Compelling

Rating: 8/10 (17 January 2003)

This finely wrought remake of the Norwegian film of the same name (1997)--an excellent film by the way--is something close to a thriller masterpiece flawed only by a too-hurried resolution. Christopher Nolan, whose strikingly original Memento (2000) is among the best films made in recent years, planned this out very carefully, tying up most of the loose ends without relying on any phony motivation, which we sometimes see in passionate cop dramas. However, the guns blazing at the end was a cheap way out of this psychologically complicated story. Still, I think we can overlook that small fault since the rest of the film is so very well done.
The incomparable Al Pacino gives a mesmerizing performance as Los Angeles police detective Will Dormer who is sent with his partner north to Alaska ostensibly to help in a murder investigation. However we quickly learn that being out of town may help him and his partner avoid an Internal Affairs investigation to which Dormer may be vulnerable. By the way, "dormir" in French means "to sleep," which is something Dormer does not do for six days, which is very close to the edge of human tolerance. Indeed Dormer's last line in the film is "Just let me sleep."
Pacino is supported by Robin Williams as Walter Finch, a morally-deranged mystery writer who doesn't appear until the film is about half over. He makes up for keeping us waiting with a dramatic performance that will curl your toes. He is even more despicable than Bjorn Floberg was in the Norwegian film. Not only is Robin Williams's appearance subtly altered and his demeanor strange, even his voice is not the same. He is a long way from Good Morning, Vietnam (1987) and Mrs. Doubtfire (1993), but I think this is, in a more modest way, one of his best performances.
Also featured is Hilary Swank, whom you should see in Boys Don't Cry (1999) if you haven't, as Ellie Burr, an ingenue Alaskan detective in awe of the master cop from the big city. Notable in a modest role is Jonathan Jackson as Randy Stetz, a high schooler with a chip on his shoulder. I also liked the brief appearance by Katharine Isabelle, who played the murder girl's trampy girlfriend.
The key psychological question in both films is why does Will Dormer decide to cover up the accidental shooting? In director Erik Skjoldbjaerg's 1997 film the answer is human nature. That certainly worked, but was not enough for Nolan, and so he gives us Dormer's Internal Affairs problems back in L.A. as further motivation. This works very well for two reasons: One, it is convincing. Recall his spontaneous confession to the hotel clerk (Maura Tierney). And two, the cop problems in Los Angeles are right out of the headlines of recent years. They are real. Nolan even has Ellie find a copy of the Los Angeles Times with one of the stories on the front page.
The next psychological question is, is the villain a serial killer in the making? If he is, then Dormer must stop him regardless of his own problems. And therein lies the internal conflict of the film so well projected by Al Pacino. We know that there is something more than the midnight sun to account for Dormer's disintegration. He is a flawed cop. Like some of his real life counterparts in L.A. and elsewhere he took it upon himself, by falsifying evidence, to administer justice to a man he knew was guilty. When he did that, he knew (and this is something he teaches Ellie) that he had lost his integrity as a cop. The temptation to frame somebody we know is guilty of a horrendous crime is very great and many of us would fall into it.
Since I cannot discuss the ending here in any concrete way, let me just say that if Nolan had really taken his time with the ending he might have had Dormer simply murder the villain and face the consequences (or even commit suicide). But I suspect Nolan believed that the heroic character of his star would have been compromised. In Skjoldbjaerg's film the police detective actually shoots the dog to obtain the spent bullet he needs. In Nolan's film the dog is already dead. I think this minor blush of character actually taints Nolan's film to some small degree and leads Nolan down the path to the Hollywood ending to come. But judge for yourself
One final point. A lot can be gotten out of a single camera shot. This is something that Nolan does very well. A case in point is the shot on the plastic evidence bag holding the bullet that Dormer picks up in the lab. Nolan has the camera show us the words on the bag, "chain of custody," and he has the camera linger long enough for us to read them. This nice touch reminds us that THAT very chain of custody is being compromised, another echo of real life criminal investigations from recent years in L.A.
See this for Al Pacino, at his best here, one of the great stars of our era whose ability to command the screen is second to none.
(Note: Over 500 of my movie reviews are now available in my book "Cut to the Chaise Lounge or I Can't Believe I Swallowed the Remote!" Get it at Amazon!)