Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Movies Media

Review: Insomnia 206

Posted by JonKatz from the not-a-single-explosion dept.
It may not be the summer's happiest movie, but it might be the best (and there isn't a single marching digital Army, special effect, or marketing tie-in involved!). Hilary Swank and Robin Williams co-star in this dark tale of murder and redemption, but it's really Al Pacino's movie from beginning to end. And he was born to play the role of the exhausted, tough, morally confused LA homicide cop pursued by the do-gooders from Internal Affairs (IA), sent off to Alaska to help an old pal solve a vicious killing. The plot is a touch cheesy at moments, but the film is wonderfully acted, and beautifully shot. It's also dark, a great and timely movie. This isn't a take-your-mind-off-your-troubles summer flick. Neither is it a mega-epic. SPOILAGE WARNING: Plot discussed, not ending.

Far from home, subject to the endless sunlight of the Alaskan winter, Pacino (Detective Will Dormer) is drawn into a bleak, clever moral thriller. You have to pay careful attention to this movie, and even if you do, you'll end up doubting yourself, much as Pacino does. Against the backdrop of Spider-man and Clones and all the attendant hype, this is an almost refreshingly simple movie. It's all about acting and plot.

Pacino is up there because an old pal is running a tiny Alaskan police department, in over its collective head after a young girl is brutally and sadistically murdered. Pacino swaggers in, spotting all of the things the locals have missed, and is stunned and enraged to learn from his partner Martin Donovan (who plays LA Det. Hap Eckhart) that Hap is about to fess up to IA about various past wrongdoing, including Dormer's having planted fake evidence to catch a child-killer. This testimony will result in any number of killers going free, including the child-killer. It will also end Dormer's career.

Soon after, Hap is shot while the two are setting a trap for the local killer. This is really the heart of the movie -- a searing, twisting and turning moral agony for Dormer who, driven nearly mad by the insomnia he experiences in the long Alaskan day, tries, along with local police novice Ellie Burr (Hilary Swank) to understand what has happened, and what ought to be done about it. The fact that it isn't clear -- to him or to us -- what happened to Hap -- gives the movie a taut, gripping edge. Pacino has a tendency to overplay roles sometimes -- as in Heat -- but here, he is at perfect pitch. It's a knockout performance.

Christopher Nolan also does an amazing job of using Alaska as a backdrop from the opening scene, almost as a character. There is one stunning shot after another, putting the story into a particular context. Taking an embittered, wise-ass LA cop and putting him in this misty, eerie setting is a masterstroke, and Nolan makes the most of it. Day by day, Pacino becomes more disoriented fatigued and confused. He also is taunted by Walter Finch, the chief suspect in the local killing, and a creepy psycho who tries to blackmail Dormer into dropping the investigation, or steering it in another direction. Finch claims to have evidence against Dormer regarding Hap's shooting, and the two of them begin a cat-and-mouse game you know can't have a happy outcome.

Williams's doesn't seem to quite pull this off. He isn't creepy enough here -- think John Malkovich or Jeremy Irons. He doesn't get under your skin quite the way he ought to. But that's the only significant flaw in the summer's best thriller by far -- also a refreshing change of pace from the mega-movies and their marketing tie-ins. This is a psychological drama, a portrait beautifully rendered by a master actor. There isn't an explosion, thundering army, or special affect in it. Just a dark, powerful story about life, reality and hard choices, along with some amazing acting, and some of the best cinematography you'll see in a while.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Review: Insomnia More

Review: Insomnia

Comments Filter:

  • Canada! (Score:3, Informative)

    by FigBugDeux ( 257259 ) on Sunday June 02, 2002 @09:48AM (#3626272) Homepage
    That wasn't alaska! that was port alberni!!!
    • I think that the fact that they filmed part of it in Canada might have something to do with the evils of globalization. So, we'll just call it Alaska.
      • Actually it is set in Alaska, from IMDB [imdb.com]:

        "Sent from the city to investigate the murder of a teenage girl in a small Alaska town..."

        So while parts of it may have been filmed in Canada, I think that's irelevant to the plot. If every movie needed to be filmed where it was set, we'd see a lot of movies set on soundstages.

        • But according to IMDB, the original movie that was released in 1997, was made in Norway:

          Insomnia 1997 [imdb.com]

          Maybe they choose Canada, because they wanted the surrondings to look like the ones in the original movie. That could of course as well have been Alaska, afaik.

      • Re:Shhhh... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by EvilAlien ( 133134 ) on Sunday June 02, 2002 @10:29AM (#3626418) Journal
        No, the fact that they filmed part of it in Canada has to do with the Evils of the Northern Peso. Lots of films are done up here because its cheap. For example Legends of the Fall, Exit Wounds (where Calgary stood in for Detroit of all places, I believe), and a collection of other flicks ranging from good to suck (those two examples pretty much encompase that range). Even most of the many years of X-Files were filmed in Canada.

