I was REALLY impressed by 'Insomnia', the directorial debut from Norwegian Erik Skjoldbjaerg. If this movie is any indication of his talents he is one writer/director to watch! I have yet to see Christopher Nolan's Hollywood remake of this movie but I would be extremely surprised if it manages to equal it, let alone top it. (And I absolutely loved 'Memento') At first you think you're going to see something you've seen a hundred times, a mismatched "buddy" cop movie or your standard serial killer mystery, but the movie quickly enters unfamiliar territory and manages to subvert expectations. Apart from Stellan Skarsgard ('Breaking The Waves', 'Ronin') the cast was unknown to me, but they are all first rate, and I couldn't say there was a bad piece of acting throughout. But Skarsgard, a woefully underrated actor, steals the whole show with an utterly brilliant and compelling performance that shows a depth rarely seen by Hollywood actors, especially in thrillers. 'Insomnia' is a fantastic movie that I cannot fault. The less you know about it the better. Whatever you do, SEE this movie! Highly recommended, especially for those sick and tired at how most thrillers made these days are so predictable and formulaic. It doesn't have to be so, and 'Insomnia' proves it!
107 Reviews
A thriller with a twist
FilmOtaku4 October 2004
Erik Skjoldbjaerg's 1997 film 'Insomnia' starring Stellan Skarsgard is a fine example of the rich films being offered by the foreign film market. Skarsgard plays Jonas Engstrom, a disgraced detective who, with his partner, travels to Norway to help a small town solve the murder of a 17-year-old girl. Due to the atmospheric conditions (there is 24 hour sunshine) and recent events, Engstrom is suffering from a severe bout of insomnia, which is causing problems with his work and psyche.
Not having seen Christopher Nolan's remake, I didn't know what to expect from the story, so I was pleasantly surprised by the unconventional progression of the storyline and the various twists within the script. I have only seen Skarsgard in a couple of films, but he is always fantastic, as he is in this film as well. There are few actors who can keep a straight face, yet still manage to convey complex emotion, and Skarsgard is one of them. He walked through his scenes with a somberness that is reminiscent of most M. Knight Shymalan heroes; powerful, yet weary. Skjoldbjaergs's direction is absolutely beautiful. The colors are quite sharp, and most scenes are expertly framed most would make gorgeous still frames.
I plan to see the remake of 'Insomnia' eventually, but whether you have seen it or not, I would recommend catching the film that inspired it. 7/10.
--Shelly
Not having seen Christopher Nolan's remake, I didn't know what to expect from the story, so I was pleasantly surprised by the unconventional progression of the storyline and the various twists within the script. I have only seen Skarsgard in a couple of films, but he is always fantastic, as he is in this film as well. There are few actors who can keep a straight face, yet still manage to convey complex emotion, and Skarsgard is one of them. He walked through his scenes with a somberness that is reminiscent of most M. Knight Shymalan heroes; powerful, yet weary. Skjoldbjaergs's direction is absolutely beautiful. The colors are quite sharp, and most scenes are expertly framed most would make gorgeous still frames.
I plan to see the remake of 'Insomnia' eventually, but whether you have seen it or not, I would recommend catching the film that inspired it. 7/10.
--Shelly
I never knew light could be so disturbing.
keenan-131 January 2003
Usually, when a director wants to set a dark mood, he or she relies on shadows and gloom in the camera frame. Here the exact opposite has been achieved through the perpetual midnight sun which throws the descent of Jonas Engstrom into madness all too clearly. At first the effect is subtle, but as the picture continues and there is never any nightfall one begins to feel the same bone-deep weariness and lethargy experienced by the protagonist. I watched it for the first time late at night and it completely threw me off my sleep cycle for the night. Most powerful.
I speak neither Swedish nor Norwegian, but I didn't find the subtitles a hindrance at all--indeed, I much prefer subtitles to dubbing every time. I found that I had to work harder to notice everything that was happening on screen, which was a welcome change from the constant "eye candy" that seems to be the norm coming out of the movie business these days. All of the performances were understated yet brilliant, especially, of course, that of Stellan Skarsgard. I was particularly intrigued by the opening title sequence, showing the murder through the eyes of the murderer in a disjointed and confused sped-up manner, and this point of view is a foreshadowing of how both Engstrom and the viewer will feel by the end of the picture.
I have not seen the remake yet, and I'm not sure that I want to do so. The Hollywood movie business never seems to know when to leave well enough alone. I'll be able to make a better recommendation when or if I get around to the remake.
