Review: Aguirre, The Wrath of God (dir. by Werner Herzog)


“For here on this river, God never finished his creation.” — Balthasar

Werner Herzog’s Aguirre, the Wrath of God opens with one of the most hypnotic sequences in cinema: a column of Spanish conquistadors and indigenous slaves snaking down a fog-shrouded Andean pass, cannon winched separately. From that first frame, you sense you’re watching not a historical adventure but a fever dream. The film is loosely based on the real-life Lope de Aguirre, a Basque mutineer who searched for El Dorado in the 1560s. But as Herzog later confirmed, historical accuracy was never the point. Aguirre is fiction—a myth sculpted from jungle heat, river currents, and one actor’s maniacal commitment. Remarkably, the production itself became a hellish mirror of the narrative: shot deep in the Peruvian rainforest under conditions so brutal that the line between making a movie and surviving an ordeal vanished.

The plot is simple. In 1560, a Spanish expedition descends into the Amazon basin, searching for the golden city of Manoa. When rapids prove too treacherous, a smaller party is sent ahead under the noble but hapless Don Pedro de Ursúa (Ruy Guerra). Among them is Aguirre (Klaus Kinski), a wiry, half-mad soldier who immediately undermines authority. After Ursúa is murdered, Aguirre seizes control, declaring himself “the Wrath of God” and proclaiming a new monarchy. What follows is not a rousing conquest but a slow hallucinatory unraveling: rafts stuck on looping rivers, starvation, arrows from invisible natives, and the collapse of every civilizing impulse. This is one man’s battle against nature and his personal crisis of faith—a crisis the production team would come to know intimately.

Herzog’s storytelling prioritizes mood over plot. The narrative drifts through long takes of jungle canopy, close-ups of Kinski’s hollow eyes, and Popol Vuh’s otherworldly score. But the film’s raw authenticity comes from its production: a near-literal trek through jungle hell. Herzog took a small cast and crew into the Peruvian rainforest with no insurance, no backup equipment, and no evacuation strategy. The Urubamba River was unpredictable, with hidden rocks and stretches local guides refused to navigate. Rafts capsized. Food spoiled. Actors began unraveling for real. When a soldier in the film announces, “We are walking in circles,” it is both scripted and a genuine observation from an extra who’d passed the same fallen tree three days running. Herzog left that take in. The boundary between fictional madness and documentary collapse dissolved completely.

And then there was Klaus Kinski. If the jungle was one monster, Kinski was another. The conflict between Herzog and his star is the stuff of legend. Kinski arrived volatile, prone to screaming fits, threatening to abandon the production. At one point, a native chief offered to kill Kinski for free. Herzog declined—he still needed the actor alive. On another occasion, Herzog reportedly held Kinski at gunpoint during an attempted walkout. Kinski stayed. That friction bleeds into every frame. Kinski’s rage and paranoid stillness aren’t simulated; they’re the genuine product of a man frayed by heat, isolation, and his own demons. That is not method acting in a safe studio. It’s a man on the edge, pointed at a director who refused to flinch.

What lifts Aguirre into high art is its philosophical dread, earned through real suffering. And at its heart is Aguirre himself, a character who feels less like a historical figure and more like a literary archetype. As played by the manic Kinski, Aguirre is a remarkable fusion: the tragic Miltonian rebel and the obsessive Melvillean monomaniac. Like Satan in Paradise Lost, Aguirre defies divine and imperial order, preferring to reign in hell than serve in heaven. His self-coronation and final soliloquy echo Milton’s antihero—magnificent in defiance, hollowed by pride. But Herzog drains the grandeur, leaving only the fall without the poetry. Simultaneously, Aguirre is pure Ahab from Moby-Dick: another obsessive dragging a reluctant crew into the void on a suicidal quest. El Dorado is his white whale, an obsession that obliterates loyalty, love, and sanity. Both are swallowed by their obsession—Ahab by the sea, Aguirre by the jungle. But where Melville gives Ahab a thunderous final confrontation, Herzog gives Aguirre a whimper: a circle of monkeys, a drifting raft, and a whispered promise of a dynasty that will never come. Kinski holds both archetypes in suspension—Satan’s pride and Ahab’s fixation—and grinds them into something unrecognizable, belonging only to Herzog’s fever dream.

