A solid thriller (spoilers)

Rating: Null/10 (21 September 2005)

These days it's something of a novelty when Al Pacino turns in a performance that doesn't include a lot of SHOUTING. It's become his trademark; when all else fails shout, "HOO-HA!" But seeing as he's playing a man who can't get any sleep in Nolan's film, he's forced to turn the volume down  although he still manages one or two shouts. This means that we get to see the more reserved Pacino. The one who portrayed Michael Corleone and Serpico, and the one who doesn't need to resort to cheap tricks to engage the audience. Having said that, though, part of me wishes there was a scene where Pacino suddenly blurts out "HOO-HA!" to wake himself up, preferably in a public place or at a funeral
I guess it must be quite a difficult task to make a film about insomnia and fatigue and not have the same effect on the audience. Sure you want the audience to be put in the place of Pacino's character, but you don't want them to fall asleep. So Nolan pulls off quite a trick by allowing you to feel that fatigue but without turning you off. The best way he does this is through the editing. All the time you get flashes. It's like that feeling when you fall asleep for a couple of seconds and then suddenly wake up. Another excellent technique is the way that Nolan occasionally exaggerates sounds  there's a scene in the police station where the fan rumbles more loudly than it should and where a stapler comes crashing down with a huge thud. And added to this you get distorted images like when you're desperately trying to stay awake. You close and rub your eyes and you're constantly refocusing on what you see. Nolan visualises that feeling superbly.
Nolan also includes brief hallucinations. From time to time you see Pacino's dead partner in the present. Not only does this hint at his distorted perspective but it also gets into his guilty conscious. And the shooting of his dead partner is an excellent scene. The fog visualises how tired and morally confused Pacino is, and in the heat of the moment it's not at all clear that the man he's shooting at is his partner. It's only in flashbacks that the shooting becomes clearer. In the flashbacks you can see it's his partner before he gets shot  the fog seems to lift. I guess this could be taken two ways. Either he did mean to kill his partner or his guilty feelings are playing on him. Personally I think it's the later. I don't think he meant to kill his partner. I think it's his partner's reaction  his fear of Pacino as his dying  and the subsequent events combined with his fatigue that make him question himself. But it's to the film's credit that things are never completely spelt out.
Where the film's more traditional is in the resolution. Pacino sins so he must die. But he also sacrifices himself so that justice can prevail. Perhaps in the wrong hands it could be a lousy ending  the original's is much more ambiguous  but I think it works pretty well. He certainly does the right thing. He not only prevents himself from falling into a moral vacuum but he stops Hilary Swank's character from emulating him. So it's a redemptive ending, and one that sounds corny on paper, but it works on screen. The performances and the directing prevent it from becoming cheesy.
Another positive is Robin Williams. I much prefer him as a creep than I do as a comedian. In fact, most of his comedic films are awful  his stand-up makes me laugh and so do his chat show appearances, but his comedic films are frequently dross. So I'm always quite pleased when he plays someone insidious. He does it well. He can play creepy guys that are creepy because they're utterly banal. All too often people associate madness and danger with the Hannibal Lector school of acting. But if you watch programmes about serial killers they're usually dreary people. Their actions seem normal to them. So Williams gets the character spot on. He's a little dull, a little creepy but also fascinating to watch. The interest lies in how such a boring person can do such a thing. Of course he comes out with the usual reasons for killing  a girl laughs at his advances  and they almost sound understandable until you realise that they're not. It's kind of John Doe syndrome  "Yeah, I sort of understand thatNo, wait a minute, he's completely bonkers."
But although everyone tries their best to avoid clichés, the film does indulge in them from time to time. The scene between Pacino and Williams on the ferry, while good  it's strange seeing such two completely different actors acting together  is a bit familiar in the "we're not so dissimilar" message it contains. But having said that, it's kind of nice seeing the two characters almost swap positions; Williams becomes like a detective and Pacino acts like the criminal. Another cliché is the useless local police force. But again, it's not so bad. Like most clichés it's a cliché because there's truth in it. And another cliché is the hero-worshipping rookie. But yet again, it's a cliché that feels honest and one that is well presented. In fact, all the clichés are well done  there's a lot to be said for clichés if they're executed properly.
But watching Nolan's film has made me want to see the original again. I've only seen it once and that was quite a while ago. Therefore I can't remember much about it. About all I can remember is the main character being more unsympathetic. Whether that benefits it, I'm not sure, but it would certainly be hard to top Nolan's effort.