Saw the original....Next night saw the remake.....SEE THE ORIGINAL

Rating: 7/10 (9 April 2012)

I don't really want to say the remake is a "bad" movie. If I hadn't seen the original first (the Norwegian original), I probably would think the Hollywood version was just a LITTLE bit better than it was. However, having seen the original, I was disappointed in the remake and that brought the flick down a peg. There are some HUGE differences between the two, although basically the same plot, of course.
It seemed to me that the remake had the potential to be EVEN BETTER than the original, which in my opinion was GREAT. Hollywood movies tend to be "bigger" all over than their foreign counterparts...more action, faster paced, more animated, better movie sets, more "blockbuster" if you will. Having said that, I really don't go for the whole Schwarzenegger explosion chase scene mow 'em down with your machine gun good guy bad guy thing anyway (OK I'll give ya Star Wars...but that's pretty much it....and please note it's Schwarzeneggerless). My biggest fear was that Hollywood would turn this into yet another F bomb loaded bang bang shoot 'em up cop story. My worst fear was pretty much confirmed. I'm not a prude. I'm not against violence in film (IF it ADDS to the film and is NOT "gratuitous.") But the GREAT thing about the original is that the LACK of "blockbuster" elements makes it a really TAUT, TIGHT, TENSION FILLED, PSYCHOLOGICAL SLOWBURN, and THAT made the "creepiness" of the film much more visceral and consistently sustained throughout (maybe along the lines of something like "Blood Simple"?). Moreover, the ending of the original film was the icing on the already delicious, well crafted cake.
It wouldn't be fair to kill the remake completely. The plot line sells itself, and there are more twists and turns in the remake (perhaps TOO many to suspend disbelief, though). Maybe this is simply because everyone talks so much faster than in the original and it's faster paced, and therefore there's more room to insert "more bang for your buck". It's not ALL bad, though, because Al Pacino was excellent, and Robin Williams was the best thing out of EITHER movie (that man is actually a comedian???...with a MAJOR LEAGUE creep factor like THAT??? He was impeccable.) There's more "banter" in the remake, and the Robin Williams character was expanded, and those were pluses. However, it just doesn't make up for the typical, Hollywood "let's throw this in and that in and have police cars racing with sirens blaring" (when it's unnecessary and counterproductive if you want to actually SOLVE a crime) "and if we throw enough stuff in we'll have an action packed thriller alright...and who cares about suspension of disbelief anyway as long as we can make it so we have that climactic bang bang shoot 'em up at the end?" Sighhhhhhh. Ugh. I should have known. What a letdown.
You certainly won't sleep through Insomnia (2002), but sadly, this one is MUCH more "predictable" ("formulaic") than the original (1997), and it's frustrating. It could have been so very good, and it had the potential to be even BETTER than the Norwegian original (as excellent as it is). On the bright side, SEE THE ORIGINAL, do it on a night where you're not in a rush, and turn the lights out (no pun intended on that "bright side" thing, although it DOES work for the film's very clever 24 hours of daylight reverse film noir motif now that I think of it). I'm not a horror movie fan, and this is not a horror movie...but the original was actually quite creepy in several ways, you will not have to suspend disbelief ANYWHERE NEAR AS MUCH, and it DEFINITELY is engaging despite the relatively slow pace (in fact the "slow" pace actually ADDS to the "taut", "creepy" feeling in general). The best compliment I can give the Norwegian production is that it certainly is a WELL CRAFTED piece of film making. See it. The 1997 original doesn't disappoint.