I speak neither Swedish nor Norwegian, but I didn't find the subtitles a hindrance at all--indeed, I much prefer subtitles to dubbing every time. I found that I had to work harder to notice everything that was happening on screen, which was a welcome change from the constant "eye candy" that seems to be the norm coming out of the movie business these days. All of the performances were understated yet brilliant, especially, of course, that of Stellan Skarsgard. I was particularly intrigued by the opening title sequence, showing the murder through the eyes of the murderer in a disjointed and confused sped-up manner, and this point of view is a foreshadowing of how both Engstrom and the viewer will feel by the end of the picture.
I have not seen the remake yet, and I'm not sure that I want to do so. The Hollywood movie business never seems to know when to leave well enough alone. I'll be able to make a better recommendation when or if I get around to the remake.
Tight as hell
zetes22 January 2002
It is hard to believe that this is Erik Skjoldbjaerg's first film. It seems like a pro job to me. Very rarely do you get thrillers crafted this well. Almost everything is perfect. The script is as taut as possible. I saw no holes, anyhow. The plot is believable and you will never see the best twists coming. Even if you are the type who sits there and constantly guesses what's coming next during thrillers, I doubt you could. The film does a lot to avoid plot cliches. And if I'm wrong about that, if I was just blinded by other aspects of the film, it won't really matter. The characters are very well written. Especially the main character, played by Stellan Skarsgard. He is certainly one of the best actors working today and this may just be his greatest performance yet. He owns the film. The cinematography is effective. It's bleak and cold. The camera moves assuredly, and it's always where it should be. The music is perfectly subdued. The direction in general is simply amazing. The mise-en-scene is marvelous. I love the settings of the film, the threatening, rocky terrain, the broken and rusty buildings, everything. This is a must-see film. One of the best films of the 1990s. 10/10.
P.S.: Christopher Nolan, the man who created the equally impressive thriller Memento, is set to direct the American remake of this film. I personally loved Memento (though I think I'd choose Insomnia over it if I had to), and I wish Mr. Nolan all the luck. I'm sure he knows what a challenge it's going to be. And I certainly pray that he isn't satisfied with simply copying the original. He could do so and mostly get away with it - Insomnia is quite underseen. I sincerely hope that he will make it his own. I already recognize one piece of the film that has to change if the setting is moved to the U.S.: Skjoldbjaerg brilliantly uses the midnight sun in this film. I doubt it would be successful if the setting were, say, Alaska. I don't think Americans would buy it. Nolan is going to have to compensate for the loss of the midnight sun.
P.S.: Christopher Nolan, the man who created the equally impressive thriller Memento, is set to direct the American remake of this film. I personally loved Memento (though I think I'd choose Insomnia over it if I had to), and I wish Mr. Nolan all the luck. I'm sure he knows what a challenge it's going to be. And I certainly pray that he isn't satisfied with simply copying the original. He could do so and mostly get away with it - Insomnia is quite underseen. I sincerely hope that he will make it his own. I already recognize one piece of the film that has to change if the setting is moved to the U.S.: Skjoldbjaerg brilliantly uses the midnight sun in this film. I doubt it would be successful if the setting were, say, Alaska. I don't think Americans would buy it. Nolan is going to have to compensate for the loss of the midnight sun.
This One Is Obsessively Awake
tedg30 April 2003
Warning: Spoilers
Spoilers herein.
Sometimes you stumble upon a mini-film school by accident. The differences among the `Alien' films for instance is so profound one wonders if it is possible for the same person to actually watch them all. Same here with this and the Nolan/Pacino/Williams restructuring.
This film is about externalities, about fate, about the oppressive capriciousness of nature. About how we are all alone and always try to outrun that fact. It has a coherent tone. Encounter, even murder, is a mere tick in the cog of the relentless timepiece.
The American remake is about the power of an individual to write reality. This is all about internalities. Encounters are the prime movers in this world. All relationships matter. The Williams character writes himself, about himself, about Pacino's character, about the whole thing we see as incoherence, all of us under his spell. Here, there are decisions and consequences.
It is a difference of day and well, night. Same script more or less, but two films that couldn't be more different. All of us make some sort of important decision along the lines of which of these worlds we inhabit.
Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 4: Worth watching.
Sometimes you stumble upon a mini-film school by accident. The differences among the `Alien' films for instance is so profound one wonders if it is possible for the same person to actually watch them all. Same here with this and the Nolan/Pacino/Williams restructuring.
This film is about externalities, about fate, about the oppressive capriciousness of nature. About how we are all alone and always try to outrun that fact. It has a coherent tone. Encounter, even murder, is a mere tick in the cog of the relentless timepiece.