        This is a movie I want to see. Robin Williams is underrated as a serious actor. I, to this day, disagree with the casting of Hugh Jackman in X-Men. I think Williams would have made an amazing Wolverine. As long as he can pull off gruff, feral, and Canadian, that is. He is short, sturdy, and hella hairy. Perfert, IMO. I've been waiting for a flim that this that will put him in a serious dark role.

        So, wanting to see this movie and hoping to have it contain a least a little suspense, I'm not actually going to read yet another artsiefartsie Katz review. I can get over Pacino playing the same character all the time because he is good at it. I can't wait to see how well Williams pulls off this role. I don't care if it is a remake, and if the original was better. Good stories deserve to be retold, its the core of the art of storytelling

      • Next should we complain that the original film (this is a remake), was set in the north of Norway?

      • Re:Shhhh... (Score:2, Informative)

        by abigor ( 540274 )
        Part of it was also filmed in a town called Stewart, in northern B.C.

        And it is important to the plot. The movie is a remake of a Norwegian movie also called Insomnia, where a Swedish detective goes to Norway to solve a murder. By setting the whole thing in America, with American characters, part of the nature of the original -- dislocation, being a foreigner, etc. -- was lost.

        • By setting the whole thing in America, with American characters, part of the nature of the original -- dislocation, being a foreigner, etc. -- was lost.

          I tend to disagree with this. While they were didn't leave the country, they very definitely were not Alaksan - two LA cops didn't fit into small town fishing life. It's quite possible to feel dislocated and out within your own country, particularly a big one such as the US.

    • Why is it necessary for some people to find a need to 'disassemble' the story structure of a movie? Not flaming, just trying to understand. Most movies are created as a form of 'escapism' so that people, not unlike myself, can go to the theatre for 2 or 3 hours and lose ourselves in the plot of the story. If I went to movies purely to ensure continuity and that all locations at least kind of how the look in reality. Let it go! Enjoy the flick. You'll get more bang for your buck.
  • What a surprise! :->

    I watch the previews for this movie, and I thought either Robin Williams just wasn't going to cut it for this movie, or it was going to be the most disturbing character I have ever seen. Apparently, it was the former.

    He's just too much a nice, wacky guy to come across as a killer I guess.

    (All IMHO, considering IHNSTM (I have not seen the Movie))

    • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Sunday June 02, 2002 @10:51AM (#3626479)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • > He's just too much a nice, wacky guy to come across as a killer I guess.

      Only if you've never watched his vast body of work in "serious: films which typically have a smaller audience than the mainstream releases, with a few exceptions.

      Frankly, I think Robin Williams is one of the best actors out there, with one of the widest ranges, and definitely with a gift for ad-lib. This is supported by a look at his IMDB entry: http://us.imdb.com/Name?Williams,+Robin reveals a career topheavy with comedy, but containing some great dramatic roles as well.

      One of my favorite films ever (despite its mediocre reviews thanks to its slow pace and serious subject-matter) is *Being Human*, which stars Williams as several different characters across several different time periods, from prehistory to the present. Each one is an Everyman who faces a dramatic challenge, often as a sad and sympathetic character. His performance is dead-on in all those roles, a feat few actors could manage. It's one of those films that "average" people think is boring and hate, which is why it's off most people's radar--too philosophical for the masses since it's about "ordinary lives."

      In *Awakenings* he injected a lot of life with his deliberate expressions and mannerisms into an otherwise fairly dull fact-based character. *Good Will Hunting*, *Jakob the Liar*, and a few others also get the benefit of Williams' talent as a non-comedic actor.

      Let's not forget his "mixed" roles either, where he manages to blend comedy and seriousness, even pathos, successfully like few actors could--*Dead Poets' Society*, for example, and *Patch Adams*.

      His filmography is of course topheavy, because he's a naturally hilarious guy and that's what got him started in show business. But he's proven himself as a great dramatic actor as well, in few roles which nonetheless had impact.
  • Hmmm, something is odd here. The writing style is relatively lucid and clear, and there is no refrence to the post-September 11th world that we live in. There's only one logical answer: Katz cloned himself and made a few improvements while he was at it.

    Hey, even Jango had to hand over the family business to Boba eventually.
    • Also, note the absense of the word "corporatism." Most disturbing.
    • Dear God, I'll tell you what I'm afraid of: Katz's review of "Sum of All Fears." Can you even imagine the number of "post 9/11" references he'll be able to work into that?
      It's not going to be a review, it's going to be an orgy of politically correct terminology.

