There are two kinds of people in Alaska...

Rating: 7/10 (25 November 2006)

In 2002 I went to the theaters and saw Insomnia on the big-screen. I was impressed by the eclectic range of characters from Hilary Swank, Al Pacino, and Robin Williams  a combination that I may have put money down prior to this film the group that would never share screen time together. I was wrong. I also was eagerly anticipating what Nolan would do with this film, having not seen the original when I went to the theater; I knew that he would bring us a compelling drama that would pull the best out of our cast. I was not disappointed. I loved the combination of acting between Pacino and Williams because they had two completely different styles. I thought Swank was decent, but contributed very little to the simpleton character she was to play  and I thought that Maura Tierney as the reclusive innkeeper was a great fit. I loved the way that Nolan filmed it, the cinematography was excellent, and the music kept me on the edge of my seat until the very, cliché ending. I was in awe of this film  that is  until I saw the original. Now, I find myself questioning the value of this film and of Nolan's honesty to the original director's vision. It nearly makes me tear up to see a great, valued independent foreign film get the slap of U.S.D.A. Hollywood on it with bigger budgets, bigger scripts, and an ending that seemed like it arrived directly from the "How to build a great climax" handbook handed to new  mainstream directors.
For those looking for a review of just this version of Insomnia, I want to initially say that watching this film on its own is good. If you have not seen the original, then this is a great eye candy film with fantastic scenes that prove that Nolan can conquer his trade if given the opportunity (remember what he did with the Batman legacy), but together these films do not match up and fans of the original will scoff at Nolan's poor attempt to bring the honesty and directness that director Erik Skjoldbjærg superbly brought to the screen. I understand that one, when making comments about Insomnia, should keep them separate, but there are so many disheartening differences between the two that I do not want others to purely watch this one with Pacino and Williams, but instead see the two and make their own assessments. To begin, Pacino is no Stellan Skarsgård (as odd as that may be to say), but Skarsgård brings a character to the screen forcing us to follow the emotional level of the events, instead of Pacino's over-the-top reactions to situations. While Skarsgård brings intensity to the character due to events and his "unknown" past, Pacino brings a visual to the character. You cannot seem to take your eyes off Pacino, but that is just him being the actor that he is. There are elements left out of Nolan's interpretation that are key to truly giving us the "bad cop" mentality that we are supposed to have about Dormer. Oddly, in the original, we are not supposed to find ourselves liking or feeling sympathy for Skarsgård, but in this one we want to see Pacino come clean and rid himself of the guilt. A big difference between the two films is the cross-referencing between Pacino and Skarsgård, because by seeing each of these two bring something new to the table, we, as viewers, saw a completely different film.
Nolan's discreet changes morphs this film into something completely different that originally conceived. To call this film a remake would be tough in my eyes, because it is not a remake. It is a new interpretation of a classic film. Nolan makes some small changes to the plot which ultimately changes that course of our characters and the overall tones of the film. For example, there is quite a bit more Hollywood "running" in Nolan's film than in the original. Skarsgård captures our attention because of his internal conflicts, while Nolan captures our attention in his film by forcing us to watch Pacino run Williams down, to see him screaming his lines at random characters, and the ending that just epitomizes the standard that Hollywood seems to embrace. Without giving away too much detail, I must say that unlike the original, more gunfire is used, the intensity of the music is increased, and an event occurs with our main character that changes the original film completely. That is why I cannot call this film a remake in any way shape or form. This is an interpretation, albeit a very close interpretation, but not identical. Nolan took chances, he changed the frame of the story, and gave us a pure 100% uncut slice of Hollywood that one could almost witness in any blockbuster released during the summer months. It was pathetic and if I were the director of the original, Nolan's interpretation would have made me rather upset.
Overall, I still like Nolan's work, and while I have lowered my enjoyment of this film after seeing this original, I must say that from 2002-present I thoroughly enjoyed Nolan's Insomnia. So, where does that put us currently? I would suggest this film to friends mainly because I am a sucker for Pacino's work (early and recent), and for some strange reason I cannot say "no" to a Robin Williams' film (even if this took place during his "dark" stint). I also think that Nolan's craft is unmatched today, and while he will conform to Hollywood (i.e. Insomnia), he uses it to pay rent and finance his next films. I will say this to friends as well, if you want to see a great film, one must see the original Insomnia and witness a truly disturbing character at his best. Skarsgård is on the top of his game with version, and Pacino can not compete.
Grade: *** ½ out of *****