The American remake is about the power of an individual to write reality. This is all about internalities. Encounters are the prime movers in this world. All relationships matter. The Williams character writes himself, about himself, about Pacino's character, about the whole thing we see as incoherence, all of us under his spell. Here, there are decisions and consequences.
It is a difference of day and well, night. Same script more or less, but two films that couldn't be more different. All of us make some sort of important decision along the lines of which of these worlds we inhabit.
Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 4: Worth watching.
Why remake a good thing?
esbarnard16 December 2002
An excellent psychological drama about a cooly repressed detective unable to own up to causing the accidental death of his partner, at the same time he is persuing an author suspected of killing his young girlfriend. The detective story isn't important here - the detective has no trouble locating the killer, understanding his motives, or "solving" the crime. What is interesting is the detective's inablility to deal with his problems and face life truthfully, metaphorically illustrated by his inability to block out the sunlight and sleep. Stellan Skarsgard gives a very good performance as the detective struggling to keep control of himself and the situation. As he becomes more and more tired, his life and his desires race out of control, and his need to maintain his facade causes him to make decisions that take him to the edge of catastropy.
This film is understated in a way that the 2002 Al Pacino remake missed the boat on. It takes place in Norway, and the director resisted the temptation to show us a travelog of cute Norwegian villages. Most of the action takes place in non-descript rooms, suffused with the cold grey light of the arctic sun. The acting is understated and viewers are left to understand motivations without explicit explanation. The film is engrossing from beginning to end, and I'll never understand why Hollywood feels it needs to try to do better - it rarely can.
This film is understated in a way that the 2002 Al Pacino remake missed the boat on. It takes place in Norway, and the director resisted the temptation to show us a travelog of cute Norwegian villages. Most of the action takes place in non-descript rooms, suffused with the cold grey light of the arctic sun. The acting is understated and viewers are left to understand motivations without explicit explanation. The film is engrossing from beginning to end, and I'll never understand why Hollywood feels it needs to try to do better - it rarely can.
Wasn't as great as I expected
Atreyu_II7 March 2012
Although I wasn't totally disappointed with the American version, I didn't exactly biase towards it too. The moment I learned there is an original, I wanted to see it and I expected great things from it. Well, I guess my expectations were a little too high...
The original is better, just not in the league I thought it would be. The plot is familiar, although many things seem to be very different in both versions, starting with the fact that this version is more "natural", as expected in an European film. The pacing is slow, there is little action although there is some tension and "agitation". The roles are generally well portrayed by the actors.
The original is better, just not in the league I thought it would be. The plot is familiar, although many things seem to be very different in both versions, starting with the fact that this version is more "natural", as expected in an European film. The pacing is slow, there is little action although there is some tension and "agitation". The roles are generally well portrayed by the actors.
Taut psychological thriller
bandw11 July 2012
Warning: Spoilers
This has Oslo detectives Jonas Engström and Erik Vik dispatched to a Norwegian city (above the arctic circle) to help solve the brutal murder of a young woman. Engström and Vik are tasked to work with Ane, a local detective.
Engström's character is fleshed out more thoroughly than in a typical police procedural. The story is presented in a manner to keep your attention--in fact it requires close attention. However, it is the study of Engström's personality that I found most interesting. Significant insights are given into the qualities that drive him: guilt, sexual repression, ego, and anxiety.
In pursuit of the murderer in a heavy fog, Engström shoots and kills Vik. Was this an accidental shooting? It is hinted that Engström might have known who he was shooting (a flashback shows that he had enough time to recognize Vik). In any case, for reasons of guilt or ego Engström tries to cover up his action by claiming it was the murderer who killed Vik. Complications ensue when Ane starts to smell a fish when investigating Engström's story of the shooting. I liked the concept of the investigator being investigated.
In several revealing scenes we get clues to Engström's repressed sexuality. There is a scene in a car where he makes an advance on a suspect's girlfriend and a scene where he makes a move on the hotel clerk and is rebuffed. More telling is a scene where he is hidden behind a door while a suspect and a woman go at it close by. In this scene we see that Engström is turned on while trying not to be. The music in that scene makes for an intense experience.
I thought all of the actors were well cast and the restrained performances added to a sense of reality.
I had seen the 2002 remake of this before having seen this version. In reading through several of the reviews of the 2002 version I saw that many people commented that this original version was better. Having liked the 2002 version made me want to see this. I agree that this version is better, but not dramatically so. The 2002 version is not a direct remake, but is different enough to be a separate movie. It is interesting to see how the same material can be tweaked to create a different experience. For example, in the 2002 version the relationship between the local detective and the main character is given more emphasis. This version is more subdued and hangs together better--there are no superfluous action scenes. One great advantage this version has is that it does not have the ridiculous shoot-'em-up ending. One of the final scenes that has Ane placing a bullet casing on a table is a testament to the tight presentation. That single act says as much as what it might have taken several scenes to accomplish.
