Compared to Al Pacino version?

I must say I like both and have just seen both for the first time in the last week. Overall I would say the remake is better. While Saarsgard is a fine underrated actor I think Pacino pulls off the leading role better (though it is hard to compare as the characters are so different and I dont speak Norweigen).

Also the remake is more slick with Nolan at the helm, no guarantee of higher quality generally but for a thriller I think this aides in the tension, in addition the insomnia effects are portrayed better.

On the genre subject I think the remake works much better as a thriller as the changes to the plot and character make it a more intricate and suspenseful. It all overlaps and ties together very well.

That is not necessarily a criticism of the original as it could be viewed as a character study, and yet even in that capacity I prefer the remake. Pacino's character is written and played with plenty of moral grey, his character is sympathetic and yet some of the things he does are unjust but could be for the 'greater good'. He is a deeply conflicted character and his fate ties everything together brilliantly (love his final line in the film).

The character in the original however has no 'moral grey', no conflict, he is just a downright awful person and as a result of less complexity his character prooves much less interesting.

Also a mention to both casts who are well selected and carry out their roles well.

This may sounds like I'm trying to discredit the original but I'm not, its really is a good film. But the remake knocked me sideways when I saw it, I honestly did not expect to be so impressed with the film or a 21st Century Pacino performance.

Both are very good movies, the Norwegian version is slightly better, I think Skarsgard gave a magic performance, the music is great and so is the direction by Skjoldbaerg, this is an absolutely stunning movie. Although I like Nolan's version too, this one is the superior version. Go for the original, not for the copy.

"What If" is a game for scholars.
Timothy Dalton, The Lion in Winter (1968)

A good question, Mr. pacin0, here's my take:

I've seen both and I would say that Nolan's Insomnia is more of a story about guilt eating away at a man to the point where he's forced to act outside of his own moral and ethical boundaries and ultimately finds redemption right on the brink of madness/complete deterioration. This is where Pacino really nailed the performance in showing a conflicted character who worked in the light but had to fight with himself, constantly, to keep his own darkness contained. One of Pacino's finest performances.

Skjoldbjærg's film wasn't so much a conflict of morality as it was a narrative on the darkness of human nature and how the law, ultimately, really has little to do with how people behave when pushed to the limits, mentally and physically. I saw Engström as being a force, not entirely good or evil, but a force nonetheless and when confronted with a problem he chose to solve the problem outside of the law and simply did what he deemed necessary. He was a policeman, yes, but he was also faced with a decision that required a kind of raw and uncivilized action and he acted it out.

Both great films, Pacino's performance was wonderful and Skjoldbjærg's smaller, more contained narrative was wonderful as well.

I would say they stand side by side.

"The remake is available in the bargain bin of your local Walmart."

And, the original isn't even available for purchase. Good point indeed.

This is a case where the remake is superior.

This is far superior.
The American version is watered, dumbed down.

I saw the original first and gave it a 75. Then I saw the remake and gave it a 90. I just rewatched the original and dropped it to a 70. The character behavior was a bit unbelievable.

IMO the original is better

Prostitute: What the *beep* are you doing?
Johnny: I'm gonna kill a bunch of people.