters, and after years of slumming in Le Cinema de Shit, it’s a treat to see him finally firing on all cylinders again. The scene where he employs some “advanced interrogation techniques” against an elderly woman on a respirator is fucking classic!

The supporting cast is made up of well known character actors, including Brad Dourif, Fairuza Balk, Tom Bower, Michael Shannon, Irma P. Hall, and Jennifer Coolidge. They all add color and flavor to the picture, and every one of them leaves an impression, despite that many of them only have a scene or two. Alvin “Xibit” Joiner is both slimy and menacing as the local drug kingpin who becomes the number one suspect in McDonagh’s murder investigation. Eva Mendes, who plays McDonagh’s hooker girlfriend with a nose candy habit herself, provides solid support for Cage and allows him to show a more sympathetic side to his character. Val Kilmer is also good as a fellow cop who is perhaps as dirty as McDonagh, but his role is sadly underwritten. I really think they could’ve used him more than they did.

As great as the supporting players are, though, this is entirely Cage’s show, and the only other element that is just as crucial to this film’s success as Cage‘s performance, is the director, Werner Herzog. In the hands of a lesser filmmaker, this could have ended up being just another police drama, but Herzog, bringing with him his attention to detail, his oddball sensibilities, and his quirky sense of humor, makes it something entirely different. He gives us a vivid look at a devastated New Orleans that is both real and surreal at the same time. Whether he’s showing us the rundown slums, or a snake swimming around a flooded jail cell, or a road killed alligator in the middle of the road, he gives us a real feel for the place. I also appreciate the fact that, despite the setting, there isn’t one phony Cajun accent to be heard. Thank you, Mr. Herzog, for not having the actors go down that road.

Despite the fact that this movie is called “Bad Lieutenant” and shares some thematic similarities with the earlier film, this really is a movie that stands on its own with its own style and mood. It’s a unique, bizarre film that alternates between being violently ugly and perversely funny. Ultimately, I can’t guarantee you’ll like it, but I do recommend you take a chance on it.