Engström's character is fleshed out more thoroughly than in a typical police procedural. The story is presented in a manner to keep your attention--in fact it requires close attention. However, it is the study of Engström's personality that I found most interesting. Significant insights are given into the qualities that drive him: guilt, sexual repression, ego, and anxiety.
In pursuit of the murderer in a heavy fog, Engström shoots and kills Vik. Was this an accidental shooting? It is hinted that Engström might have known who he was shooting (a flashback shows that he had enough time to recognize Vik). In any case, for reasons of guilt or ego Engström tries to cover up his action by claiming it was the murderer who killed Vik. Complications ensue when Ane starts to smell a fish when investigating Engström's story of the shooting. I liked the concept of the investigator being investigated.
In several revealing scenes we get clues to Engström's repressed sexuality. There is a scene in a car where he makes an advance on a suspect's girlfriend and a scene where he makes a move on the hotel clerk and is rebuffed. More telling is a scene where he is hidden behind a door while a suspect and a woman go at it close by. In this scene we see that Engström is turned on while trying not to be. The music in that scene makes for an intense experience.
I thought all of the actors were well cast and the restrained performances added to a sense of reality.
I had seen the 2002 remake of this before having seen this version. In reading through several of the reviews of the 2002 version I saw that many people commented that this original version was better. Having liked the 2002 version made me want to see this. I agree that this version is better, but not dramatically so. The 2002 version is not a direct remake, but is different enough to be a separate movie. It is interesting to see how the same material can be tweaked to create a different experience. For example, in the 2002 version the relationship between the local detective and the main character is given more emphasis. This version is more subdued and hangs together better--there are no superfluous action scenes. One great advantage this version has is that it does not have the ridiculous shoot-'em-up ending. One of the final scenes that has Ane placing a bullet casing on a table is a testament to the tight presentation. That single act says as much as what it might have taken several scenes to accomplish.
brilliant and moody
dafishhead22 June 2002
Brilliant, moody, a bit creepy. A noirish thriller. Stellan Skarsgard gives a wonderfully subtle performance in the lead role of a Swedish police detective suffering from sleep deprivation while on assignment in Norway. Stylistically the director and cinematographer effectively recreate the alienated and somewhat hallucinatory feeling of being sleep deprived and in a foreign country. There's more to the story of course, but to reveal those details would spoil the surprises. Be warned, if you like your movie heroes uncomplicated then stay away from "Insomnia".
Original vs. Remake
Antagonisten30 December 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I watched the 2002 remake of "Insomnia" with Al Pacino when it came out. I found it to be an excellent thriller, not least because of the powerful performances from the actors (especially Robin Williams). But also because of the very unreal mood throughout the movie. Something correlating nicely with the story of Pacinos sleep-depraved cop on mission in Alaska, not coping with the around-the-clock sunlight very well.
It was a lot more difficult getting to see the Norwegian original movie. But finally they showed it on TV so that i could record it. Comparing the two versions is unavoidable, deciding which one i prefer is a lot more difficult though. I can say however that watching the original has made my appreciation of the remake even higher. Christopher Nolan is an intelligent director and his remake is great proof of that. He has successfully captured the mood and essence of the story, keeping the most effective scenes from the original and adding other scenes that fit well into the story and help adapt it to the US instead of Norway.
The acting in the original is generally good. I find Robin Williams performance as the killer hard to beat though. When it comes to the lead, Skarsgård is even more fit for the role of the haggard and worn-down policeman riddled with insomnia than Pacino. Skarsgård sometimes feels like the actor who gave the expression "haggard" a face.
In the end i guess most people in the American audience, and also perhaps most other parts of the world, would prefer the remake of this movie. The pace is slightly higher in the remake, the style more modern and the actors of course more recognizable. This movie also feels a little less polished, but in my opinion it has just as much to offer. And if for no other reason, the original is worth watching because it highlights why the remake is such a feat. Recommended.
7/10
It was a lot more difficult getting to see the Norwegian original movie. But finally they showed it on TV so that i could record it. Comparing the two versions is unavoidable, deciding which one i prefer is a lot more difficult though. I can say however that watching the original has made my appreciation of the remake even higher. Christopher Nolan is an intelligent director and his remake is great proof of that. He has successfully captured the mood and essence of the story, keeping the most effective scenes from the original and adding other scenes that fit well into the story and help adapt it to the US instead of Norway.
