Insomnia (2002)

I really dig this flick, despite it having it's detractors, I like it. A lot. Robin Williams plays his villain so straight it's friggin' creepy, and the chase sequence over the logs is amazing. I love the end sequence at the cabin.

This flick also hold a special place in my heart because I saw it literally the morning before I graduated from high school.

Having never seen the original, I really liked Nolan's remake. It was more of a character piece than a thriller, and thats what makes it above average for me.

Nolan's ability to get subtle performances from both Pacino and Williams is an achievement in itself. I even liked Swank's glorified Nancy Drew character.

Best part: Dormer's speech to Maura Tierney's hotel manager about what's eating his conscience.

Worst part: The log chase sequence. It was tightly paced, but I can't get over how glaring it is that you can tell that its Pacino's double.

By the way, Nolan is british. So PTA is still the reigning champ

Nor is he even close to being 5/5.

Also- Tarantino.

Wrong. Death Proof says so.

On topic, I really like this too and, while I guess I can see why people say the original is more subtle, that's sort of the point. This is a HOLLYWOOD remake and, as such, there's so much thought gone into it that I really admire it and enjoy it more than the original. I think the only part that I feel slightly cheated by is the ending - the shootout is pretty lousy - but I like that Pacino tells Swank to never compromise, he can't even remember if he killed his partner or not. The final shot of Stellan Skarsgard in Skjoldbjærg's film is a far better ending, and I would have liked to see Pacino try and pull off something similar after killing Williams and leaving town. That's the moral ambiguity the story deserves.

The very best part of the whole film is the scene on the ferry, with Williams and Pacino laying out their scheme to on another, but both holding something back. That's a moral ping pong game you rarely see in mainstream entertainment and both actors play it superbly.

Mention has to go to Wally Pfister's outstanding photogrpahy as well. The opening sequence flying into and out of the clouds is beautiful and - combined with the editing - the visuals create a very sense of disorientation brought on by lack of sleep.

Whether or not you enjoyed Death Proof, if the criteria is making a good movie, DP is a spot-on pastiche that mixes Tarantino's penchant for tweaking genre with meta-film commentary. It did what it set out to do, and did it well. Nolan's Insomnia is both completely forgettable and totally unnecessary. And it's best not to get started on BB. The guy is 3/5 at best.

I'd have said Death Proof was completely forgettable and totally unnecessary.

How odd. Differing opinions.

Is it?

But how is an inferior remake more necessary than a love letter to a nearly forgotten part of film history? One that is respectful but honest, with a sharp critical eye and an ability to laugh at itself, while still being unabashedly drunk on the joy of the experience?

Moving the discussion back to the film. I can say the scene in which Pacino is trapped underwater and can't get through the logs as probably one of the few times I felt geniune terror on screen.

I really like this film, remember a lot of talk about Robin Williams trilogy of not-so-good-characters at the time (this, ONE HOUR PHOTO, DEATH TO SMOOCHY), that should have led onto something but what's he done lately? Interesting films anyway, not RV or whatever the hell it was called. Didn't see THE NIGHT LISTENER, any verdicts?

I also haven't seen the original of this but I'd love to, gotta make it a priority.

I can say this was probably the one of the few times that Williams played a serious role clean shaven.

It really bothered me how sanitized Dormer was in the remake, to the point where it was a distraction. I'll have to catch this again, further distanced from the original. Stellan Skarsgaard's boots are tough to fill, so I do remember Pacino at least bringing his A game.

Oh, and Katherine Isabelle!

I wasn't thrilled with The Prestige, but am unwilling to pass judgment until I see it again, though I wonder if I'll ever be motivated to. And I haven't seen Following, so I can't be sure either way on that.

ETA- Memento is my favorite film of the decade.

They're both unnecessary. I didn't say one was moreso. Remakes and homages have their place - they're not worthless - every film has some kind of value in that it can show a director's vision even if it's flawed. Especially if it's flawed. DEATH PROOF is a character piece with shallow characters. That's a major flaw most QT fans will overlook in his later films, which is why I won't debate it further in a thread not about him.

I quite enjoyed the Insomnia remake - it was beautifully shot and fairly modest. Pacino's mostly the reason it worked though.