  • See the original film. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Konge ( 36038 ) on Sunday June 02, 2002 @10:05AM (#3626321)
    If you like this film, please go see the original film which this is based on. http://us.imdb.com/Title?0119375 [Imdb]. A much better film.
    • Please mod parent up!
      So few know that this is a warmed over version of a very good movie.

      Robin Williams... Bah!
      -b
    • The original 1997 film can be rented from NetFlix [netflix.com], and I highly recommend it.

      I haven't seen this summer's US remake, but from what I've read, they've watered down the plot for Americans. I wish Katz had watched both and done a comparative review.
    • If you like this film, please go see the original film which this is based on. http://us.imdb.com/Title?0119375 [Imdb]. A much better film.
      [This may seem to be flamebait, but isn't meant to be:]

      My guess is that the above poster hasn't even seen the Christopher Nolan version, but is Norwegian and tries his best to promote a norwegian movie.

      There's nothing wrong in promoting norwegian movies, of course, but I just don't think this writer has enough data to make comparions - mostly because the american version isn't beging showed in Norwegian cinemas yet.

      • You might be right, but IMHO most American remakes are watered down copies of the original.
        Examples are: Desperado (El Mariachi [imdb.com]), Point of No Return (Nikita [imdb.com]), Nightwatch (Nattevagden [imdb.com]) and countless others...

        Nolan is a great director however, and I personally believe this will be a good flick. But I can understand that people have a healthy dose of skepticism for Hollywood remakes.
        The director probably have to fight tooth and nail to get the qualities that made the original good past the marketing, investors and test audiences...

    • Re:See the original film. (Score:3, Informative)

      by G-Man ( 79561 )
      While "original" is undisputed, "much better" is up for debate. Christopher Nolan after all directed Memento -- something Katz neglects to mention -- so he is not your average Hollywood hack.

      Just for comparison, Ebert gave both films 3.5 stars, and in his Sun-Times review about the new film he says

      "Insomnia," the first film directed by Christopher Nolan since his famous "Memento" (2001), is a remake of a Norwegian film of the same name, made in 1998 by Erik Skjoldbjaerg. That was a strong, atmospheric, dread-heavy film, and so is this one. Unlike most remakes, the Nolan "Insomnia" is not a pale retread, but a re-examination of the material, like a new production of a good play.
      • With the addition that Memento was also based on an older film (Mirage [imdb.com]).

        It seems as though Nolan has taken the Brian De Palma route (why come up with something new, when you can just remake something else).

      • Better? I dunno. I haven't, and probably won't see the new Insomnia. I liked the original, and I am just sick & tired of Hollywood being so unabashedly derivative.

        It's to the point of taking every decent foreign film, cramming Julia Roberts, Tom Cruise, and Robin Williams into it and saying "look at our wonderful new treatment of this movie" as if the original was somehow lacking 'star power'.
        The fact that Nolan directed it is probably the only redeeming thing that MIGHT get me to rent it.
    • I really hate people who always say the original is better than the film it was based on.
      For example. La Jette on which Army of the 12 Monkeys was based on, 12 Monkeys was much better-- the original was a photo essay, not anywhere close to a movie, but every time it comes up, some scenester will point out that they liked the original 'french' version better. As well, Gone in 60 seconds, a remake of an australian cult classic by the same name, while the original has some cultish appeal, the remake is much more entertaining and tighter of an action film. Vanilla Sky, a remake of the spanish Open Your Eyes, also an improvment.
      I have seen the original Insomnia, it is in norwegian, subtitled for english, and the cinematography is poor. I found the remake to be much better. Just as in the case of Open Your Eyes, which was also subtitled, the director didn't make many changes to the film, except 'americanizing' it and adding more money to it's production value, so you could argue that the director wasn't very artistic in those cases, however to argue that the original insomnia is "A much better film" is ludacris. Anyone who doesn't speak Norwegian and didn't see this when it came out in Norway in 1997 won't think this film is better, unless they are being an art-film poser.

      adam
      • "Anyone who doesn't speak Norwegian and didn't see this when it came out in Norway in 1997 won't think this film is better, unless they are being an art-film poser." I don't speak Norwegian, saw the film in '98, and have to say, the ONE thing that makes the original superior to this remake is simply Stellan Skarsgaard. He's an incredible actor. Pacino is good, but won't blow you away. Skarsgaard made the movie for me. Does that make me an art-film poser? (I would also like to point out that just because a film is foreign doesn't mean its an "art-film"), as if there was Hollywood and the rest of the world made art, which you could then just sneer at. Other cultures make movies just like we do, and just because they don't have the big budgets, and use their native language rather than English doesn't mean they're being pretentious. Or does it just bother you that people speak any other languages than English?

