More a cure for Insomnia

Rating: 3/10 (14 December 2002)

SPOILER ALERT The main problem IMO with this film is that it gives off a thorough sense of `under-achievement' in every aspect of it. There were a thousand ways little and big in which the visual and emotional core of the film could have been imbued with substance but really all that seems to have fallen by the wayside if at all considered.
1. The look of most of the film is so utterly generic it's disheartening. The aspect of a sparsely populated settlement who live a season of perpetual sunlight is dealt with in a perfunctory manner that sucks away most of the uniqueness of the film. This should have been a focal point that defined the sensibility and emotional core of the film and it was just thrown off as a two-scene gimmick reference. The entire concept of `light-as-darkness' blinding and disorienting Dormer's character is never approached to an extent worth the mention. Without that really what was the point of shooting the film in Alaska - to show that Alaska's cranky teens and crazy killers were like those in any other part of the country?
2. Pacino seems to have been selected for the role of the haggard Dormer simply because his entire current career seems veered towards playing haggard old men. This is not to say that he does a bad job, he gets pretty effective in some of the scenes that come immediately after the partner's killing but really at very few points does one feel the turmoil and disorientation of Dormer and there are a few bits of sleepwalk acting even for an insomniac character.
3. Robin William's writer-killer character is again a stereotype that has been seen in umpteen movies made before. I really wish they had taken pains over giving his character a different edge - I remember seeing this Iranian movie `Sara' where a man is blackmailing his employer's wife to keep his job. The beauty of it was he did it in a manner that struck you more as a reasonable plead for help than an arm-twisting. An approach like that would have worked wonders in the scenes where Finch negotiates with Dormer. But we're still stuck with the generic loony-killer.
4. The clean-cut rookie cop who's a fan of Dormer (Hilary Swank) seems like a throwaway character although one does not fault Swank's performance. The film would have been tighter in the absence of such extraneous parts.
5. The film lacks any real sophistication relying on cheap `oooh blood' shots to appear edgy.
6. The climax is a total no-brainer. I'm informed that the Norwegian original ends on a morally ambiguous note with the cop getting away with his escapade. Hollywood of course shies away from such subtleties and we're subjected to a pointless gun-battle in the aftermath of which a dying Dormer advises Swank to not `lose her way (towards truth, justice and the American way, one supposes)'