Insomnia

[FrancoDiSantisxxx]

Almost

 

>>Although I like RW, he's one of those actors

>>who always seems to be playing himself,

>>no matter what the role is (with a possible

>>exception re Mrs. Doubtfire). His gestures,

>>expressions and his way of saying words

>>almost never vary.

 

Bravo - the arts cable channel, had a feature with Al Pacino, Hillary Swank, Mr. Williams, Christopher Nolan, the director of this film and of the critically aclaimed Momento, and several of the other supporting characters in the film Insomnia, who were presented in a short, 30 minute documentary format feature.

 

This documentary made it seem as if the principal role in the movie was that of Mr. Pacino and most of the "screen time" was given over to his character. He is also an actor who often seems, at loud volumes, to be playing the same person, as in my mind he has in his most recent films, and to me he no longer exhibits the nuance and often quiet grace on display in the Godfather and his early films.

 

>Key word is "almost". Think of him in Garp,

>he was just so happy to be sad.

>But your right, he's almost always in

>manic-schtick.

 

The very short segments on Mr. Williams were instructive in that his smile - and many of manerisms and facial expressions - were the same as in his more recent, "feel good" roles: Good Will Hunting, Mrs. Doubtfire, The Bird Cage, et al. This made me wonder if Mr. Nolan had the stature or ability to rein in his "manic-schtick."

 

The cast and involvement of Mr. Nolan now makes me far more intrigued in the film but in a documentary feature such as this, which is often produced in cooperation with the studio, if these clips were the best they could pull to use of material featuring Mr. Williams, I am not so sure he will be either the best thing or the most suitable in this role.

 

It is possible. Think Henry Connick, Jr. in Copycat. But this particular piece did not make it seem probable.

[FrancoDiSantisxxx]

Reviewing the Reviewers

 

I am in agreement with Rod, I rarely value the opinions of the Los Angeles critics, particularly the local weeklies, but read them and find them instructive on certain levels. I also miss Janet Maslin in the Times, but find their present critics, save one, useful. However, I am more trusting of the opinion of David Denby in The New Yorker and believe he offers interesting insights into many films.

 

I also add that I rarely see any film the first weekend it is out and, for what it is worth, I most often see films on tape or DVD at home with the current main squeeze, unless it is something whose visual style and cinematography require a theater, such as A.I.

 

Next on my personal list of films to see in theaters is Dirk Shafer's Circuit; I also look forward to the DVD of The Deep End.

[Guest Musclebearshare]

RE: Reviewing the Reviewers

 

I don't read the L.A. Times regularly enough to be familiar with its reviewers. One thing, though - I'm almost always more impressed with the LA Film Critics' Circle award picks than with any other critics' group picks (Natl. Board of Review, NY Film Critics' Circle, etc.). When near-unaninimity is lacking among the choices of the various groups, the LA Critics' Circle selection usually jives with my own tastes. I've been following them ever since they tagged Terry Gilliam's brilliant "Brazil" as the best picture of its year, while the NY Critics went with the tamer hometown favorite "Prizzi's Honor."

 

I used to dislike David Denby, but that was back when he was having his frequent dust-ups with just about every other critic in NYC and plotting his take-over of the NYFF. I haven't read him in a long time. My favorites remain Andrew Sarris, Stanley Kaufmann, and Terrence Rafferty (who did a great job carrying on in his mentor Pauline Kael's footsteps after she made the world less interesting by retiring from the New Yorker).

 

Michael