The Day The Earth Stood Still

Indyologist

Well-known member
Sigh. Remakes. Yet another example of Hollywierd trying to fix something that just ain't broken. Leave the classics alone. They are fine just the way they are and don't need to be messed with. In my opinion, it's downright stupid, insulting to the original people who made the film and a waste of money that could be spent on things that are infinitely more important. So STOP IT ALREADY!
 

sandiegojones

New member
kongisking said:
I, for one, think this movie looks sweet. I love Reeves for the same reason I love Arnie: tough+badass+monosyllabic+emotionless+enigmatic=cool. And I'm all for a sci-fi film that is environment-friendly. I happen to be a big pro-Earth dude, so I appreciate what they are doing with this flick.

Plus, I just love alien-invasion sci-fi flicks. Gimme a break, guys. :(
There's nothing wrong with being pro-Earth. I just don't like political correctness in movies and I don't like being preached to by Hollywood types.

This "going green" stuff is just a fad. It's just another marketing tool and not really about the environment.

NBC does "Green Week" yet nobody seems to realize that they are owned by GE, a company that is making new products and stands to make millions. It's all about making money and not really about the environment.

So far no film has come close to Wall-E as far as an environmental message is concerned. The film is funny and sincere. For the films marketing they limited toy sales (so there'd be less plastic in a landfill later on) and made the soundtrack CD and DVD cases out of biodegradable paper. That's putting your money where your mouth is!

As far as Reeves, I do like him and I had high hopes for this, but the more I see and the more I read the more it affirms my fears about it's quality.
 

sandiegojones

New member
Here's the AP review:

While Robert Wise's science-fiction classic "The Day the Earth Stood Still" was a simple story of deep ideas, the remake is an overblown, puny-minded tale featuring extraterrestrials too stupid or lazy to do a background check on the species they condemn.

The new, dumbed-down "Day the Earth Stood Still" predictably updates the nuclear warning of the original to a caution about our rapacious treatment of the planet itself. Keanu Reeves' Klaatu shows up proclaiming he represents a coalition of civilizations that are friends of the Earth, and woe to us if we don't start treating their buddy more nicely.

Klaatu then makes the most halfhearted "take-me-to-your-leaders" speech imaginable. When he's told the United Nations has better things to do than listen to pitches from busybody spacemen, he shrugs and settles on Plan B: Save patient Earth by eliminating the infection.

Naturally, spending a few hours with some nice humans (Jennifer Connelly as an astro-biologist, and Jaden Smith as her stepson) makes Klaatu realize our race has its good points, too.

"There's another side to you. I feel it now," Klaatu obtusely mutters.

Let's see: These aliens have been visiting Earth for ages, they've had spies living among us, and when they land, they go through the elaborate process of transforming from their own species into humans; but after all that, they don't sense anything worth saving in us until they hear a bit of Bach's "Goldberg Variations" and see a mom hug her kid?

The shortsightedness of Klaatu and his kind is just cheap, shallow storytelling by director Scott Derrickson and screenwriter David Scarpa so they can unleash the visual-effects hounds and show devastation wrought on the planet courtesy of computer-generated imagery.

John Cleese has a small but satisfying part as a scientific genius, though the fact that his character won a Nobel Prize for research into "biological altruism" will draw barks of laughter.

Kathy Bates is horribly miscast as the U.S. defense secretary. Here's an actress who should never be called upon to state ponderously, "I still answer to the president."

Unlike Wise's film, there's no thoughtful message here, no insight as to our place in the cosmos.

The remake even befouls the original's iconic images. Gort, Klaatu's robot pal, now stands 28-feet tall, four times the size of Wise's metal guy. And while the filmmakers maintain key elements of his design, he's lost his menace, coming off as a sleek cartoon giant vaguely resembling an Academy Awards statuette tarnished black.

The 1951 original offered a warm, wry, compassionate performance from Michael Rennie as Klaatu, an alien arguably more human and humane than any of Earth's inhabitants.

In contrast, the stiff and stony Reeves scores a new high on his own personal Zen-meter, coming across as so aloof and lifeless that he might as well have played Gort.

"The Day the Earth Stood Still," a 20th Century Fox release, is rated PG-13 for some sci-fi disaster images and violence. Running time: 104 minutes. One and a half stars out of four.


