that scene in the fog was breathtaking

Insomnia was a pure psychological thriller. My personal favorites are Memento, The following, Inception, and who doesn't like the Dark Knight,but Insomnia is an extremely well made movie. The plot was ingenious, though not complex. The direction was fantastic. Insomnia is a beautifally shot morality tale. Al pacino was great. When Nolan made i'm posotive he knew what kind of Film he was making. It was when nolan showed off his directional talents as opposed to his writing skills, and what a director he is.

Insomnia is different than other nolan films. Insomnia is a nolan movie, you just don't like it because it doesn't have crazy plot twists. It is a thriller and what a thriller it is.

Alot of people said it didn't seem like a nolan movie, but it was. I loved every close up, every tense moment, and the linear plotline. If memento was told linearly, I bet you wouldn't like it.

Insomnia is not my favorite nolan film, but it is so,so good. If you only appreciate Christopher Nolan for his fantastic writing abilities(my favorite screenwriter of all time) and don't care for his directing ablities, than i'm sorry.

I've ranted on alot about this, and i hope my extended response might make you feel differently.

I honestly think it's one of his best films. I think the main problem is that most people have watched this film on DVD and not in the cinema.
To truly admire/appreciate this film it has to be seen in the cinema as Nolan's play with the sound is stunning in this film and adds another layer to Insomnia. Esspecially the scene in the police station with Dormer unable to focus on the stapler and fan.
I remember when I was 18 and watching it in the cinema and it was so much better than watching it on DVD by miles.
I think that's why I always disagree when people say it's his weakest film, as I'm sure if they watched it in the cinema they would have a very different view entirely.

rbevanx wrote:I honestly think it's one of his best films. I think the main problem is that most people have watched this film on DVD and not in the cinema.
To truly admire/appreciate this film it has to be seen in the cinema as Nolan's play with the sound is stunning in this film and adds another layer to Insomnia. Esspecially the scene in the police station with Dormer unable to focus on the stapler and fan.
I remember when I was 18 and watching it in the cinema and it was so much better than watching it on DVD by miles.
I think that's why I always disagree when people say it's his weakest film, as I'm sure if they watched it in the cinema they would have a very different view entirely.

I will always enjoy a film better in a theater as opposed to TV. But to me, you shouldn't have to see any given movie there to sway your opinion. i don't think you need to be in a theater to see why TDK or Inception are great movies, and if you do, then maybe they're not as good as you may have thought they were. Sure, the experience is different, and perhaps there is some aspect you cannot fully appreciate without being in a theater.

Here's a coutnerpoint. I saw Avatar in the theatre. Liked it, didn't love it. Saw it at home (on blu-ray, no less) and found that what made it fun wasn't there on the small screen. It was exposed for the bad movie it was IMO. If it's a good movie, it will hold up, despite the viewer not being able to enjoy the full experience.

For the record, I like Insomnia, but find the pacing of the movie is just lacking and makes it dull. It's a good move, good script, gorgeous cinematography & scenery, great acting and bad tempo. I tend to feel as sleepy as Pacino if I watch it at night... perhaps that's part of Nolan's idea that the audience inhabit the movie along with the main character, but it just doesn't work for me. I say it's the weakest of Nolan's films, but that's not to say it's a bad movie. Just not engaging.

Robbman wrote:

rbevanx wrote:I honestly think it's one of his best films. I think the main problem is that most people have watched this film on DVD and not in the cinema.
To truly admire/appreciate this film it has to be seen in the cinema as Nolan's play with the sound is stunning in this film and adds another layer to Insomnia. Esspecially the scene in the police station with Dormer unable to focus on the stapler and fan.
I remember when I was 18 and watching it in the cinema and it was so much better than watching it on DVD by miles.
I think that's why I always disagree when people say it's his weakest film, as I'm sure if they watched it in the cinema they would have a very different view entirely.

I will always enjoy a film better in a theater as opposed to TV. But to me, you shouldn't have to see any given movie there to sway your opinion. i don't think you need to be in a theater to see why TDK or Inception are great movies, and if you do, then maybe they're not as good as you may have thought they were. Sure, the experience is different, and perhaps there is some aspect you cannot fully appreciate without being in a theater.

Here's a coutnerpoint. I saw Avatar in the theatre. Liked it, didn't love it. Saw it at home (on blu-ray, no less) and found that what made it fun wasn't there on the small screen. It was exposed for the bad movie it was IMO. If it's a good movie, it will hold up, despite the viewer not being able to enjoy the full experience.

For the record, I like Insomnia, but find the pacing of the movie is just lacking and makes it dull. It's a good move, good script, gorgeous cinematography & scenery, great acting and bad tempo. I tend to feel as sleepy as Pacino if I watch it at night... perhaps that's part of Nolan's idea that the audience inhabit the movie along with the main character, but it just doesn't work for me. I say it's the weakest of Nolan's films, but that's not to say it's a bad movie. Just not engaging.

