Went to see Insomnia. . .

[catscradle]

Okay, let me start off by saying that while I didn't hate the movie, I was extremely disappointed in it. I was looking forward to something that rivaled Memento, which is partially my own fault - I knew going into it that with Al Pacino and Robin Williams were in it and thus it was going to be more Hollywoodish than Memento - but I was still hoping it might be cool story and well acted. After all, Ebert gave it three and a half stars - he gave Momento four. So how much behind it could it be? Ebert cut the last star in half because of an action sequence he said it didn't need. I agree. But he completely left out the part about the ending that could have been cut - along with the fact that it needed recast.

The acting wasn't bad. It was adequit, I think. But it wasn't what it could have been and should have been. It seemed to me to be a vehicle fic for Pacino. He's a tough cop - one of the best. Doesn't always play the straight and narrow, but it's Pacino - so no stretch there. I think we needed someone else. Someone that could have made that moral choice more tough on the conscience. I never believed Pacino was having a tough time with his choices. I was chatting with a friend about who would have made that more believable - we came up with Gene Hackman, Anthony Hopkins, Kevin Kline, and Ed Harris - but later decided Ed might have been better in Robin's role. But I'll get to that in a moment - Anyway, I think these other guys might have better pulled off "decent cop"/"tad bit corrupt" better than Michael Corleon. Not to type cast Pacino or anything, it's just it wasn't believable enough that he was agonizing over anything.

Robin Williams. I didn't mind that he was the villian here - he was a grey villian - kinda just a guy that accidentally crossed a line. Sure he was a creep in the same way Warren and Jonathan on Buffy are nerds and villians, but that worked for Robin. I could buy that he'd kill the girl for laughing at him. And given what we knew of the murder victim, her bestfriend and her boyfriend, I think I'd want to beat one of them to death too. See? Shades of grey. I think that's what I liked most about the film: those kids get abused by both the main stars. Friend of mine thought that Ed Harris would make a good villian, and I agree that Ed could be good there. But He wouldn't be the geeky villian. I think I'd pick Kevin Spacey or Billy Bob Thorton if I were going to go geeky - but then, why not just stick with Robin? He was fine given his role. I wouldn't change the performance, just the script.

Hillary Swank. I think she was totally wasted here. Sandra Bullock could have filled that role and it'd be the exact same - which is a shame because Swank is an excellent actress. Just didn't care too much for the wet-behind-the-ears-but-sharp-as-a-whip-if-you-only-give-her-a-chance character she played - it's cliched and this film should be beyond such things. I liked the restaurant/bar/inn keeper character (played by Maura Tierney of News Radio fame) a lot more. With her I knew there was a story - and even though I didn't get what that story was, she was still compelling. Any Northern Exposure and Twin Peaks fans out there think the place looked a lot like a cross between the Brick and the Lodge?

The story: Pacino and his partner go to investigate a murder in Alaska. Pacino and partner are having problems of their own as internal affairs is coming down on their department for alleged fudging of evidence in some cases. Partner decides to make a deal and Pacino is pissed off. Later during a chase of the murderer in a foggy valley/watery/mineshaft type thing - Pacino accidentally shoots his partner rather than the bad guy. Oops. We all know it's an accident. Pacino runs to him and does all he can to help, but Partner believe Pacino is up to no good - trying to kill him because of the investication. Unfortunately the partner does die and Pacino knows everyone is going to believe he did it on purpose. Thus Pacino begins to frame the psycho killer guy - aka Robin. After all - what could it hurt to frame the actual bad guy here?

Thing is, Pacino is racked with guilt - or so we are told. Pacino has insomnia. Enter the movie title. But to be honest - I'm never quite sure if he's got it because of the Alaskan eternal daylight or because he really feels guilty. I know the writers meant the guilt thing, but the guilt-associated insomnia is just never pushed enough. He's tired because he's not sleeping - he's sloppy, he's seeing a few visions in flashes and whatnot - we've all been a little sleep deprived, we know a bit what he's going through. I wanted more with that. The insomnia wasn't pushed strongly enough to be the title of the movie. It doesn't cycle into the plot. When all is said and done with the movies, I have no reason to believe that Pacino would have done anything different had he gotten a few good nights sleep. He's just more tired when he does it - and actually functions quite well given the circumstances.

I really hated it when they pushed the "killing changes you" thing. Pacino was sure that the killer would strike again. I'm thrilled that Robin never kills anyone else just 'cause he got a taste of it. I don't buy into the theory that once you kill you'll do it again. Yeah, he was still psycho weird, but I never got the impression he'd do it again if he could avoid it. I buy that killing changes a person, but I don't think it turns someone into a real killer because we're all dogs and get a rise out of it. Unfortunately I think the only reason Robin never kills again is because he's not given the chance.

The moral is pushed a little more with Pacino - we find out he keeps fudging the evidence in order to convict criminals who would otherwise get off. He's damn positive that the person he sets up is always guilty - and we're all lead to believe that it's not just ego - he really does know they did it - but will get off on technicalities. But he's caught up in it - he can't stop. He's done it once and he'll keep on doing it.

Didn't like that at all. I wouldn't mind if Pacino's character is having problems of conscience dealing with his choices - but I don't want the writing to have a judgement on that. Better writing would have left that neutral and let the character's psyche tackle that question without the Greek chorus - and despite Maura's character, I think the movie is shouting the message loud and clear. Maura's character is an attempt to get at the murkiness without commiting to it.

I won't get into how much I hated the two main action sequences in the middle and at the end - but for something billed as psychodrama - you didn't need either of them. I agree with Ebert - shame he still overloaded on the stars there. . .

Ending seemed like a Hollywoodish shoot-out that tried to make a neat tight ending. I hated it. No one had to deal with anything. Pacino and Robin are dead and Swank gets to stay Golden. Someone call Robert Frost - or C. Thomas Howell, depending on your reference.

I really wished Swank would have thrown away the bullet. That might have saved things a bit. The ending wasn't happy, but it was clean - not the ending I would have thought of for the man who directed Memento. I wasn't expecting the same movie here - I just wanted something more original and thought provoking.

The movie isn't horrible - and I'd see it again over Star Wars or Spiderman (the dialogue was certainly wittier and it had a couple of satisfying teenage smacking moments) - but it was disappointing all the way around. I'd give it two stars.