The acting in the original is generally good. I find Robin Williams performance as the killer hard to beat though. When it comes to the lead, Skarsgård is even more fit for the role of the haggard and worn-down policeman riddled with insomnia than Pacino. Skarsgård sometimes feels like the actor who gave the expression "haggard" a face.
In the end i guess most people in the American audience, and also perhaps most other parts of the world, would prefer the remake of this movie. The pace is slightly higher in the remake, the style more modern and the actors of course more recognizable. This movie also feels a little less polished, but in my opinion it has just as much to offer. And if for no other reason, the original is worth watching because it highlights why the remake is such a feat. Recommended.
7/10
Thriller in the classic Scandinavian style
ah_mann8 September 1999
Insomnia is a criminal thriller shot in the classic Scandinavian style, a combination we're only seeing rather recently. When a teenaged girl turns up dead in a landfill, a homicide team is sent up from Oslo to back up the local police, who are ill-equipped to handle such a murder owing to its infrequency. Above the Arctic Circle, the lead detective is like a fish out of water - the 24-hour daylight drives him crazy and he is desperate to get out.
The scenes have a cold, bare feel to them, like the shooting locations (Tromsø and environs) and the protagonist/antagonist, Jonas Engstrøm (Stellan Skarsgård). Stark is a good word - but it is effective, and also beautiful. Bjørn Floberg also turns in a solid performance as the prime suspect. I found Skarsgård's female foil (Gisken Armand) a bit cloying but that's not enough to bring the whole film down.
Skarsgård's intensity is impressive and captivating, and the dynamic between his character and the others (he is Swedish, they are Norwegian) helps keep you interested. It's interesting to see how being a murder cop hardens a person - whether that person is Norwegian, Swedish, or American doesn't matter.
I would definitely recommend this film. It's a powerful and beautiful work that deserves to be seen.
The scenes have a cold, bare feel to them, like the shooting locations (Tromsø and environs) and the protagonist/antagonist, Jonas Engstrøm (Stellan Skarsgård). Stark is a good word - but it is effective, and also beautiful. Bjørn Floberg also turns in a solid performance as the prime suspect. I found Skarsgård's female foil (Gisken Armand) a bit cloying but that's not enough to bring the whole film down.
Skarsgård's intensity is impressive and captivating, and the dynamic between his character and the others (he is Swedish, they are Norwegian) helps keep you interested. It's interesting to see how being a murder cop hardens a person - whether that person is Norwegian, Swedish, or American doesn't matter.
I would definitely recommend this film. It's a powerful and beautiful work that deserves to be seen.
Okay, But Overrated
ccthemovieman-19 October 2006
This Norwegian film was re-made for English-speaking audiences in 2002 and starred Al Pacino. This original one starred Stellan Skarsgard, an equally well- known actor of Europe.
Critics usually favor the first version of any movie than is re-made, and they are more likely to favor a European version. Sometimes they are correct, but not here. The re-make, although nothing super, is still better than this version, although isn't bad.
Europeans would like this version more because of its ambiguity and moodiness, which they (and elitist U.S. critics) think makes it more attractive to the "cerebral." Entertainment-wise, this version simply isn't as interesting....and it IS the "entertainment business," after all.
The ending of this Norwegian film also leaves one unsatisfied, but the filmmakers did a nice job of portraying paranoia and the good-vs-evil nature of us human beings. Skarsgard does a wonderful job in that respect. He exhibits such a look of a haunted, depressed man!
Critics usually favor the first version of any movie than is re-made, and they are more likely to favor a European version. Sometimes they are correct, but not here. The re-make, although nothing super, is still better than this version, although isn't bad.
Europeans would like this version more because of its ambiguity and moodiness, which they (and elitist U.S. critics) think makes it more attractive to the "cerebral." Entertainment-wise, this version simply isn't as interesting....and it IS the "entertainment business," after all.
The ending of this Norwegian film also leaves one unsatisfied, but the filmmakers did a nice job of portraying paranoia and the good-vs-evil nature of us human beings. Skarsgard does a wonderful job in that respect. He exhibits such a look of a haunted, depressed man!
Stay awake at the back...
red_star197928 May 2004
Why does Hollywood re-make European films? Because they are so great. And this is no exception. I saw the Pacino version first then searched out this European original. Despite the bad press of the Pacino version, I did enjoy it very much.
However, this version is darker, raw and allows the view to see and feel more. A must see for those who have seen the American take of this film. A must see for those who love well acted European cinema.
I don't wish to recommend which version you should watch first, yes the story is known the second time around, but it is the character differences, how the films were made, and the use of dialogue (or not) that are important... surely. Enjoy.