In the film’s most famous scene, Aguirre stands alone on a raft littered with corpses, small monkeys crawling over his armor, and whispers, “I will be the Wrath of God. Who else is with me?” No one. The jungle has swallowed everyone. Herzog frames this as the logical end of both the Miltonian and Melvillean arcs: absolute power in absolute isolation. The scene was shot in one take—not for artistry but because the raft was about to be swept away. The monkeys were real, biting the crew and defecating on Kinski’s armor. He didn’t break character. He couldn’t afford to. That’s the difference between a film that describes madness and one that embodies it.

Visually, Aguirre is a masterclass in low-budget grandeur. Cinematographer Thomas Mauch’s handheld camera glides through the jungle like a ghost. The opening descent feels supernatural. Rivers fill the frame until you lose direction. A galleon stuck in high branches—a leftover from a previous flood—becomes the film’s central metaphor: even empire is helpless against nature’s chaos. That chaos was logistical as well as thematic.

If there’s a weakness, it’s that the pacing can feel punishing. This film doesn’t build to a climax; it decays. Characters die offscreen or vanish. There is no redemption, no final battle. Some viewers may find this anticlimactic, but that’s the point. Herzog isn’t telling a story about winning or losing. He’s documenting a psychic meltdown from the inside, and meltdowns don’t follow three-act structure. The production’s own meltdown—hunger, disease, screaming matches on muddy riverbanks—only reinforces that vision. Aguirre is not a film about a man battling nature and losing his faith. It’s a film that became that battle, in real time, with real stakes, and somehow survived.

Years after release, Herzog clarified that Aguirre bears only the loosest resemblance to the historical Lope de Aguirre. He claimed he dreamed the film during a hike in the Alps. That dream-logic explains why Aguirre feels less like a period piece than a prehistoric vision. History is just a costume; the real subject is the human capacity to mistake madness for destiny. And that destiny, filtered through Kinski, is neither strictly Miltonian nor Melvillean but a nightmare hybrid: a fallen angel who keeps hunting the whale long after the ship has sunk.

In the end, Aguirre, the Wrath of God remains a towering, unsettling achievement. It influenced everything from Apocalypse Now to Resident Evil 4, but no imitation has matched its specific, waterlogged power. Despite the leeches, dysentery, gun threats, and screaming, the film that emerged is haunting, mesmerizing—a surreal trip into one man’s battle against nature and his crisis of faith. Herzog wanted “ecstatic truth” rather than mere fact. Aguirre is ecstatic truth: a fiction that feels more real than reality, a portrait of a madman that makes you understand why sanity is fragile, and a warning about conquest that remains urgent half a century later. Watch it on the biggest screen you can find, late at night, alone. The monkeys will be waiting. And somewhere in the jungle, Herzog and Kinski are still arguing.

Review: Heart of Darkness (by Joseph Conrad)


“The mind of man is capable of anything.” — Charles Marlow

There’s a strange, magnetic pull to Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness that keeps readers coming back, even when the book itself seems determined to repel you. Published in 1899, this novella is often taught as a classic of colonial critique, but spending time with it feels less like a lecture and more like a slow, feverish drift up a murky river. The plot is deceptively simple: a British sailor named Marlow takes a job piloting a steamboat for an ivory trading company in the Belgian Congo. His real mission, however, is to find Kurtz, a charismatic, brilliant agent who has supposedly gone mad and set himself up as a god among the natives. What Marlow finds instead is a hollow man whose final whisper—“The horror! The horror!”—becomes one of literature’s most chilling epitaphs.

Conrad’s prose is dense and atmospheric, almost claustrophobic. He writes in long, looping sentences that circle back on themselves, mimicking the tangled jungle and Marlow’s own spiraling psyche. You don’t read this novella so much as wade through it, feeling the heat, the flies, and the creeping sense of moral decay. The frame narrative—Marlow telling his story to a group of sailors on the Thames—adds a layer of ironic distance. London, the heart of empire, is presented as another kind of darkness, a civilized wilderness that has simply learned to hide its savagery behind suits and ledgers. This structural choice is brilliant because it forces you to ask: is the “darkness” really in Africa, or is it something Europe shipped downriver?

