Article: Procedural - Insomnia (1997)

Christopher Nolan’s 2002 remake of the Nordic crime thriller Insomnia was perhaps most known for being the feature which allowed him to make inroads into the mainstream. However, it can feel that Nolan’s snappy feature, filled with Hollywood stars and flashy direction, has overshadowed the demurer original film that inspired it. Nolan’s Insomnia is a crowd-pleaser. A mid-range that gets a director noticed. But the 1997 original film feels like one of the quieter progenitors of the Nordic Noir thrillers that became more popular in the 2010s. It’s bleaker in its execution of the same material, and possibly all the better for it.

Stellan Skarsgard plays Jonas, a Swedish cop who arrives in Norway to help solve the murder of a troubled teenager. The case becomes complicated when Jonas mistakenly shoots his partner in the fog during a planned stakeout to catch the suspect. Jonas goes against owning up to his culpability as he realises that most of the force believe the suspect is behind both murders. However, it becomes apparent that someone knows what really happened in the fog, and Jonas’ guilt, represented by his insomnia and the glare of the midnight sun, becomes blinding. 

Erik Skjoldbjaerg’s thriller is a streamlined, matter-of-fact affair that is not bothered with the American heroism and sacrifice that Nolan’s remake brings to the table. Jonas is more stoic and less trustworthy from the off. Even before the death of his partner, the interactions with the force already feel frosty. Meanwhile, his sexual appetite is not only swiftly highlighted but deeply problematic.  Skardsgard enters the fray as aloof and proud before the guilt of the shooting and insomnia start to wear him down. Once this happens, he only ever feels more questionable. The sun begins to bleed through the hotel room, creating a daytime that never ceases. The fractured perspective of Jonas is highlighted further with the use of simple visual motifs. Distorted viewpoints are brought on by cracked or rain-drenched windshields. The visuals become more burnt out and bleached during certain daytime sequences. Meanwhile, the film is often cleverly cut to skew the geography surrounding Jonas, making scenes feel disjointed and unpredictable. 

Despite this, Insomnia 97 is a subtler text. The flashy spectacle that Nolan brings to the larger budgeted American film isn't found here. And while enjoyable, it is not missed. This is a muted and more disquieting affair, which never lets its main character off the hook in the same way its remake does. The difference between Skarsgard in 1997 and Al Pacino in 2002 is night and day. Nolan’s Insomnia may have the better antagonist, with a superlative Robin Williams. But Skjoldbjaerg strips down the idea that Jonas is any sort of maverick hero. Making his version of the film the more uncomfortable affair, as it suggests Jonas is damned for his actions, even if justice may occur. 

Insomnia is available on BFI Player via Amazon Video. 

Dig what I write? Buy Me a Ko-fi!

Review: The Mummy

Year: 2017
Director: Alex Kurtzman
Screenplay: David Koepp, Christopher McQuarrie, Dylan Kussman,
Starring: Tom Cruise, Annabelle Wallis, Sofia Boutella, Jake Johnson, Courtney B. Vance and Russell Crowe.

Synopsis is here:

It's too easy to hate Tom Cruise. I've always enjoyed the man myself. Despite his rather obvious array of tics, Cruise's charm has always been my case for him rather than against him. I find that the animosity towards him often stems from folk who are my age or were just a little too young to get into the young maverick hype of the 80's. The Cruise from the turn of the millennium, the Cruise we see now is one where more attention was paid to his religion. His private life seeped into his persona more and the looming weirdness (along with one or two less than appealing movie choices) became the Cruise we recognise more. A shame. As a movie star, the man has it. Or rather had it in the case of the mummy, a rather pitiful attempt to rebrand some old gear under the new sparkly cinematic universe guise. Why? Because Disney/Marvel.

Thanks to Marvel’s ability to create an expansive universe for their media, we now have the likes of Universal trying to catch the fever. What do you do when you have all the classic monsters under your trademark? Shove them all into one great big “cinematic universe” and wait for the dollars to roll in. If you can grab a well know star whose shine is a bit scuffed. Then quids in! Who wouldn’t want to see some like Cruise rise to the occasion, despite plying his trade in the well received and successful Mission Impossible films? No pitfalls to be seen here. Mostly because the executives have huge dollar signs for eyes now.

Unfortunately, Cruise is the main component as to why this film doesn't sit right with me. It's not the weird jokes about his sexual prowess. Despite being in his mid-50's the film is quick to inform you his youthful vigour in the sack with markedly younger women. The issue is that Cruise with his demeanour and tics, never fully gels with the material. The 1999 version of The Mummy, the best-known version, has a strong sense of scale, style and wit about itself. It's location and timeline is well observed and give the film the right mood in which to absorb it. Bravo to Stephen Sommers. No seriously.