EDIT: THE PRESTIGE was pretty fun the first time I watched it, but it doesn't improve on further viewings. I wouldn't recommend you watch it again if it didn't really rock your world first time around.

I do get the sensation that Nolan's Insomnia is kind of American Remake-y in comparison to the original, but I find that's more when I'm reflecting on it than when I'm actually watching it.

But the two movies are different shades. Skarsgaard's character is cold and somewhat ruthless. That Insomnia is about feeling empty, hollow, and remorseless. It's about the character's lack of guilt, I think.

Nolan's version is different. It drains you. It wants to put you in Dormer's shoes. You start to feel worn down, beaten, fatigued. Nolan uses clever directorial tricks to lull you a bit, put you in that state of half-awake half-asleep zombie consciousness. I may be imagining it, but I feel as if the movie never makes any hard cuts or fades so that the whole thing starts to feel like a constant. And it is, as some have said, the last invested dramatic performance Al Pacino has offered.

Nolan hasn't made a film since then, by the way, that didn't feel to me like it took place in its own little cinematic world. Of course, two movies about a superhero, one about magic and one about dreams, they're all heightened reality, but Nightmute feels like a place you could go (I know it is, but I think what I'm getting at is clear). Even the things that look "real" or like "real life" in any of his subsequent movies, they have a weird artifice about them that strikes me as in keeping with the limited emotion in his films. I think Insomnia is much more emotional, because you buy it as a movie that is set in real life.

But the ending is terrible, because it removes all ambiguity from the narrative. Pacino doesn't have to carry his sins, nor does he pass on bad advice. Film Noir, or Film Soleil don't work on the principle of neatness. The original understands that, this does not. The original stays in genre. This is just a movie that is well shot and has a great performance by Robin Williams.

True. This is probably what most makes it feel like an American Remake -- ties off all the loose ends and finds a somewhat positive conclusion. But I don't think you can entirely discount death as a punishment, and what's wrong with last-minute redemption in exchange for death? Hal's wife will learn the truth.

He's obtained absolution. Hell is living with your sins.

Who says the American version is about Hell? I think you're arguing the American ending doesn't jive with the Norwegian body, which is weird.

I'm talking about noir archetypes. This film is of that genre. This ending is a pussy ending to a genre film.

I have to admit to being out of my depth when it comes to deep analysis of a genre and archetypes, so, what about it defines it as film noir? I mean, the tone of it is very bleak, but what else?

EDIT: I am reading the Wikipedia entry on film noir, so never mind. But I guess I would say that your reasoning sounds more like pure personal preference than analysis of the genre and characters. I still say Dormer dying is a somewhat bleak ending. It's just not the bleakest ending. I see how it lets him off the hook, but I don't feel like it's quite as neatly placating as you make it out to be.

Isn't that a bit limiting?

It depends if you're challenging the concepts of the genre. And also, if you're not remaking a film with a better ending.

But I like how the movies are different. Skarsgaard's character embraces his dark side until he becomes this soulless zombie, whereas fatigue and guilt gnaw at Pacino's character until he's been completely swallowed up and dies.

I guess thinking about it now, I feel as if the whole movie is the "ending" you wanted. He's wracked with guilt. The guilt eats away at him more than the lack of sleep, and he lives with his sins during the course of the movie.

Saw the film once by myself in a theater and really enjoyed it. Never had much desire to revisit it though. Really disliked the straight-up conventional nature of the ending. A shootout? Ugh. It just felt so wrong by the end.

Love this and the original. They're different films. One character is guilty of being a disgusting pervert, the other of planting evidence and possibly intentionally murdering his partner. One lives to be a deviant, the other dies after being fatally shot by Mork. While the remake's ending is standard I never mind a movie where the protagonist dies. It may be an "easy" way out for the character but it still achieves a darkness suitable enough for noir by my standards.

Having never seen the original, all I can say about the ending is that, yes, it's standard, but I like Pacino's dying advice to Swank, and it suggests that the truth will come out eventually.

Otherwise, I think this is a great film, and an unfairly overlooked one in light of Nolan's more "epic" or "twisty" films. It's a straightforward story, told in a straightforward way, but the questions of morality and guilt add a lot of weight to it.