However, this version is darker, raw and allows the view to see and feel more. A must see for those who have seen the American take of this film. A must see for those who love well acted European cinema.
I don't wish to recommend which version you should watch first, yes the story is known the second time around, but it is the character differences, how the films were made, and the use of dialogue (or not) that are important... surely. Enjoy.
Good story but boring film
Gordon-1116 March 2003
The story itself is interesting. A police has to make a deal with a murderer because they both have some secrets inside of them. However, the film itself is quite boring. The pace is a bit too slow. The silences are too long. Overall, The film is watchable but don't expect too much.
Nordic noir avant la lettre
frankde-jong29 May 2020
In the second half of the '90s two Scandinavian directors made a successful debut that gave rise to an American remake a couple of years later. We are talking about Ole Bornedal ("Nightwatch", 1994) and Erik Skjoldbjærg ("Insomnia", 1997). Till the present day (May 2020) their debut is still the most valued movie for both directors.
"Insomnia" is about a murder case and falls in the detective genre. In modern crime stories the private life and - problems of the detective often play en essential part. Think of the Harry Hole character in the novels of Jo Nesbo. It is however unusual that the original case disappears into the background and that private problems of the detective take over the story completely.
What is special about "Insomnia" is the synchronisation of the inner mood of the main character and the environment he is working in. The detective is tormented by a bad conscience due to a grave mistake he has made (inner mood). At the same time he suffers from the midsummer night with its 24 hours of daylight (external environment). Together these two factors cooperate to deny him any sleep (insomnia).
"Insomnia" is about a murder case and falls in the detective genre. In modern crime stories the private life and - problems of the detective often play en essential part. Think of the Harry Hole character in the novels of Jo Nesbo. It is however unusual that the original case disappears into the background and that private problems of the detective take over the story completely.
What is special about "Insomnia" is the synchronisation of the inner mood of the main character and the environment he is working in. The detective is tormented by a bad conscience due to a grave mistake he has made (inner mood). At the same time he suffers from the midsummer night with its 24 hours of daylight (external environment). Together these two factors cooperate to deny him any sleep (insomnia).
moody phycological thriller with atmosphere to spare
reeeeeal16 June 2002
I used to love going to the video store because there were always so many films I wanted to see, but as my tastes became more refined, my trips to the video store have become more difficult. It's not easy to find movies who's foundation are based on cinematography and atmosphere, but this movie is just that. This movie is slow and drawn out, and if you need lots of dialogue to keep you interested in a film, this one won't work for you. But if you like eerie scenes with quiet reserved characters and a sound track that is as slow and quiet as the pacing is, then this movie is will be perfect for you. The acting leaves nothing to be desired, the story is well written, the sound track is perfectly mood enhancing, the sets are breath taking, and the cinematography is immaculate. Slow, moody, harsh, and absolutely beautiful. One of the best films I've seen in a long time.
Troubled
barberoux29 July 2002
I enjoyed this movie. I thought the portrayal of a not-so-honest cop by Stellan Skarsgård to be effective and evocative. The setting were stark and often decaying somewhat like the personalities of the main characters. I haven't seen the Hollywood version so I can't compare the two. This version is worthwhile.
this film won't put you to sleep
mattymatt3012 January 2004
Warning: Spoilers
Possible spoilers within! Insomnia is a film that holds your attention, and part of the reason is the fine performance by Stellan Skarsgard. He has a 'below the surface' type of intensity that makes him fascinating to watch. The film does not make compromises to draw more viewers, like the hollywood remake with Al Pacino and Robin Williams. One example is the scene with the dog. The hollywood version, although basically the same film about murder and other intense human emotions, wimps out by not making the Pacino character kill the dog as the original does. Why? Also, Skarsgard's character is an unromantic womanizer which has lead to his current situation, but the hollywood version has the character embroiled in an internal affairs investigation. Why?It seems that hollywood versions of movies have to dumb down subject matter from the more challenging foreign films on which they're based, but is that what North American viewers really want? Maybe,...
No Rest for the Wicked
Quicksand15 May 2002
This particular film isn't the kind of thing you can sell to an American audience (typically), and that's assuming it were to be in English, which it isn't (dialogue is Norwegian and Swedish).
The film really relies on the protagonist, Stellan Skarsgård, to work. He's such a boyish, innocent looking individual, it adds to the shock of what we really learn about the character as the film moves on. This guy doesn't get equal Norway/US work for nothing.
Great dark, moody little film, with the antagonist Jim Holt really being the least effectual character in the story. It's really a character study of Skarsgård's Jonas Engström, a character we watch learn about the darkest parts of the soul -- parts the rest of us won't even acknowledge.