Everything I suspected about this movie is in this review. It may be a film that others will like, but I'm tired of "message" films where the message is ultimately that humans suck! As if someone who drives an SUV (which kills the planet you know!) is equivalent to a murderer or something.

How much electricity (which comes from burning oil and coal) will it take to power the theaters that screen this film for hours on end all over the US (and the world)? Did you know film is not biodegradable? What about the DVD's. It's very hypocritical to me!

Global warming is real, but I'm positive there's more to it than the effect man. Plus, the U.S. is not the leading cause of it.

Ever heard of the "little ice age"? What about the "medieval warming period"? There were no cars and factories back then! Maybe is was all of the dragons? Yeah! They breathed so much fire that it caused the world to heat up and then the 3 degree increase in temperature caused them to go extinct!

The simple fact is that without humans the world has still gone through regular warming and cooling cycles. Hurricanes, tornados, wildfires and other "natural disasters" are just that, NATURAL. They cannot be prevented no matter "clean" the energy is. New Orleans wasn't destroyed by global warming, it was just badly designed (since it's below sea level) and had poorly built levees. On top of that, the local government did not prepare it's citizens enough before the storm and the Federal government failed to act when it needed to.

Like I said before, I think Wall-E presented a more valid argument. Mass consumerism and the "get sh!t cheap" mentality are more dangerous. Buying a bunch of crap we don't need is more harmful because that stuff ends up sitting in a landfill and trashes the environment (not to mention most of it is made in China, who is the largest polluter).
 

TheMutt92

New member
sandiegojones said:
Everything I suspected about this movie is in this review. It may be a film that others will like, but I'm tired of "message" films where the message is ultimately that humans suck! As if someone who drives an SUV (which kills the planet you know!) is equivalent to a er or something.

How much electricity (which comes from burning oil and coal) will it take to power the theaters that screen this film for hours on end all over the US (and the world)? Did you know film is not biodegradable? What about the DVD's. It's very hypocritical to me!

Global warming is real, but I'm positive there's more to it than the effect man. Plus, the U.S. is not the leading cause of it.

Ever heard of the "little ice age"? What about the "medieval warming period"? There were no cars and factories back then! Maybe is was all of the dragons? Yeah! They breathed so much fire that it caused the world to heat up and then the 3 degree increase in temperature caused them to go extinct!

The simple fact is that without humans the world has still gone through regular warming and cooling cycles. Hurricanes, tornados, s and other "natural disasters" are just that, NATURAL. They cannot be prevented no matter "clean" the energy is. New Orleans wasn't destroyed by global warming, it was just badly designed (since it's below sea level) and had poorly built levees. On top of that, the local government did not prepare it's citizens enough before the storm and the Federal government failed to act when it needed to.

Like I said before, I think Wall-E presented a more valid argument. Mass consumerism and the "get sh!t cheap" mentality are more dangerous. Buying a bunch of crap we don't need is more harmful because that stuff ends up sitting in a landfill and trashes the environment (not to mention most of it is made in China, who is the largest polluter).

Profound, yet simple words. I just wished the rest of the world could see (or at least accept) that the whole Global Warming thing is a fraud. Not to say I don't believe in conservation and a clean environment. Its just the whole thing is over exagerated.

But back to the movie... ;)
 

sandiegojones

New member
There's quite a lot of reviews at RT now. Still negative and the same complaints keeps showing up in each review.

Here's a quote from Roger Ebert:

The message of the 2008 version is that we should have voted for Al Gore. This didn't require Klaatu and Gort. That's what I'm here for. Actually, Klaatu is non-partisan and doesn't name names, but his message is clear: Planets capable of sustaining life are so rare that the aliens cannot allow us to destroy life on this one. So they'll have to kill us.

The aliens are advanced enough to zip through the galaxy, yet have never discovered evolution, which should have reassured them life on earth would survive the death of mankind. Their space spheres have landed all over the planet, and a multitude of species have raced up and thrown themselves inside, and a Department of Defense expert intuits: "They're arks! What comes next?" Defense Secretary Kathy Bates intones: "A flood." So this is the first sci-fi movie based on Intelligent Design, except the aliens plan to save all forms of life except the intelligent one.


I'd have been all for a "take care of your planet" plot, but it just seems as though the humans are being viewed as a virus, with no redeeming qualities. To me that's like saying all Germans were Nazi's or all Muslims are terrorists.

I still think I'll see this, but I'll probably wait for DVD.
 

deckard24

New member
sandiegojones said:
There's quite a lot of reviews at RT now. Still negative and the same complaints keeps showing up in each review.

Here's a quote from Roger Ebert:

The message of the 2008 version is that we should have voted for Al Gore. This didn't require Klaatu and Gort. That's what I'm here for. Actually, Klaatu is non-partisan and doesn't name names, but his message is clear: Planets capable of sustaining life are so rare that the aliens cannot allow us to destroy life on this one. So they'll have to kill us.

The aliens are advanced enough to zip through the galaxy, yet have never discovered evolution, which should have reassured them life on earth would survive the death of mankind. Their space spheres have landed all over the planet, and a multitude of species have raced up and thrown themselves inside, and a Department of Defense expert intuits: "They're arks! What comes next?" Defense Secretary Kathy Bates intones: "A flood." So this is the first sci-fi movie based on Intelligent Design, except the aliens plan to save all forms of life except the intelligent one.


I'd have been all for a "take care of your planet" plot, but it just seems as though the humans are being viewed as a virus, with no redeeming qualities. To me that's like saying all Germans were Nazi's or all Muslims are terrorists.

I still think I'll see this, but I'll probably wait for DVD.
Save your money, rent the original!!

I saw it last night in a theatrer with maybe 15 other people, which indicated a lot, and all I can say is the critics were right There are a handful of decent suspenseful moments, but for the most part it felt like a made-for-tv movie with so-so acting, weak CGI, and a convoluted plot! About the only thing really redeeming for me was wathcing Jennifer Connely!(y) Other then that Keanu was pretty much Neo but even more robotic, and Will Smith's annoying kid should retire from acting immediately!
 

The Magic Rat

New member
deckard24 said:
Save your money, rent the original!!

I saw it last night in a theatrer with maybe 15 other people, which indicated a lot, and all I can say is the critics were right There are a handful of decent suspenseful moments, but for the most part it felt like a made-for-tv movie with so-so acting, weak CGI, and a convoluted plot! About the only thing really redeeming for me was wathcing Jennifer Connely!(y) Other then that Keanu was pretty much Neo but even more robotic, and Will Smith's annoying kid should retire from acting immediately!

Holy hell is he right. I mean, it's really, really, really bad. Really bad.

And yes, Jennifer Connelly is something to drool over.
 
Last edited:

Nurhachi1991

Well-known member
You guys know there remaking The Karate Kid with Will Smith's son as Daniel right?




..................................:mad:
 

kongisking

Active member
deckard24 said:
Save your money, rent the original!!

I saw it last night in a theatrer with maybe 15 other people, which indicated a lot, and all I can say is the critics were right There are a handful of decent suspenseful moments, but for the most part it felt like a made-for-tv movie with so-so acting, weak CGI, and a convoluted plot! About the only thing really redeeming for me was wathcing Jennifer Connely!(y) Other then that Keanu was pretty much Neo but even more robotic, and Will Smith's annoying kid should retire from acting immediately!

HEY! What's wrong with Smith's son?!?!? Have you seen Pursuit of Happyness? :eek: :eek: :eek: I can't believe you guys...
 

deckard24

New member
kongisking said:
HEY! What's wrong with Smith's son?!?!? Have you seen Pursuit of Happyness? :eek: :eek: :eek: I can't believe you guys...
What's wrong with him?

Well maybe he was good in The Pursuit of Happiness, but being this is the first time I've seen him in a major role, all I can say is he's no Dakota Fanning! He's not even a Corey Feldman! It just seems like another situation where Mommy and Daddy have a ton of clout in Hollywood and can push to have their kid in major roles. Some kid actors you see on screen for the first time and immediately take a liking to them and find them endearing ie. Henry Thomas, Drew Barrymore, Sean Astin, Lukas Haas, Jodie Foster, and Christina Ricci. For me Smith's son was annoying, and I really didn't find him endearing even in the "big" emotional scene that was supposed to pull your heart strings!

Oh yeah I almost forgot, what's up with that hair??
 

Twilightpro101

New member
I came out the theater longing for the original. About the only thing I could give it credit for was casting Jennifer Connelly. Otherwise, I'm sticking to the original.
 
Top