Oh I agree in general films are better in the cinema but with films like Insomnia, it actually adds to the film and watcing it on DVD takes a lot of the films elements away.
But you typing in "I tend to feel as sleepy as Pacino if I watch it at night... perhaps that's part of Nolan's idea that the audience inhabit the movie along with the main character," proves my point.
It wasn't designed to make you feel tired all the way through the film, there are parts that natually make you jump and make you more alert/aware simply by the sound, and this gave the film an almost horror tension to a thriller.
The DVD can't do this as the sound I have always found to be flat and most people's home theatres are never really set up right.

rbevanx wrote: I agree in general films are better in the cinema but with films like Insomnia, it actually adds to the film and watcing it on DVD takes a lot of the films elements away.
But you typing in "I tend to feel as sleepy as Pacino if I watch it at night... perhaps that's part of Nolan's idea that the audience inhabit the movie along with the main character," proves my point.
It wasn't designed to make you feel tired all the way through the film, there are parts that natually make you jump and make you more alert/aware simply by the sound, and this gave the film an almost horror tension to a thriller.
The DVD can't do this as the sound I have always found to be flat and most people's home theatres are never really set up right.

That's all good, certainly not trying to say you're wrong, or I'm right. For me, a good movie transcends the 'tricks' you mention. All of those things add to the experience when executed properly, but don't make it a better film. I think I did a poor job wording my position, so here's a second shot at it through an analogy of sorts.

TDK on DVD holds up in that format because fundamentally it's a good movie. I'd much rather see it on Blu-Ray to get the Imax expansion, the detailed cinematography, and even better experientially in the theatre, particularly in Imax. As contrast, Avatar was exposed as a subpar movie that was dressed up with a lot of effects and eye candy when I saw it on HBO. I checked out the Bluray to see how that looked and still had the same feeling. The 3D and effects were so groundbreaking that they drowned out the lack of story and terrible dialogue. It was also WAY too long. Insomnia lies firmly in the middle of that spectrum for me. A good movie with some not-so evident 'tricks' that enhance the quality of the movie and the cimematic experience, don't distract from story deficiencies. It's biggest fault is its tepid pace, and i thought the same thing in the theatre. If it was Nolan's intent to lull the audience into a somewhat drowsy state, it's a trick I don't think enhances the experience. I certainly didn't feel I needed that to get Will Dormer's exhaustion. To need a trick like that to 'bring the audience in' to the film really is a slap in the fact to Pacino's portrayal, which is why I don't think Nolan intended to do that.

Again, just my humble opionion.

Merry Christmas everybody!

Robbman wrote:

rbevanx wrote: I agree in general films are better in the cinema but with films like Insomnia, it actually adds to the film and watcing it on DVD takes a lot of the films elements away.
But you typing in "I tend to feel as sleepy as Pacino if I watch it at night... perhaps that's part of Nolan's idea that the audience inhabit the movie along with the main character," proves my point.
It wasn't designed to make you feel tired all the way through the film, there are parts that natually make you jump and make you more alert/aware simply by the sound, and this gave the film an almost horror tension to a thriller.
The DVD can't do this as the sound I have always found to be flat and most people's home theatres are never really set up right.

That's all good, certainly not trying to say you're wrong, or I'm right. For me, a good movie transcends the 'tricks' you mention. All of those things add to the experience when executed properly, but don't make it a better film. I think I did a poor job wording my position, so here's a second shot at it through an analogy of sorts.

TDK on DVD holds up in that format because fundamentally it's a good movie. I'd much rather see it on Blu-Ray to get the Imax expansion, the detailed cinematography, and even better experientially in the theatre, particularly in Imax. As contrast, Avatar was exposed as a subpar movie that was dressed up with a lot of effects and eye candy when I saw it on HBO. I checked out the Bluray to see how that looked and still had the same feeling. The 3D and effects were so groundbreaking that they drowned out the lack of story and terrible dialogue. It was also WAY too long. Insomnia lies firmly in the middle of that spectrum for me. A good movie with some not-so evident 'tricks' that enhance the quality of the movie and the cimematic experience, don't distract from story deficiencies. It's biggest fault is its tepid pace, and i thought the same thing in the theatre. If it was Nolan's intent to lull the audience into a somewhat drowsy state, it's a trick I don't think enhances the experience. I certainly didn't feel I needed that to get Will Dormer's exhaustion. To need a trick like that to 'bring the audience in' to the film really is a slap in the fact to Pacino's portrayal, which is why I don't think Nolan intended to do that.

Again, just my humble opionion.

Merry Christmas everybody!

And you are more than entitled to your view robbman

I think we are gonna have to agree to disagree and merry christmas fella.

Insomnia wasn't amazing, but it also wasn't crap.

This is the only Nolanfilm for which I rate the cinematography and acting higher than the story. That's reason I felt this film was Nolan's weakest, which goes to show how important it is that Nolan is involved in the writing process.

mauro1970mvr wrote:What's the PC way of saying" this movie was crap?

I think the phrase you're looking for is, "I am a moron."

steveportee wrote:

mauro1970mvr wrote:What's the PC way of saying" this movie was crap?

I think the phrase you're looking for is, "I am a moron."

Exactly. This movie isn't crap, it's just not a masterpiece like many of Nolan's other movies