I'll admit there's something missing here, and though I can't put my finger on it, the mood achieved here overcomes any technical flaws I might feel the need to nitpick. 9/10, well worth a look if you're into darker, psychological tales.......
The film really relies on the protagonist, Stellan Skarsgård, to work. He's such a boyish, innocent looking individual, it adds to the shock of what we really learn about the character as the film moves on. This guy doesn't get equal Norway/US work for nothing.
Great dark, moody little film, with the antagonist Jim Holt really being the least effectual character in the story. It's really a character study of Skarsgård's Jonas Engström, a character we watch learn about the darkest parts of the soul -- parts the rest of us won't even acknowledge.
I'll admit there's something missing here, and though I can't put my finger on it, the mood achieved here overcomes any technical flaws I might feel the need to nitpick. 9/10, well worth a look if you're into darker, psychological tales.......
No Comparison!!!
films425 June 2002
We saw this film when it first came out & we loved it. Last Sunday (5/26/02) we saw the new remake, & Monday we watched this version again on video. Wow! If you ever need an example of how Hollywood can take a classic & really trash it up, here's your case study. Everything about the new Christoper Nolan film looks totally cheesy when compared to Skjoldbjaerg's spare and completely original vision.
Insomnia (1997) **
JoeKarlosi2 March 2006
I don't think it's completely fair to evaluate a film by comparing two takes on the same material, but it was inevitable with this foreign original, directed by Erik Skjoldbjaerg. I had already seen Christopher Nolan's Americanized version of INSOMNIA and so I wanted to check out the differences. I may be in the minority here, but all this version did was make me appreciate the Al Pacino film more than I used to. I don't think Stellan Skarsgard was as effective in the part of a haggard detective undergoing a chronic lack of sleep and being forced into cooperating with a known killer. The setting here (Norway) was not nearly as picturesque as the Alaskan surroundings of the 2002 film. Truth be told, had I not already been familiar with everything going on in the story from the Nolan film, I think I would have missed a lot of details in this one. It would be interesting to know what I might have thought of this if I had caught it cold, without a comparison to the remake, but that's not a reality for me. But here's another example for me where a remake can sometimes deflate an original's power. Whether I'd even go so far to call a recent American rendition of a recent foreign movie a bona fide "remake" is debatable, though. ** out of ****
Kicking-off with a jarred opening sequence that resembles the nightmarish start to David Fincher's Seven, Erik Skjoldbjaeg's feature debut makes a predictable whodunnit, but an all-together more unpredictabl
walshio15 December 1998
Swedish homicide investigator Jonas Engstrom (Stellan Skarsgard, star of laugh-a-minute Breaking The Waves) and his chirpy, flirtatious side-kick Erik Val (Sverre Anker Ousdal) trudge over to Northern Norway (the Land of the Midnight Sun) to help in the investigation of a murdered teenage girl. The supposed "perfectionist" killer has scrubbed clean the victim for evidence, including all her hair. However, laughing boy Jonas is on the case.
Kicking-off with a jarred opening sequence that resembles the nightmarish start to David Fincher's Seven, Erik Skjoldbjaeg's feature debut makes a predictable whodunnit, but an all-together more unpredictable investigating cop. Certainly more Bad Lieutenant than Colombo.
Suffering from serious sleep deprivation due to the endlessly light Norwegian days, Jonas vitally loses concentration whilst chasing the killer. In the fog he accidentally shoots and kills his mate Erik. Then, and this is what makes Skjoldbjaeg's Insomnia quite interesting, instead of owning up and doing the decent thing, Jonas conceals evidence pointing to him and even lands on the side of the murderer. From there on in the hunter and hunted become embroiled in a sort of dastardly pact.
Suffering from acute guilt, Jonas becomes increasingly involved in a web of paranoia, deceit and cover-ups, and to top it all he still can't get a decent nap with all these shenanigans going on. You want to sleep for this man. Eventually, of course, he becomes truly psychotic and you sense he would most likely laugh in the face of Mel Gibson's 'twisted cop' in Lethal Weapon. Going steadily more bonkers, Jonas calls a pretty receptionist's kittens disgusting (very bad sign) before trying to rape her against a row of toilet rolls.
Including a grotesque scene with a stray dog, Insomnia is not for squeamish and although it succeeds in keeping the viewer awake throughout there's something very rotten in the state of Norway. Ultimately a measured, compelling and really rather nasty film. Hitchcock might well have approved.