This Mummy Movie confoundingly spends its time in modern-day London with Cruise desperately trying to grasp at the fountain of youth. When we look at the silver fox actioners of Liam Neeson, we may be aware of his age, but the films often do well to at least try and cater to the situation. This had me screaming for A: Sidekick Jack Johnson to be the lead. He's more than capable. B: An actual film of the video game Uncharted which would feel far more relevant than this hasty cash in.

What we have now is a modern-day mess about an Egyptian mummy buried in Iraq (LOOK! RELEVANCE!) which spends most of its time in London, featuring a leading star who doesn’t appear to understand that his relevance has altered with his age. Cruise’s desire to perform his own stunts is as always very commendable (especially since his recent injury) and scenes show hints of what made him an interesting presence. However, this is a rather mundane blockbuster starring an A-lister who’s trying to portray a man whose twenty years younger than he is. Unlike the likes of Live, Die Repeat (2015) and the later additions of Mission Impossible franchise, in which Cruise becomes more of a vessel for those around him, Cruise spends his time looking more dead-eyed than the CGI grotesques which populate this drab affair.

To be fair, it’s not as if director Alex Kurtzman doesn’t attempt to make this summer diversion appealing. The central aircraft crashing set-piece would be more astonishing if it had not seemed so heavily borrowed from Christopher Nolan’s bag of tricks. Despite the criticism aimed towards him, the inclusion of Russell Crowe may be grown worthy in consideration of the so-called “dark universe” but comes with a scenery chewing performance which at least seems in sync with the pulpiness that made the 1999 Mummy so attractive.

Now we’re given a film which like many recent summer films of its ilk, is more interested in what happens in the next film than the present one. The Mummy finishes with a finale so anti-climactic that one may ask why they even bothered. Then again, when you’ve owned the rights something for so long as Universal has with The Mummy, you remember you don’t really need to answer that question.

Review: Transcendence

Year: 2014

Director: Wally Pfister  

Screenplay: Jack Paglen 

Starring: Johnny Depp, Morgan Freeman, Rebecca Hall, Kate Mara, Cillian Murphy, Cole Hauser, Paul Bettany

Synopsis is here

I squirmed uncomfortably through a lot of Transcendance. I was slightly shocked at just how soulless the film felt. It contains hefty themes of man vs machine, techno terrorism, environmentalism and man created reverence, yet administers them with the sternness of a strict schoolmarm. Far too often I found myself siding with either the humans or the computers and was willing the film to stop being so po-faced.

For many, their main concern with the film was it’s cumbersome science, which joylessly displays itself fully in the film’s third act. I’m less bothered by this. Mostly because most sci-fi heads enjoy similar tales which also hold bad disciplines. Nor for me the film’s dispassionate treatment of its characters was what irked me the most. The actors (with Depp as the prime target) have been attacked for sleepwalking through their performances, however, Jack Paglen’s script isn’t particularly concerned with investing the audience with any real reason to give concern. The threat of technology taking over the fleshbags is something that movies enjoy exploiting, yet Transcendance does very little in imposing any menace. 

Pfister does transfer his keen visual eye in his direction with sharp macro imagery of accumulating in droplets and contrasting them with the vast, detached open spaces we’ve witnessed in Christopher Nolan’s escapades. The crisp visuals, however, are perhaps at the detriment of the screenplay and performances. The image of computer circuitry trapped within a dream catcher is a provocative one, but feels weak when we combine with the distant performances and cumbersome screenplay. 

The fact is we’ve seen these themes work better in more substantial features. It’s hard not to look at Kate Mara’s Bree and be reminded of Jennifer Jason Leigh’s alt-rebel games maker; Allegra Geller, in David Cronenberg’s greasy Existenz (1999). The film's main conceit should of course prod viewers in the way of Frankenstein (1931), but Transcendance doesn’t even have the scenery chewing mania of Kenneth Branagh’s 1994’s adaptation let alone the clean and simple terror of James Whale’s original. Transcendence talks a good game about the god in the machine, but forgets that the enjoyment of these stories is the hysteria and emotional response we gain from the folly of man. Sure looks nice though. 

Inception Trailer up and about

I was loving Christopher Nolan way before he made his mark on the Batman mythology. In fact my favorite films of his are The Prestige and Following. So Just because he hasn't mentioned anything about what happens next to Bruce Wayne doesn't bother me too much especially when the trailer is as nutty as this:




Or go here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zh5FD2AePJ0

The website hasn't got much to say and is just as maddening, however having seen the work done on the Batman marketing as well as the superb memento website, No doubt this site will be worth checking again in the near future.