That said, any honest review has to address the elephant in the room: the book’s treatment of race. For decades, the Nigerian writer and critic Chinua Achebe has mounted the most devastating case against Heart of Darkness. In his landmark 1975 lecture “An Image of Africa: Racism in Conrad’s Heart of Darkness,” Achebe argues that Conrad, despite ostensibly critiquing Belgian colonialism, produced a work that is fundamentally racist—a piece of literature born directly from the imperial colonial era and its dehumanizing ideologies. Achebe’s point is sharp and uncomfortable: the novella seeks to expose the dangers and horrors of imperialism, yet it simultaneously perpetuates the very racist ideas it should be dismantling. Conrad denies nearly every African character a name, a voice, or an interior life. They appear as limbs, grunts, or “savages” performing ominous rituals on the shore. Africa itself is reduced to “a place of darkness,” “the prehistoric earth,” and a blank space on the map waiting for European meaning. The sole exception is a well-dressed native man who works as a cook—and even he is reduced to a clumsy, almost comic figure. Marlow is more disturbed by the sight of “improper” cannibals restraining themselves than he is by the company’s brutal exploitation.

Achebe’s critique cuts to the bone: Conrad may have hated the cruelty of colonialism, but he couldn’t imagine Africans as fully human. He traded one set of stereotypes for another, offering a critique of empire that remains trapped inside empire’s own racial logic. You can argue that Conrad is exposing racism by showing Marlow’s limited perspective, but the text gives us no alternative viewpoint. The Congolese remain scenery for a white man’s existential crisis. That’s not just dated; it’s a structural flaw that makes the book feel less like a universal tragedy and more like a monologue delivered in a vacuum—and, as Achebe famously wrote, “a book which parades in the most vulgar fashion prejudices and insults from which a section of mankind has suffered untold agonies and atrocities should not be called a great work of art.” So while the novella wants to critique colonial violence, it cannot see the violence of its own representational strategies. The very language Conrad uses to evoke horror—the “savage” drums, the “prehistoric” shores—ends up reinforcing the racist hierarchies he pretends to question. Overt insults mix with subtle, almost unconscious dehumanization, creating a text that is as morally compromised as the ivory traders it condemns.

Where Heart of Darkness still stings is in its psychological precision, even as Achebe’s critique complicates any easy admiration. Kurtz is a masterpiece of ambiguity: a poet, a painter, a journalist who wrote a report on “civilizing” the natives, only to scribble at the bottom, “Exterminate all the brutes!” He represents the lie at the core of imperialism—the idea that Europe brings light to darkness, when in fact it brings greed, violence, and an insatiable hunger for ivory. The novella’s real horror isn’t the jungle or the cannibals; it’s how easily a man with noble ideals can become a skull-decorating tyrant. Conrad, who himself worked in the Congo, understood that the heart of darkness is not a place but a capacity we all carry. Yet Achebe would counter that this “we” is tellingly selective—the capacity for darkness is explored in Kurtz and Marlow, while actual African people are merely the backdrop against which that darkness is measured.

Despite its flaws—or perhaps because of their uncomfortable rawness—Heart of Darkness has proven enormously influential since its publication. Its DNA can be found in everything from T.S. Eliot’s The Waste Land (which originally quoted Kurtz’s “horror” as an epigraph) to Werner Herzog’s Aguirre, the Wrath of God. But the best and most famous example is Francis Ford Coppola’s 1979 film Apocalypse Now, which transplants the story from colonial Congo to the Vietnam War. Captain Willard stands in for Marlow, and the rogue Colonel Kurtz (famously played by Marlon Brando) becomes the ivory trader’s spiritual twin—a decorated American operative who has set up his own brutal kingdom in the Cambodian jungle. Coppola keeps Conrad’s core structure: a river journey into madness, a whispered report on “unsound methods,” and a final, intimate confrontation with a man who has seen too much. What makes Apocalypse Now such a brilliant adaptation is that it doesn’t just copy the plot; it captures the feverish, hallucinatory tone. The film’s famous line—“I love the smell of napalm in the morning”—echoes Kurtz’s seductive, terrifying embrace of violence. By updating the setting, Coppola proved that Heart of Darkness was never really about the Congo. It was about the darkness any empire carries inside itself. Yet even here, Achebe’s shadow lingers: the film, like the novella, largely sidelines the Vietnamese and Cambodian people, turning them into anonymous threats or scenery for an American psychodrama.

So, is this a book you should read? Yes, but with caution and critical awareness. It’s short—under 40,000 words—but it’s not an easy afternoon’s entertainment. Read it alongside Achebe’s essay “An Image of Africa” or a historical account of Leopold II’s atrocities. Treat Marlow as an unreliable narrator, not a prophet, and recognize that Conrad’s attempt to critique empire is fatally compromised by the very racial imagination he never managed to escape. The prose can be maddeningly vague, and the pacing sometimes stalls under the weight of its own symbolism. Yet for all its flaws, Heart of Darkness refuses to fade away, in part because artists from Conrad to Coppola keep finding new horrors to pour into its shape, and in part because critics like Achebe force us to read it honestly—as both a searing study of evil and an uncomfortable document of that same evil’s persistence. It’s a mirror held up to the worst of us, and whether you see a portrait of colonialism, a study of madness, a racist artifact, or all three at once, you won’t forget what stares back.

4 Shots From 4 Films: Special New Orleans Edition


4 (or more) Shots From 4 (or more) Films is just what it says it is, 4 (or more) shots from 4 (or more) of our favorite films. As opposed to the reviews and recaps that we usually post, 4 (or more) Shots From 4 (or more) Films lets the visuals do the talking.

Today, the Shattered Lens pays homage to the greatest of Mardi Gras cities, New Orleans!

4 Shots From 4 New Orleans-Set Films

Easy Rider (1969, dir by Dennis Hopper, DP: Laszlo Kovacs)

Zandalee (1990, dir by Sam Pillsbury, DP: Walt Lloyd)

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008, dir by David Fincher, DP: Claudio Miranda)

Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans (2009, dir by Werner Herzog, DP: Peter Zieitlinger)

 

Scenes that I Love: The Iguanas On The Coffee Tables From Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans


Ever since Werner Herzog’s Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans was first released in 2009, people have debated the symbolism of the iguanas on the coffee table.  Are they just a sign that Nicolas Cage’s bad lieutenant is totally high or do they have a deeper meaning?  Myself, I’m not even going to try to guess.  All I know is that the lieutenant eventually came to appreciate their presence.

Scenes That I Love: Aguirre Declares Himself To Be The Wrath of God


In honor of Werner Herzog’s birthday, today’s scene that I love comes from one of his best films.  1972’s Aguirre, The Wrath of God not only established Herzog as a major filmmaker but it also showed that he was the director who could get the best out of the notoriously difficult Klaus Kinski.

In this scene, Kinski plays the mad conquistador, Aguirre.  Lost with his men in the Amazon, Aguirre establishes control over the dwindling expedition.

4 Shots From 4 Films: Special Werner Herzog Edition


4 Or More Shots From 4 Or More Films is just what it says it is, 4 shots from 4 of our favorite films. As opposed to the reviews and recaps that we usually post, 4 Shots From 4 Films lets the visuals do the talking!

Today, the Shattered Lens wishes a happy birthday to one our favorite directors, the great Werner Herzog!  It’s time for….

4 Shots From 4 Werner Herzog Films

The Enigma of Kaspar Hauser (1974, dir by Werner Herzog, DP: Jörg Schmidt-Reitwein)

Stroszek (1977, dir by Werner Herzog, DP: Thomas Mauch)

Woyzeck (1979, dir by Werner Herzog, DP: Jorg Schmidt-Reitwein)

Fitzcarraldo (1982, dir by Werner Herzog, DP: Thomas Mauch)

Brad reviews JACK REACHER (2012), starring Tom Cruise!