  • Original script from Norway (Score:4, Informative)

    by Zestius ( 526143 ) on Sunday June 02, 2002 @10:07AM (#3626328) Homepage
    Insomnia is actually a remake of the Norwegian movie with the same name. It's set in the northern part of Norway, where the sun always shines. It was a good movie then, and I really hope they managed to capture the same feel in this edition. The Norwegian homepage for Insomnia can be found here [nordic-screen.no] (I didn't find an English version).

  • Pacino typecast? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by echucker ( 570962 )
    exhausted, tough, morally confused LA homicide cop

    Sounds a lot like his character in Heat, hmm?

    • Re:Pacino typecast? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by SirSlud ( 67381 )
      A local reviewer made the good point that its one of the view roles where Pacino could deliver an understated role as opposed to an intense, over the top role. In that respect, this kind of breaks that typecast.
      • Thats exactly what I said to my companion after we watched the movie (having read no reviews): Pacino and Williams were great BECAUSE they didn't seem like they were doing their usual Pacino and Williams schticks. They weren't the over-the-top, explosive characters we would expect from those actors. They were both very good, and very believable.

        The fact that people mention this movie in the same breath as "Heat" does it a great disservice.

        This is a great movie, regardless of whether its a remake or not.

  • The fact that it isn't clear...(a little spoilage) (Score:5, Informative)

    by stew ( 29814 ) on Sunday June 02, 2002 @10:10AM (#3626342) Homepage Journal
    DamnKatz said:
    This is really the heart of the movie -- a searing, twisting and turning moral agony for Dormer who, driven nearly mad by the insomnia he experiences in the long Alaskan day, tries, along with local police novice Ellie Burr (Hilary Swank) to understand what has happened, and what ought to be done about it. The fact that it isn't clear -- to him or to us -- what happened to Hap -- gives the movie a taut, gripping edge.

    It is incredibly clear and a very important part of the movie that Dormer DID shoot Hap. Any doubt as to whether Dormer shot Hap makes the second half of the film make no sense at all. This is NOT what gives the movie a taut, gripping edge. The fact that it IS clear and it is used against Dormer is what gives it a taut, gripping edge.

    Does Katz see these movies and then do a write-up on the drive home so he doesn't take away from his pr0n time at his desk? Glaring mistake Jon...

    It was a good movie tho... 3 out of 4
  • I saw this movie on opening weekend and i was quite impressed. I was expecting something more uniquie like Momento. I still enjoyed this one anyway. i dont think it was good enough to deserve any oscars but certinaly worthy of an honorable mention.

  • Not all THAT good (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I saw this last night (and snuck into Unfaithful -- uh, wretched) and didn't think as highly. Loved love loved Memento.

    Pacino has done much better work lately, particularly in The Insider.

    The plot and twists are too formulaic -- it ends with the standard shoot-out at the end (come on, I'm not giving away anything). The big confrontation scenes are well written in a short-story kind of way, but don't carry the kind of gravitas they should.

    Anything that wastes the talents of Hillary Swank is a problem -- why hire her for such a nominal role?

    The scenery was absolutely gorgeous.
  • I don't think Hap was going to confess anything about the planted evidence, I think it was just about some small stuff that he did. Will was afraid that after that though, he would come under close scrutiny and they would find out that he planted evidence. (sorry... just a minor quibble)
  • Hey! Katz posted a review! Let us skip the entire thing and berate the guy for existing!

    C'mon ya'll, the tremendous amount of trolling related to every single one of Jon Katz' post gets old after a while. Let's quiet down and discuss content rather than execution.
  • What plot? This movie was completely lacking in plot and enough twists to even keep it moderately interesting. I think the movie was titled Insomnia if only to suggest it was a cure for insomnia. I was literally fighting off sleep watching it at 2 in the afternoon.

    This was one of those movies where the entire thing is given away part way into it and you find yourself thinking "gee, it has to end up with (not saying) but I hope they don't do it in the truely obvious Hollywood ending" and then the ending is the same thing you were hoping it wouldn't be all along.

    I was hoping for something on the same playing field as Seven, with twists and turns and things you just don't see coming - something that keeps you guessing. Insomnia only had one "neat" moment where there was a slight bit of "I didn't fully see that part coming" but the rest is just torn from so many other movies.

    Then there are the plot holes, what author has his name in the phone book? How come someone so smart with criminals and murderers not know to check out the killer's other house?

    Add in the total lack of character development and you have a total waste of an afternoon.
  • to be honest, i don't know if there is much of anything to give away in a review. you pretty much know everything that is going to happen from the promos. the point of seeing the movie is to actually see it. i assume anyone reading this either saw it or doesn't care. not to give anything away, but there isn't much to give away. the movie is kind of slow, but i think that's part of the point. the laid back nature of a small logging town, the oddity that is Alaska and it's 6 months of daylight, and the effects on newcomers.... toss in a burned out old LA detective with something heavy on his mind.

    after seeing Memento, i was hoping this movie would be as crazy and twisty. both movies were directed by Christopher Nolan, though Memento was written by Cristopher and his brother Jonathon, neither seems to have had a hand in writing Insomnia. that being said it's still pretty ok. i would not flock to the theater, but at some point it is worth seeing.

    excuse the offtopic rant, but honestly 99% of the reason i went to see it was because i liked Memento and i had nothing better to do that night.

    p.s. if you liked Memento, or wanted to see it they just released a limited edition 2x DVD that costs about $2 more than the regular version (at least at Best Buy). it's the one with the neat blue packaging.
    • i assume anyone reading this either saw it or doesn't care. not to give anything away, but there isn't much to give away.

      I dunno, I think Katz blew it in the third paragraph by talking about Dormer's planted evidence. That's a point that isn't brought up until well into the movie, and is certainly not obvious from everything that comes before.
  • Why don't you read Robert Ebert [suntimes.com]'s review. He thought Robin Williams was rather good, and made much of the same points mentioned above. "3.5 stars"

    • A bit of added notes, he mentions that a lot of the action is very Hollywood, included only because its necessary, that being the movie's only failing point. He also thought that Al Pacino was very good as well.

      "Unlike most remakes, the Nolan "Insomnia" is not a pale retread, but a re-examination of the material, like a new production of a good play."

  • I saw this last week. (Score:4, Informative)

    by evilpaul13 ( 181626 ) on Sunday June 02, 2002 @10:35AM (#3626438)
    I thought it was excellent as well. And it really does show you that two hundred million dollars worth of CG isn't necessary to make a good movie. I highly recommend it.

    A word of caution: If you go see this, it will make you want to go see Alaska because the place looks so beautiful =)

  • Endless Sunlight in Winter? (Score:5, Informative)

    by EQ ( 28372 ) on Sunday June 02, 2002 @10:36AM (#3626439) Homepage Journal
    Far from home, subject to the endless sunlight of the Alaskan winter

    I think its SUMMER when the globe tilts that way.

    • erm, the other thing to point out it that, although the film is set in Alaska, it was actually mostly filmed in squamish and port alberni near vancouver, bc, canada. a friend of mine was production assistant up here, and the budget btw was something north of $80 million USD. i think a lot of that was salaries though. so altho Katz' point about CG is partly true, insomnia was certainly not low-budget...

      i think the only alaskan footage is the (admittedly spectacular) glacier footage at the beginning...

  • A GREAT movie, no "bad guy overkill" (Score:4, Interesting)

    by grokmiskatonic ( 212300 ) on Sunday June 02, 2002 @10:47AM (#3626470)
    I really liked it. I can see why a lot of people wouldn't though. For some reason with me, it really hit the same type of chord as Silence of the Lambs, even though it's a really different movie. I though the acting was great, and Robin Williams is very good as a bad guy, in an underplayed sort of way.

    It seems like most movies of this type sort of try to one up previous movies by having a creepier villian. It's sort of a bad guy escalation. This movie is excellent because it gives us a very believable killer. He's not a total psycho, he's not a devil worshiper, etc.

    I watch a lot of movies, and I'm a fan of this genre. It's gets old seeing seeing some super freak killer. In movies, anyways, it's lost it's shock value for me. It's much more interesting seeing a killer try to justify what he did, and convince the cop chasing him that they are really very similar. I saw the previews for this, and I was expecting something very hokey from these scenes between the cop and the killer. They were anything but, and made the movie much more interesting.

    Anyways, just my opinion,

    Dave
    • It's much more interesting seeing a killer try to justify what he did

      that's one of the reasons i enjoyed "The Rock", Ed Harris's character wasn't an evil guy, and he even says towards the end of the movie that he had no intention of firing the missles into San Francisco. He wanted to get the govt's attention, and after failing to legitimately do it, he decides he has to do some thing drastic.
      • Excuse me, but I can't sit idly by when you call "The Rock" a good movie.
        It was utter crap. Sorry.
        Bad story, reasonably good actors underperforming terribly.
        Plus an incredible amount of flag waving (Well, to a non american anyway). That movie could have been so much better, but the director just wasted it all away.
        Strange that so many people liked it.

        Anyway, good thing he said he wasn't evil, so you didn't have to make up your mind about it yourself. Because that would have been terrible, wouldn't it...
  • Someone's confused. The sun shines continually during the spring and summer months. Otherwise, our heroes would be trudging around in 6-foot high snow in heavy overcoats and there would be no such thing as the Midnight Sun Baseball Classic [goldpanners.com] in June.
  • This was not Chris Nolan's best film. He'd tried to use Pacino's Insomnia as a gimic, but it was a weak gimic to fall back upon. Pacino's Insomnia was by no means as cool as the short-term memory problems that screwed with our heads in Momento. Moreover, Pacino's Insomnia did not even seem that -important- within this movie. Pacino seemed to function quite fine at work reguardless of the fact that he had been up for days.

    All in all, this movie was veeeeery predictable, and that whole "good cop gone bad" story has been played out million times before. Watch Larceny or Momento... they are better.
    • You missed the point. Insomnia wasn't meant to be as "cool as [...] Memento." Predictable? Once again, not the point. Insomnia is not a mystery. It is a psychological thriller. In other words, what's going on in Pacino's (and Williams') head is what drives the film. Even more importantly: This is not a "good cop gone bad" movie you fool. Pacino is not a bad cop. He is a decent human being with a moral dilemma. That is the point of the film.
      All that being said, I'd recommend checking out the original (available on Criterion DVD). I preferred it (only by a small margin) to Nolan's version. This is probably because it was more subtle (it didn't need a big gun battle at the end), and possessed a morally ambiguous ending.
      • please, phrase it how you will, the Cop with the moral dilemma is just as played out. Hell, dumb movies like Point Break had this garbage in it "I can't... I am an Eff - Beee - Eiii agent"

        As for the who psychological thriller note. Well, a good psycological thriller gets in your head and makes you think... like momento did. I really did not have to think that much for this film. It was soooo predictable. You know robin williams and pacino are both going to go down eventually, but not before pacino solves his little problem at the last possible minute. And Ms Swank... come on, form the get go you know she is the one to find the dirt on pacino and she's just too damn cute to not be held hostage by the end of this movie.

        Nolan's other films entertained me a lot more.
        • Well, a good psycological thriller gets in your head and makes you think... like momento did. I really did not have to think that much for this film. It was soooo predictable.
          I suppose I should have defined my terminology. You seem to think that "psychological thriller" is just a synonym for "crime thriller." The heart of a psychological thriller is not its unpredictability. The heart is its character's mental state, and personal (or interpersonal) conflicts.
          This movie could have made you think. You just tried to think about the wrong thing.
          How do you define a good person? Do the consequences of his actions determine his value as a moral agent (as Dormer says, do "the ends justify the means")? Or is it the actions themselves? Can Dormer be redeemed? Does he need to be? Did Dormer mean to kill Hap? Is Dormer any better than Finch? Would you have done any differently (in responding to Finch's offer)?
          I'm not suggesting that any of these questions produce serious discussion or insight into the film. I'm just saying that these are the types of questions that are interesting in a film like this, not "Is he going to catch the bad guy."

  • Robin Williams (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Ezubaric ( 464724 ) on Sunday June 02, 2002 @10:55AM (#3626490) Homepage
    Williams's doesn't seem to quite pull this off. He isn't creepy enough here -- think John Malkovich or Jeremy Irons. He doesn't get under your skin quite the way he ought to.

    I actually thought this was a nice touch. Ever since Silence of the Lambs, criminals seem to be completely over the top and without any sort of pity. Finch tries to get Dormer to believe his telling of the story, and that's impossible if we don't think he's human.

    Towards the end of the movie (without giving too much away) Dormer might have to cooperate with Finch. The audience wouldn't stomach this if Robin Williams wasn't someone who seemed like a down-to-Earth guy who just got in a bad situation. I think the comparison with Dormer's situtation is the key here; Dormer is trying to convince himself that Finch isn't such a bad guy.

    At the end of the film, however, Williams is pretty damn scary. He's mean, he's creepy, and he kicks some ass. I thought it was an excellent film, and dare I say, better than the original.

    But then again, I was forced to see the original in film class next to two stupid people making out and in front of a big snoring football jock.
  • robin williams' character was a crime novelist. Why would he have gone and tried to kill Swank at the end? It's silly - he got away with murder and successfully blackmailed pacino. why'd he want to go and kill off the female cop? He could have taken her out later.

    It was set up that way so pacino's character could redeem himself, which was pretty cheezy IMO. IRL, corrupt cops just deal with it and go on.

    the original movie was much, much better - no hollywood-style ending, just...lack of sleep.

