Viewers of the film who think it and/or Cage's acting are simply 'bad' or 'cheesy' are missing the point of what Herzog is doing. Then again, viewers who think it's a wild and crazy artistic take on the crime/noir genre (i.e. the 'it's different/wacky/quirky, therefore it's good' crowd) are also probably missing the point - especially if they think the lizards and dancing soul are 'symbolic' or 'represent' things.
(Warning - spoilers ahead...) What Herzog seems to be doing is serving up a parody of mainstream cinematic conventions, especially those which verge towards melodrama in their earnest attempts to be 'meaningful', 'emotional', etc. From the opening scene establishing the character as a 'wounded hero' and giving a motivation for his drug addiction with which we can sympathize (Keitel's character in the original had none, as far as I can remember), to the ending where his problems all get resolved in a single scene (!), followed by a flash forward to when his girlfriend is pregnant and his family is back on track, the film serves up one melodramatic movie cliché after another (and skewers them, not through the familiar Mel Brooks/'Scary Movie'-style of parody-through-references, but purely through the ridiculousness of it all and the over-the-top performance from Cage).
The scenes that aren't clichés (i.e. the soul dancing, the alligator/iguanas, the last shot of the fish tank) work as disruptions from the plot which highlight how ridiculous it is, like the way Bunuel would use a narrative digression to 'take the mickey' out of a melodramatic plot. Nonsensical lines like "Do fish have dreams?" or "I'll kill the three of you (dramatic pause) till the break of dawn", delivered by Cage as if they were poetic, clever or menacing, make fun of both the typical cool 'one-liners' found in action and crime movies and the pseudo-poetic, supposedly 'deep and meaningful' lines found in many 'indie' movies.
Perhaps the most convincing signs that the film isn't meant to be serious, but is ridiculous on purpose, are the over-the-top acting of the abusive john that Cage kicks out of his girlfriend's hotel room (repeating 'whoa' and pausing to say something like 'oh yeah' to the kid waiting in the hall outside!), which proves it's not just Cage who was told to overact, and the last shot - held for quite a long time on two characters sitting under a fish tank (coming after the aforementioned "Do fish have dreams?" line which makes it seem like it has some sort of 'deep' or symbolic meaning), with Cage cracking up just when we're growing impatient for something to happen, followed by a sudden cut to black. Even the casting of Val Kilmer in the role of an unimportant character who had next to nothing to do and could have been played by anyone seems to have parodic intentions (what has Kilmer done recently?).
As some reviewers have pointed out, the actual plot, once you remove the stylized direction and acting, is the sort of thing you'd expect to find in a low quality, straight-to-DVD mystery/thriller. Especially when you consider that many of Herzog's earlier films, while definitely being bizarre or 'quirky', weren't cheesy or campy but had definite depth of humanity to them, it really seems like here he's making fun of the generic, conventional material he was given, rather than taking it seriously.
In a way, it reminded me of "The Room", but done deliberately with a larger budget, more technical polish and with an established star and director who have proved their abilities in the past - all of which make it more likely for viewers to take what they're seeing seriously, instead of seeing through the absurdity of it all. Or perhaps a better comparison would be "Adaptation" (also starring Cage!) which parodies mainstream film-making conventions in a similar way in its final half hour (and there's even an alligator!)
(Warning - spoilers ahead...) What Herzog seems to be doing is serving up a parody of mainstream cinematic conventions, especially those which verge towards melodrama in their earnest attempts to be 'meaningful', 'emotional', etc. From the opening scene establishing the character as a 'wounded hero' and giving a motivation for his drug addiction with which we can sympathize (Keitel's character in the original had none, as far as I can remember), to the ending where his problems all get resolved in a single scene (!), followed by a flash forward to when his girlfriend is pregnant and his family is back on track, the film serves up one melodramatic movie cliché after another (and skewers them, not through the familiar Mel Brooks/'Scary Movie'-style of parody-through-references, but purely through the ridiculousness of it all and the over-the-top performance from Cage).
The scenes that aren't clichés (i.e. the soul dancing, the alligator/iguanas, the last shot of the fish tank) work as disruptions from the plot which highlight how ridiculous it is, like the way Bunuel would use a narrative digression to 'take the mickey' out of a melodramatic plot. Nonsensical lines like "Do fish have dreams?" or "I'll kill the three of you (dramatic pause) till the break of dawn", delivered by Cage as if they were poetic, clever or menacing, make fun of both the typical cool 'one-liners' found in action and crime movies and the pseudo-poetic, supposedly 'deep and meaningful' lines found in many 'indie' movies.
Perhaps the most convincing signs that the film isn't meant to be serious, but is ridiculous on purpose, are the over-the-top acting of the abusive john that Cage kicks out of his girlfriend's hotel room (repeating 'whoa' and pausing to say something like 'oh yeah' to the kid waiting in the hall outside!), which proves it's not just Cage who was told to overact, and the last shot - held for quite a long time on two characters sitting under a fish tank (coming after the aforementioned "Do fish have dreams?" line which makes it seem like it has some sort of 'deep' or symbolic meaning), with Cage cracking up just when we're growing impatient for something to happen, followed by a sudden cut to black. Even the casting of Val Kilmer in the role of an unimportant character who had next to nothing to do and could have been played by anyone seems to have parodic intentions (what has Kilmer done recently?).
As some reviewers have pointed out, the actual plot, once you remove the stylized direction and acting, is the sort of thing you'd expect to find in a low quality, straight-to-DVD mystery/thriller. Especially when you consider that many of Herzog's earlier films, while definitely being bizarre or 'quirky', weren't cheesy or campy but had definite depth of humanity to them, it really seems like here he's making fun of the generic, conventional material he was given, rather than taking it seriously.
In a way, it reminded me of "The Room", but done deliberately with a larger budget, more technical polish and with an established star and director who have proved their abilities in the past - all of which make it more likely for viewers to take what they're seeing seriously, instead of seeing through the absurdity of it all. Or perhaps a better comparison would be "Adaptation" (also starring Cage!) which parodies mainstream film-making conventions in a similar way in its final half hour (and there's even an alligator!)