Helping this are the wonderful performances and cinematography; Nightmute feels real (apparently, there is actually a town called Nightmute in Alaska, but it's nothing like the town depicted here) thanks to the beautiful locations and Wally Pfister's cinematography, and the supporting cast of actors like Paul Dooley, Nicky Katt and Maura Tierney really seem like small-town folk.

Of course, the major three performances can't be ignored either. Pacino does some of his most intriguing work here, rarely raising his voice or shouting, seeming burnt-out but still dedicated to doing his job, even if it means covering his own ass. Robin Williams certainly gives one of his best performances as well, seeming all too real in his acceptance of what he's done and his calm moral certainty. It's not quite as overtly creepy as his work in One Hour Photo, but it's still pretty chilling. Hilary Swank gets less to do, but she's still pretty solid as the wide-eyed rookie cop who grows more involved with the case as well as Dormer's private demons.

Even when he does raise his voice, I think it's great, too. The scene where he drives Katherine Isabelle out to the dump is pretty great. In the original I think it illustrated how Skarsgaard's character is sort of an asshole with the bottom-line "get the guy" goal and little empathy. In this one, the way he drives like a maniac shows Dormer zigzagging around the limits of what should be acceptable, but he brings it back around towards effective, if insensitive detective work in the end.

Yeah, that's a great scene. And don't get me wrong, I love me some good "HOO-HA!" Pacino, and he's definitely given performances that are very expressive and energetic without going over the top. It's just interesting to see him play a (mostly) quieter character than usual.

Anyway, how does the original end? I've heard the Walter Finch equivalent plays a much less prominent role, so how does that factor in?

I've only seen it once, I need to see it again, but the Finch character confronts Skarsgaard on an old creaky dock. The dock breaks, and the Finch character drowns while Skarsgaard just watches. Skarsgaard finds the dead girl's dress in the Finch character's apartment, incriminating him in her murder. If I'm not mistaken, then he returns to the hotel and rapes the clerk, basically, and the Swank equivalent shows up shortly thereafter and leaves the incriminating shell on the desk, allowing Skarsgaard to do what he wants with it. Less a noble "You didn't mean to do it" as in the remake, more a "It's not really my problem, and I've got better things to care about" moment.

Skarsgaard drives off into the darkness, staring blankly ahead. Symbolically, his eyes glow in the darkness, which is a very creepy visual, and the movie ends.

I know this is a pretty good movie but compared to the rest of Nolan's oeuvre there is something lacking. Maybe it's because it's not a puzzle film, and for a mystery film there isn't much a of a mystery (not really a complaint because I don't think it's what the film set out to do). It still has maybe the best performance of William's career and that unforgettable log setpiece. Still probably my least favorite Nolan.

Just watched it. It was decent enough, I liked it, but it felt pretty slight by the end, and a little sloppy in some places, especially Maura's character.

She seemed to exist only for Pacino to throw the 3rd act backstory explanation at her, while she stands there. Then they cut to her lying on the bed, fully clothed. I guess they banged after? Ok. Lonely hotel clerks always get all wet when I tell them about that time I fabricated evidence in a murder case, so I guess it's believable enough. Her character's existence still reeks of remake-itis, which makes sense based on the posts here about her scenes being different in the original.

As others have said, they psychological stuff between Robin and Al were good, but it didn't build much into the finale. It just petered out into a well done but empty shootout. Then, it's just over. All those subplots just took care of themselves, and were retroactively turned into window dressing. No consequences for anybody, and Hilary Swank gets to learn a very special lesson about being a good cop.

Nolan's style is great as always, but I have little love for movies that build up tension nicely, and then totally blow it. It seemed like it was going to be a much better movie all through the beginning, with the conflict between Pacino and his partner, and the ferry scene.

Pacino dying at the end is still fits in with the Noir genre. The main thing is it can't be a happy ending. If the protagonist stops the villain he has to lose in another way, I think dying counts.

It's morally neat, so there is resonance.

I do agree that the original ending was better. Although I still liked Nolans, only saw it that once when it hit the theaters.

Pacino and Williams carry the can on this one. Without them, this is pretty stock stuff. But man, two GREAT performances.