Ben Walsh
Kicking-off with a jarred opening sequence that resembles the nightmarish start to David Fincher's Seven, Erik Skjoldbjaeg's feature debut makes a predictable whodunnit, but an all-together more unpredictable investigating cop. Certainly more Bad Lieutenant than Colombo.
Suffering from serious sleep deprivation due to the endlessly light Norwegian days, Jonas vitally loses concentration whilst chasing the killer. In the fog he accidentally shoots and kills his mate Erik. Then, and this is what makes Skjoldbjaeg's Insomnia quite interesting, instead of owning up and doing the decent thing, Jonas conceals evidence pointing to him and even lands on the side of the murderer. From there on in the hunter and hunted become embroiled in a sort of dastardly pact.
Suffering from acute guilt, Jonas becomes increasingly involved in a web of paranoia, deceit and cover-ups, and to top it all he still can't get a decent nap with all these shenanigans going on. You want to sleep for this man. Eventually, of course, he becomes truly psychotic and you sense he would most likely laugh in the face of Mel Gibson's 'twisted cop' in Lethal Weapon. Going steadily more bonkers, Jonas calls a pretty receptionist's kittens disgusting (very bad sign) before trying to rape her against a row of toilet rolls.
Including a grotesque scene with a stray dog, Insomnia is not for squeamish and although it succeeds in keeping the viewer awake throughout there's something very rotten in the state of Norway. Ultimately a measured, compelling and really rather nasty film. Hitchcock might well have approved.
Ben Walsh
fascinating noir thriller
SnoopyStyle18 May 2015
17-year-old Tanja is found murdered in the Norwegian town of Tromsø. Kripos police investigators Jonas Engström (Stellan Skarsgård) and Erik Vik are flown in to the Land of the Midnight Sun. The body has been washed clean. Jonas was in the Swedish police until he was caught in bed with a key witness. As they close in on the suspect, Engström accidentally kills his own partner Vik in the fog and then tries to cover it up. He is suffering from insomnia.
The continuous sunlight is a fascinating addition to the noir genre. The foggy shootout is filled with compelling tension. I do wish that the bullet and the gun is laid out more simply in one easy exposition. The investigating officer should have laid out all the evidence of the shootout. Was it a through and through? What's the caliber? Somebody needed to CSI that thing. I kept wondering about the situation of the investigation throughout the movie which left me a little perplex. Stellan Skarsgård brings a compelling paranoid disturbed presence. It's an artfully done thriller.
The continuous sunlight is a fascinating addition to the noir genre. The foggy shootout is filled with compelling tension. I do wish that the bullet and the gun is laid out more simply in one easy exposition. The investigating officer should have laid out all the evidence of the shootout. Was it a through and through? What's the caliber? Somebody needed to CSI that thing. I kept wondering about the situation of the investigation throughout the movie which left me a little perplex. Stellan Skarsgård brings a compelling paranoid disturbed presence. It's an artfully done thriller.
Much better than the American-version
bronco4x429 January 2004
I actually used my brain in this movie. Quite brilliant. And I was surprised by the location where it was shot in this movie...Tromsø, Norway! I've spent some time there, and to a pleasant surprise, I recognized many places that were shot throughout the movie...including the apartment building where my friend's previous restaurant was, and an abandoned fishing village that I've visited (far from away from the city). Anyhow, other than the surprise, the movie was interesting. Something a little different from the usual thrillers that we see nowadays. Definitely better than the more predictable American-version. Well worth it!
A Waking Nightmare
boblipton12 January 2024
A girl is dead, and someone is washing her hair, removing all traces of her death. Soon, her corpse is discovered,. Swedish detective Stellan Skarsgård and his partner, Sverre Anker Ousdal are called in to lead the investigation in Trondheim in Norway. They set a trap for the killer, but when it's sprung, the killer flees before they can identify him, and Skarsgård shoots and kills Ousdal. In the never-ending day of Trondheim's Arctic-Circle site, Skarsgård must try to catch the killer and evade arrest himself.
There's a nightmarish quality to the light outside, never changing, which makes this seem a walking hallucination. What, after all, is a Swedish cop doing on a Norwegian murder investigation? Some fine performers, hitherto unknown to me -- because how much Norwegian cinema have I seen? --perform their roles in a fashion that seems disconnected from Skarsgård 's impassive-seeming detective.
There's a nightmarish quality to the light outside, never changing, which makes this seem a walking hallucination. What, after all, is a Swedish cop doing on a Norwegian murder investigation? Some fine performers, hitherto unknown to me -- because how much Norwegian cinema have I seen? --perform their roles in a fashion that seems disconnected from Skarsgård 's impassive-seeming detective.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews