Hollywood remakes are worse than originals, so let's just name a few: Breathless is a remake of the 1960. French film À bout de souffle, Vanilla Sky from Spanish Abre Los Ojos, The Ring from Japanese Ringu, and there are among the others South Korean Oldboy, Norwegian Insomnia and of course Russian Solaris. Americans copy mechanically and they lose substance which is inherent in all those movies because they were made from heart and not mind calculations and playing with ideas. It is a way to make a viewer dumb by serving him a mechanical mise-en-scène without substance and though without atmosphere. We will see later why they do that. After watching Solaris human stays shocked by understanding how deep metaphysics can be transposed through a film media, which is quite impossible for a book to describe in one moving picture. Moving picture from Tarkovsky is worth many pages of a book that are not there. Tarkovsky swallowed a Lem's book and spit it out bounded with his saliva. How great is beginning of a film that keeps us bored in house with a garden with not much visible action on Earth or after what it drives us in a car on a high-way, just as we do every day, when after that you are being teleported into universe and you will never see your mother planet again? We will lose ourselves, our humanity in a touch with alien consciousness in vast universe that function as labyrinth with his inherent brain logic. One of the most beautiful beginnings in film history that needs patience, just as Andrei patently drew his camera despite well-paced movies with great number of shots that are inherent more to birds than to human consciousness. On the other side after watching a version from a prolific, but not that deep author Soderbergh, human remains flat in best way, but mostly annoyed with romantic feelings that are put in a sci-fi genre. So, it is common mistake of Hollywood to mix romance or imagined feelings of love which are far from a real love needed for understanding deep and vast human condition in chaos that he lives in. Others can think that is enough to be a filmmaker and that Soderbergh is just a very talented moviemaker and that is not necessary that a filmmaker needs to have a moral that doesn't need to be moral. In that case characters are not just driven by their sexual impulses or urge to dominate the territory and that is the main theme of a remake and main problem of American people today in a world. The remakes deal with superficial feelings and romantic admiration for feelings that we shouldn't appreciate: the shallow senses of jealousy, envy and power gain which have been a disgrace of a modern society for a long time. Moral took the other direction. How fast are we to evolve and follow modern man who has the task to change life and bring discipline that would be based on awakening of environmental consciousness? You can't really copy Tarkovsky just as you can't copy Stanley Kubrick. What is the point then? All remakes of Hitchcock are useless and such a waste of time is to watch anything but the original. So the main question here shouldn't be comparison between two movies, but: Why is impossible to copy great masters? It is not a matter of craft, Soderbergh has craft and wit. It is about feeling. One can say that everybody would make their own version of a film based on a certain book. Unfortunately, just as in real life, only one solution is right solution and therefore only one theme is most important and only one way can expose feelings that are most important for that certain deed. If great masters function on that level then it is obvious why they can touch us all because that level only brings universality trough selfishness of author. It seems to me that remakes try to indulge the younger audience in order to sell tickets and earn a position on charts. When was that ever indicator of greatness? If it is, then we again mix a purpose of art: to achieve spiritual goods and address metaphysical issues through matter. Emotion is created in our relation to film’s subject. Also it has other purpose: to conquer other nation’s myths and own them translated completely on domestic language with attention to rule the world. I am not religious in a sense of following a religious books, but I noticed in original movie when son kneels in front of the father in yard where is a smoke anyone can see a trinity of the sun, the father and Holy Ghost. There is nothing holy in remake, but in original we have been witnessing a ghost near the Solaris in a form of diseased woman. In remake it raises question about second chance with a ghost which is insane, but not admirable.

Abre Los Ojos has an intoxicating atmosphere. The beginning of Vanilla Sky where Tom Cruise runs the empty streets of New York is thrilling because large city does directors job. Unfortunately, there is no chemistry in acting between Tom and Penelope Cruise. Not to explain the

movies further, those who are interested will watch them anyway, I will try to answer why it is like that. The film is a product of one person, director. Without director, without his story that evokes emotions and reasons into his team, the film cannot be made well or not at all. The film without substance, without human emotions that make your life richer and more understandable, that is not a film at all. It is junk food and its place is in garbage. If something is made to look dark with absence of light why Hollywood tries to make brighter nights and thus ruin the credibility of a story? Isn’t that special shade of dark grey what gives good films atmosphere? There was a story about restoring a Michelangelo’s Sistine chapel to look as new. Who ever done that hasn’t thought about patina which is crucial for appreciation of his masterpiece. Do you even know who Michelangelo’s apprentices were?

Norwegian Insomnia begins as a murder thriller with retrospective shots of murder and a trip of police inspector Engström who goes from Sweden to Norway with his sleepy partner. Immediately we catch the atmosphere of a deep and not a mainstream film. The differences are visible in approach and in American version starring Al Pacino as detective there is no murder shown at beginning of the remake. Hollywood represents a murder case. Remake relies not on author or director, but on a star system. It shows various shots of actor, great actor indeed, showing us how to act insomniac. That is most visible in a fog scene that lasts longer than in original, but it is almost the same as original scene. Remake last longer, so you can longer watch very expensive actors. Character he plays, Will Dormer (dormeo lat. sleep), makes various mistakes that put him in deadly danger. He enters the drama loaded with past mistakes and it is destined to die. It makes him less than a hero that he has already planted evidences in previous case. It tries to make him tragic antic hero, but it is just not enough, especially when hero and anti-hero had to kill each other and die in duel. That was lousy solution. Engström seduces under aged witness, but Dormer refuses her seduction. There are several other differences in script and all of them put the actors in a state of doing something by force. The things that were easygoing and natural in original are complicated in remake. There is a great scene on a river and under the water, although it is not quite understandable how he gets out of it alive, but that was good choice by Christopher Nolan who directed remake. I was stunned few times by the director’s decisions watching the original Insomnia and I didn’t get that feeling after the remake. I could only say: The cast was great and that scene was great. Original Norwegian screenplay was co-written by the author Erik Skjoldbjærg, while Nolan wasn't involved or credited in writing. It seems to me that Nolan copied a lot and changed the point to force himself not to copy entire deed.