Why?

Rating: 5/10 (2 November 2002)

I'm absolutely mortified that the remake of Insomnia has a higher rating than the original. What the hell is that about? Perhaps the majority of people that saw the big money remake didn't get to see the original. I'm hoping that's what it is because that's the saddest thing that I've seen on IMDb.
The original is so damn near perfect the way it is. The only reason I gave it 9 out of 10 was because I had a little bit of a hard time putting together part of the story the first time out. But the acting was wonderful and the location itself gave you all the tension you needed. This colorless place with the sun shining eternally - it was perfect. The remake is not half as good in my opinion. Maybe that's because I have something to compare it to, but either way there are some things that you just can't redo in 'american' that have already been done in foreign countries. It just doesn't give you the same bang. This is one of them. Plus, being stuck with Al Pacino, cringing every time he comes on wondering if he's going to start overacting like in 'Heat' was just way too much trauma for me. He stayed more understated than I expected but he's playing a character that the kind of understatement played - perfectly, so why the hell do it again?

I don't know. Maybe I'm just too biased, but I still say if you're going to sit downa and watch this one, get the 1997 original, not Nolan's remake.