In honor of Tom Cruise’s 63rd birthday, I decided to revisit the 2012 film JACK REACHER. Cruise stars as the title character in the film version of the Lee Child novel “One Shot.” The story follows Reacher, a former military investigator, who gets pulled into the case of James Barr (Joseph Sikora), a sniper who supposedly killed five people in a random shooting in Pittsburgh. Although all the evidence is neatly stacked up against Barr, the sniper just has one request for his defense, “Get Jack Reacher.” Emerging from a self-imposed hiding, Reacher teams up with Barr’s defense attorney Helen Rodin (Rosamund Pike), to try to figure out what in the hell is going on. Once he has access to the evidence, and based on what he already knows about James Barr, Reacher immediately starts tearing holes in the case being presented by Police Detective Calvin Emerson (David Oyelowo) and District Attorney Alex Rodin (Richard Jenkins). Reacher’s own investigation uncovers a conspiracy involving a mysterious criminal organization led by the evil, and partially deformed Zec (Werner Herzog), whose plans are violently enforced by his badass henchman Charlie (Jai Courtney). It seems they have orchestrated the shooting to appear random, but they were really just after one person, Oline Archer (Susan Angelo), whose construction company is vital to their criminal enterprise. With the help of defense attorney Rodin, as well as the owner of an Ohio shooting range, former Marines Corps Gunnery Sergeant Martin Cash (Robert Duvall), Reacher is determined to bring the real killers to justice!

I remember there being some controversy surrounding the announcement that Tom Cruise would be starring as Jack Reacher. Dedicated readers of Lee Child’s books didn’t seem to appreciate that Cruise’s physical stature is not even close to the way the character is described. If I was an avid fan of the books, I would definitely understand the concern, but I’ve never read a single book in the series. This is one of those instances where my lack of reading experience allows me to completely enjoy the film, because Tom Cruise is flat out excellent. He’s smart, funny, a badass lone wolf of justice, and completely believable. I’d go so far as to say that the primary reason I love this film is Tom Cruise’s incredible star turn as Jack Reacher. With the choice of Tom Cruise or another actor who more closely resembles the Reacher from the book, I’m going with Cruise 10 out of 10 times. With that said, I’m also happy for the purists out there that the new REACHER series on Amazon, which began in 2022 and is still going strong, addresses this “size controversy” in it’s casting. I’ve heard good things about the series, and I’ll eventually get around to watching it as well.

Aside from Tom Cruise’s magnetic central performance, I find JACK REACHER to be a truly entertaining movie, and I don’t think we get enough of those these days. It has exciting and fun action scenes, a sly sense of humor, chillingly evil bad guys who get their comeuppance at the end, and an incredible supporting cast. Thinking back on it now, Rosamund Pike as the defense attorney, Werner Herzog as the evil villain, and Robert Duvall as the “cranky old Robert Duvall” character are the supporting performances that stand out the most to me, but all the casting choices are good. With his shepherding of the “Mission: Impossible” series, director Christopher McQuarrie has proven himself to be an expert at delivering fun movies, and he delivered big time here for film audiences a few years before taking on his first impossible mission.

In summary, I don’t really have a single negative thing to say about JACK REACHER. Most of the negative things I’ve read online have been due to the disappointment that some viewers have felt based on the differences between the books and the movie. I just know that I still watch it every couple of years and enjoy it immensely each time. JACK REACHER is one of my favorite films of its decade!

4 Shots From 4 Films: Special 1982 Edition


4 Or More Shots From 4 Or More Films is just what it says it is, 4 shots from 4 of our favorite films. As opposed to the reviews and recaps that we usually post, 4 Shots From 4 Films lets the visuals do the talking!

Today, we pay tribute to the year 1982 with….

