Michael Mann makes this slow moving film even worse

Rating: 6/10 (15 November 1999)

Oliver Stone's film "U-turn" was a pretty good film, when it was just that, a film. When it became director heavy it really lacked. What I mean by that is the technique of film became more important that than the integrity of the story. Stone used so many silly and pretenscious shots that it took away from the experience of the movie. That is the same with Michael Mann's The Insider.
The Insider is an interesting film about an interesting topic. I'm not sure if I would invest more than 70 million dollars into it, but it is an interesting topic. The story and the two great lead actors are the strength of the film. But what is almost an abomination is the work done by Michael Mann. Sometimes a film has such strength in it's script that it can survive on that alone. Think of work by Tarantino or Kevin Smith. They usually have material that is strong enough that you don't need a lot of camera work or an infinite number of camera movements to capture the essence of a scene. The Insider is directed like a it is made by a guy that is fresh out of film school and wants to use every technique he ever learned and that means using 25 different angles for one scene in a room. The Insider has more close-ups and over the shoulder two shots that I can recall any movie having in quite some time. And that became boring and cumbersome after about 15 minutes. Whatever point was trying to be made had been done in overdrive. Close up of Crowe and his kids= he loves his kids and their life and safefy is at stake. Close up of Crowe= he is in imminent danger. Close up of Crowe and his wife= they are in danger and they are on shaky ground. Close up of Pacino= I don't know what, it could mean anything, maybe Mann is obsessed with close ups of actors. But they were not needed in this film. I got tired of them, I didn't need to see every pore on Pacino's face, every wrinkle on Crowes forehead, every hurt expression on Crowe's wifes face magnified twenty times. Movies have directors so that they have direction but that does not mean that I need or want to know that they are there behind the screen and off to the right of what is happening on screen. I've always thought that a film works better when the presence of a director is not felt. When you can look at a screen and feel like you are peering into someone else's conversation, then that is the best kind of film making. Spielberg is a master of it, Tarantino and Smith are as well and even a guy like Robert Zemekis is wonderful at doing that. But Michael Mann seems as though he is unsure of himself as a director of films that are laden with dialogue so he compensates his ineptitude by using every shot he possibly can. This is the biggest problem with the film, but it is not the only problem.
As interesting as the film is, in subject matter that is, it is really quite boring and slow. There were many times that I groaned silently and wanted the film to end. But it just kept going. And I also felt that as good as Pacino was, he wasn't allowed to act, he was always just waiting in the background to do or say something. The times when he was allowed to show emotion were the best parts of the film. There is a scene in the office of 60 Minutes when Pacino is allowed to explode after his character has been told that his story is not going to air. Here he blows and tells them how foolish they are and how much of a corporate puppet they have become and I will bet good money that when Pacino is nominated for an Oscar, when they show the clip that showcases his talents for the Oscar at the ceremony, it will be this piece that they show. He really excells for about five minutes in this one scene. But that's all there is, really. The rest of the film he just sort of waits in the shadows to do anything memorable. I don't know how you make a film like this better, with the subject matter and all, but I know one way to do it is to let Pacino loose and another way would be to get a better director. I mean let's face it, no matter how good your subject matter is, if it is something that you can make into an A&E Special, perhaps it shouldn't be on the big screen for 150 mintues.
Overall this is an unsatisfying movie and one that I don't really think redeems itself. I had seen Dogma the day before this, and as I stood in line, freezing on a blistery Saturday afternoon in Toronto, waiting for the Pokemon kids to get their tickets in front of me for their beloved film, I commented to the cashier that I was probably the only one seeing something else besides Pokemon. He told me that I was probably right, except Dogma was selling out as well. I wish I had gone to see that again. It too was quite long ( about 2 hours in length ) but it was funny and enjoyable along with being interesting. The Insider and Michael Mann should take lessons from Dogma and Kevin Smith.