    Also, the pacino character in the original was much more interesting - it was he that tried to seduce (or well, grope) the best friend, not the other way around. It illustrated that he was losing it due to insomnia, instead of showing that her best friend wasn't really.

    . It was OK, but no great shakes. It's interesting to see the two movies side-by-side, because they're close enough to see how different they really are.

    • It's interesting to see the two movies side-by-side, because they're close enough to see how different they really are.

      Too true. It's pretty rare not to have one of the versions (usu the remake) suck so badly that it spoils the fun of comparing. When they are both interesting versions, though, it can be fascinating to notice the differences. Sometimes the change isn't much on paper... a number of the earlier Hollywood remakes of previous Hollywood movies were not much more than a change of actors. Those are often the most interesting, though, since they really highlight the different styles those actors brought to the role. More than once I've actually preferred the remake but, come to think of it, I'm not sure I could come up with any recently-made examples of that. I think the remakes, like many adaptations, usu come off as weaker in comparision since they so often involve more pander^H^H^H^H^H^Htargeting to a different audience than the original.

      Anyway, sounds like folks who are planning to see this one might find renting the earlier version worth the time, and not just for comparison purposes alone.

  • "(and there isn't a single marching digital Army, special effect, or marketing tie-in involved!)"

    Yes, but there was what I perceived to be a major product placement in the movie. No, not the cars, because every movie has cars and in this particular case their brands weren't made prominent.

    I am speaking of the one scene where Dormer is in the lobby of the lodge he's staying in and is talking to the lodgekeeper. She's typing up something on her computer and what do we see? The back of an LCD screen with a *HUGE* Proview logo on the back. It brought back memories of the OJ trial and Judge Ito's Thinkpad with the larger-than-normal IBM logo.

    It's amazing that it still costs so much to go to the movies when they have so many sneaky adverts popping up everywhere.

  • But Jon... (Score:2, Funny)

    by CaseyB ( 1105 )
    What I want to know is, how does this film re-examine traditional cultural myths in the post-9/11 world?

    • Re:But Jon... (Score:1, Offtopic)

      by 0xA ( 71424 )
      Not only that, it doesn't seem to be a metaphor for geek agnst or have anything to do with the cultural implications of the new economy.

      I'm not bitching or anything but wow.

  • Insomnia was great (Score:1, Interesting)

    by SilentJames ( 577200 )
    Interesting sybolism---Dormer, sounds like , DORMIR. which in spanish means TO SLEEP. interesting
    • I think I read that the writter derived the name from the Italian word for TO SLEEP, which happens to be the same as the Spanish Word, dormir.
    • And only slightly more symbolic is the name of the town in Alaska that they visit: Nightmute.
  • Well as usual our belated film critic (how often does he review movies weeks or even years behind) regurgitates some stuck up stuffy critic's article. This movie was uninteresting, unoriginal, and completely predictable. Surrounded by much hype, not even my favorite Robin Williams and Al Pacino were able to save this wannabe Oscar flop. The only part of the movie that I did not predict was when Robin Williams' character knocks out Hiliary Swank -- this by the way hurt Williams credibility as being a "manslaughterer" rather than a "murderer." The climatic ending was ridiculous. Pacino and Williams dying in the end was absurd, especially with Williams body coincidentally falling into the icy abyss. Then Swank tampering the evidence at the end. What would have been a better movie would have been if Pacino's partner was the one who shot at him, and through ballistics Pacino realized he had done the right thing, Williams character gets what he deserves and Pacino could die another way. This way there would be more interweaving in the story line and make it more of thinking movie, which I believe was what the director and writers originally intended on doing. Skip this So called Oscar contender and go watch UNDERCOVER BROTHER.
  • The ending is very predictable - you know basically what it's going to be about half-way into the movie.

    What you shouldn't know is that Hap got shot in the beginning - as much as I don't care for Katz-bashing (whether or not he's a tool) - he *did* spoil the movie because he broke the suspense.

    You now know exactly what causes the ending, which takes 1/2 the fun out of it.
  • I must say Nolan's insomnia is in many ways better than the norwegian original. In the original, John Holt (Walter's norwegian counterpart) is hardly developped at all, and there isn't much interaction between detective and criminal. Also, i think the american version gives a more plausible reason why the main character wants to conceal his mistake so bad.

    Nevertheless, I was a wee bit disppointed by the gratuitous shootout at the end of the american version. It really isnt essential to story, and it seem to be thrown in just to please some gun happy hollywood exec. "Point of no return" (remake of la femme nikita) had once covninced me that there can be no good american remakes of european movies, but nolan's insomnia is a substantial improvement over the original.
  • I saw this movie this weekend and was completely disappointed. If you didn't figured out the ending by the trailers, it was apparent 30 minutes into the movie. For a movie that is supposed to be a thriller, I was forcing myself to stay awake through most of the movie. My heart skipped more beats watching "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes."

    I get the feeling that either Chris Nolan as a director is a one trick pony like Quentin Tarantino, or he coasted this one in relaying on the abilities of the Academy Award winning actors and the fact that it was a successful movie in Europe. The entire key of the movie is filming the movie from the prospective of Al Pacino and him battling his insomnia. He tried doing this but completely failed. Every scene should have had Pacino in it, reveal what Swank was doing on her own at the end of the movie. Inner dialog also would have helped. Help the audience understand how delusional and paranoid he was getting.

    The acting in the movie was great, but poor directing can ruin an entire film.
  • I think Katz has really grown, because instead of trying to make witty attack on an okay film, he decided to chose a good film, and give a good review. But... "Dormer who, driven nearly mad by the insomnia he experiences in the long Alaskan day" uhhh how does that work? The last time i experienced insomnia during the day, i called it waking up.
  • Al Pacino sleepwalks through this movie. Which is the point, of course, but he appears pretty much the same as he has in his last half-dozen movies. Is he stalking a killer in the mist or his star receiver on the sidelines? You wouldn't know except for the scenery.

    And the horribly over-dramatized conceit of the constant light causing such problems (I live in Interior Alaska and it is light all the time now-- it doesn't cause us, or the constant flow of tourists, any major problems) and the supposed Alaskans talking about it driving people crazy... well, there are a lot of things that drive people crazy here, but light is not one of them. Tourists? Sure. Mosquitos? You bet. Women? If there were any (we say "Alaska: where men are men and the women are too"). But the light?

    Gorgeous scenery, though, even if most of it is actually Canada. Robin Williams finally underplays a part and it works. Hillary Swank was fine except that she looks more and more like Matt Damon every day. That has to be the most disconcerting element of this movie!
  • "also a refreshing change of pace from the mega-movies and their marketing tie-ins."

    And also a refreshing change from hearing about the unseen moral ramifications of Spider-Man vs. Attack of the Clones, and the post-post-Columbine post-9/11 aftershock that you regularly seem to think plagues all movies.

    Way to go Katz, you finally cut it down to nuts and bolts, and wrote a half-decent review without sounding like a pompous ass.

    Now just keep it up.

  • The movie was good, overall.. The plot twists were nice, although I wish the ending went a little bit beyond where it did. Oh well.

    Only thing that really bothered me about Insomina was Al Pacino's fingernails... GAH! They have medications for that now, man, might want to check into it. I'm sure you can afford whatever they charge, just get something done before those nails completely pop off and you have to pay a guy to pick up paper for you.

  • (and there isn't a single marching digital Army, special effect, or marketing tie-in involved!)

    EVERY movie has special effects these days. They might not be special effects in the traditional "blow up a spaceship" sense, and in fact you might not even recognize the special effects, but they WILL be there. Take a look at the credits, and I'm sure you'll see the special effects people listed. The effect might be as mundane as removing the reflection of the camera-crew from a window, or adding a sparkle to a glass of wine, but it will be a special effect nonetheless.

  • The movie has good acting performances from an excellent cast, but the plot was bland. I did not find it that engaging or original. From the start of the movie, I could not wait for it to be over. I felt as though I was sitting through another movie that I have seen before. It is a standard formula thriller that did not suprise me or offer any excitement. I found the action sequences to be poor as well with too much blurry camera motion. It is worth a reduced price or later rental, but I cannot recommend this movie to anyone.

    Regards,

    javajeff
  • I think that if the killer was actually a sexual predator, Williams would have pulled that off perfectly. He doesn't seem like a killer, but he could pass as a sexual predator. Just a thought.

  • I like the name they gave Dormer (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Kiwi ( 5214 ) on Sunday June 02, 2002 @06:02PM (#3628044) Homepage Journal
    I like the name they gave Dormer; dormir means "To sleep" in Spanish (and probably other romance languages). Rather appropriate since one significant plot point was the Dormer could not sleep.

    I wonder if the Norweigan original does a similiar wordplay on the cop investigator's name.

    - Sam

  • Insomnia, like so many other movies, is a remake. Many people enjoyed Traffic which was based on a Dutch version. Ocean's Eleven is a remake, and now I see Matt Damon is starring in a remake of the Bourne Identity (the original featured Richard Chamberlain...shudder).
    With all the billions of dollars we pay to support Hollywood, why is there such a dearth of fresh ideas? Why do small independent (often European) filmmakers create more interesting films?

Slashdot Top Deals

If you think nobody cares if you're alive, try missing a couple of car payments. -- Earl Wilson

Close