4 Shots From 4 1982 Films

Fitzcarraldo (1982, dir by Werner Herzog, DP: Thomas Mauch)

Poltergeist (1982, dir by Tobe Hooper, DP: Matthew Leonetti)

Cat People (1982, dir by Paul Schrader, DP: John Bailey)

King of Comedy (1982, dir by Martin Scorsese, DP: Fred Schuler)

4 Shots From 4 Films: Special New Orleans Edition


4 (or more) Shots From 4 (or more) Films is just what it says it is, 4 (or more) shots from 4 (or more) of our favorite films. As opposed to the reviews and recaps that we usually post, 4 (or more) Shots From 4 (or more) Films lets the visuals do the talking.

Today, the Shattered Lens pays homage to the greatest of Mardi Gras cities, New Orleans!

4 Shots From 4 New Orleans-Set Films

Easy Rider (1969, dir by Dennis Hopper, DP: Laszlo Kovacs)

Zandalee (1990, dir by Sam Pillsbury, DP: Walt Lloyd)

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008, dir by David Fincher, DP: Claudio Miranda)

Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans (2009, dir by Werner Herzog, DP: Peter Zieitlinger)

 

Film Review: Woyzeck (dir by Werner Herzog)


First released in 1979 and directed by the great Werner Herzog, Woyzeck takes place in a small German town in the 19th century.  It’s the type of town where everyone knows everyone else and not much happens.  As is mentioned towards the end of the film, it’s been a while since the town has seen a “real murder.”

Franz Woyzeck (Klaus Kinski) is a soldier who lives in the town.  He’s had a son with Marie (Eva Mattes), despite not being married to her.  For that, Woyzeck’s Captain (Wolfgang Reichmann) continually tells him that he is immoral.  Woyzeck replies that the poor cannot afford morals.  To make extra money, Woyzeck does odd jobs for the Captain and he’s agreed to serve as an experimental test subject for the Doctor (Willy Semmelrogge).  The Doctor, who looks down on Woyzeck, has put Woyzeck on a diet of only peas.  He’s curious to see what this does to Woyzeck’s physical well-being but he has no interest in the fact that Woyzeck is obviously going mad.

Woyzeck, who, at the start of the film, is already hearing voices and talking about his apocalyptic visions, comes to suspect that Marie is cheating on him with a handsome Drum Major (Josef Bierbichler).  While the film does make it clear that the Drum Major is interested in Marie, whether or not she’s actually cheating is left ambiguous.  Woyzeck may believe that she is but Woyzeck also believes that he’s having visions of the end of the world so who knows whether one should trust his opinion.  Eventually, Woyzeck’s madness leads to tragedy and another ambiguous ending.  (The ambiguity reflects not only Werner Herzog’s customary aesthetic but also the fact that the film is based on a fragment of an unfinished play.)

What drives Woyzeck mad?  Was he born mad or was he driven mad by his jealousy over the Drum Major?  Does he truly love Marie or, as someone who has very little to his name, does he just want to possess her?  Is he driven crazy by the inequality all around him or is he just looking for an excuse to justify his own disturbed thoughts?  Herzog does not provide a definitive answer.  Why Woyzeck goes mad is less important than the fact that the community around him is thoroughly and totally indifferent to the fact that he’s obviously losing his mind.  The Captain lectures him as him as if he’s merely a teenager who needs to grow up.  The Doctor only cares about Woyzeck as a test subject.  Even Marie seems to be indifferent to his instability.

With each scene shot in one take and featuring a largely stationary camera, Woyzeck captures the claustrophobic feeling of being trapped in one’s circumstances.  Woyzeck is desperate to escape both his circumstances and his madness but Herzog makes it clear that Woyzeck has nowhere to go.  He’s trapped in his life and his fate feels almost pre-ordained.  This film is dark, even by the standards of Werner Herzog,  However, it also features one of Klaus Kinski’s rare sympathetic roles.  It’s not surprising that Kinski is convincing as a madman as Kinski is often said to have been a bit mad in real life as well.  What stands out is just how good a job Kinski does at playing the rather meek and subservient side of Woyzeck.  Woyzeck features one of Klaus Kinski’s best performances.

In My Best Fiend, Herzog said (one hopes jokingly) that he was often tempted to have Kinski killed.  Woyzeck shows us why we should be happy that he didn’t.