The first 20 minutes of The Day the Earth Stood Still were excellent. It was building for some excellent suspense and action, but only leads to a slow moving, horrible film.
For the first time in a long time I can’t blame the films demise on the cast. The cast did their job great, but the film just seemed to lack direction and passion. There was no suspense, and almost no action whatsoever. It seemed that the film was trying to focus more on special effects and cg animation than the story itself.
Halfway through the film, I knew I hated it, I knew there was no chance for the film to recover, but I had to finish it. In the end there was just no passion. The aliens came, their intent was clear, then it was over. I am really at a loss of words right now. It was almost like watching a made for TV film. The ending was by far the worst ending I have seen in a while. There was no dramatic ending, just a sigh of relief.
This is just another reason to leave the classics alone. The Day the Earth Stood Still was a huge disappointment for me. It was a huge lack of passion by everyone involved, except for the SFX team. The stars showed no passion, and the film lacked serious direction. I really wanted this review to be a bit longer, but I just have nothing more to say about the film. Sorry guys, but I would pass on seeing this one at all costs, not even on DVD.
December 14, 2008
#1
Haha,,, that’s pretty bad when the ending is a sigh of relief.
Yeah I hate to say it but I told you it would suck,,,
The trailers alone were enough for me,,,
Too bad I remember when I first heard about this, I thought it might be pretty cool, but like most remakes these days, there just crap!
December 14, 2008
#2
Stan-Lee, you write that “For the first time in a long time I can’t blame the films demise on the cast. The cast did their job great,” but then you go on to write “It was a huge lack of passion by everyone involved…The stars showed no passion.”
I didn’t think it was as bad as everyone makes it out to be. You should re-watch the original TDTESS. The remake can’t match the original’s iconagraphy but it surpasses the film in most other areas, including acting, writing, theme and FX.
I realize how taboo it is to appear to be badmouthing an original film in its remake’s wake, but I’m not badmouthing it. The original is still a great film but if you really think about each of it’s separate elements and compare them to the remake’s, you might be surprised. Can anyone really say the original’s performances were better than the remakes? Even Michael Rennie’s performance doesn’t hold up and he was great!
It’s a shame that remakes automatically get negative baggage associated with them. I appreciate critics that can review each film on its own merits, without baggage.
Mike
December 19, 2008
#3
the writing in the remake was better than the original?
have you listened to the scene at the Lincoln Memorial and actually scene those shots?
come on…
December 15, 2008
#4
I’ve walked in on parts of this movie. And all of the pieces I have seen don’t make any sense, so I guess I will have to sit down and watch the whole thing eventually.
As for the acting, I like Mr. Reeves in some of his films like “The Matrix” but he is not one of my favorite actors. Anyway, nice review, I hope to be watching an entire film very soon so that I may review and make a post about it :)
December 17, 2008
#5
Well I’ve read four or five reviews and critic appraisals, and none have been very positive about it. When I first read that a remake was in the works, I thought it was a no brainer. Set it a few years in the future when we have fledgling colonies on the moon and maybe Mars and then retell the old story. The potential and where you can go from there is nearly unlimited. Instead it’s all treated like man is a condo Tennant who’s lifestyle has gotten out of hand and Klaatu is the association representive, with the unenviable job of applying the hammer. Their’s a difference too between performing competently and having verve for the part, which is what I interpret Mr. Lee means by competently but dispassionately. I think that lies at the feet of the director, and only a lesser extent to the actors. As clichéd as it sounds, it looks like a payday film for everybody with no real interest being taken in the story. If they had no real interest, why should I?
December 19, 2008
#6
I agree completely Old man. It just seemed liked the film was being done to “Pay the Bills.” Yeah, the acting was good, but it just seemed like nobody really cared. They just did it, and you could tell that there was o real passion.
December 19, 2008
#7
I’m not sure that the filmmakers’ disinterest in the film as as great as you think it is, Old Man. This isn’t the kind of film that you take on and shoot in 28 days before moving on to the next project. Committing to this caliber of project is a major..well..commitment that probably took a year if not longer. Why would Scott Derrickson commit to such a lengthy and exhaustive project? Because it meant something to him. If Derrickson took a a year to work on this project, it’s not unreasonable to ask you to commit two hours of your time and the price of a movie ticket to the final product.
Watch the final product and you’ll see that the filmmakers had a very real interest in the project, as you did in the finished film, at least enough interest to see it, read several reviews and comment on it.
December 19, 2008
#8
I kind of see what you are saying Fumikechu, but I have to still disagree.
Sure, Directors and actors can work for years to produce a film, but it is their job. I work beside people that have worked Monday-Thursday, 7:00-5:30, and get called out every weekend. Majority of them have done this for 10+ years, 2 of which have been there for 35 years.
Does their job mean something to them? Yeah, money. Nothing else. They are not passionate about what they do, they just do the job, and go home. They still do a competent job, but they only do the bare minimum required.
To me this is what happened with The Day the Earth Stood Still. They did the job, and went home.
December 17, 2008
#9
I think this film is a propaganda film, to condition the masses to be ready for an alien invasion, real or man-made…
Crazy huh??
December 19, 2008
#10
That or environmentalist propaganda. Just like the original was cold war propaganda. Thank god that never got as serious as it could’ve (came close a few times.) Hopefully our modern day environmental threats will dissipate just like the threat of the cold war.
December 19, 2008
#11
That 790 or a world wide societal meltdown. Everybody takes a shot at what the defining event will be, but few recognize the ever gradual erosion of the entire system into chaos. The worst hit being the one you refuse to see.
December 19, 2008
#12
Unfortunately FuMikechu this is propaganda as well,,,
^
The enviromental damage is being caused by a number of factors,,,
December 19, 2008
#13
non-government sanctioned propaganda. Come to think of it, neither was the original. So then it’s not technically propaganda but we will call it that anyway. But who’s agenda is being pushed? I doubt any environmentalist groups had a stake in the film? Did Fox? Is Fox really trying to go green?
Doubt it. Then who propagandized this film and countless others?
I suppose we did. The authors of this film, all of them, feels that environmentalism sells these days, catering to the public’s perceived wants. Environmentalism sells so why not throw some into the picture, can’t hurt. And I don’t think it did, except that environmentalism is too cliche these days. And it was too on the nose in TDTESS. Good science fiction should have a hidden theme, like communism in Invasion of The Body Snatchers. But in this film, Klaatu basically says “you’re hurting the hurt,” which we are. It should’ve been deeper. That’s the problem with the original as well, it was too on the nose.
These films aren’t so much commentary as they are warnings of threats that are very unlikely to harm us.
If you’re gonna make a fictional commentary on the environment, disguise it otherwise it won’t be as effective.
December 19, 2008
#14
wow, I really need to proofread before I hit “submit.” Hurting the Earth, that’s what I meant.
December 19, 2008
#15
Returning the visit Stan-Lee.
I agree that it was slow, and disappointing and led nowhere.
Now that I’ve had a few days to think about it, I’d reformulate my own review along the following lines:
The choppy outline of a (remotely) potentially half-way almost decent remake was in there. Unfortunately, the story threads – which seem to have been intended to be one of those ‘multiple-viewpoint dialogue’ style thingies – were edited into such a disjointed mish-mash that there is NO story. Only a series of incidents vaguely related by costumery, scenery and actery.
December 19, 2008
#16
Really? There was “no story?”
Anyone care to discuss some of the specific let downs? I’m not talking about something as vague as someone saying “there’s no plot” as there was definitely a plot, and definitely a story, but specifics, like how the film needed the scene where Klaatu addresses the world’s scientists or the UN, how he really departed once without completing his mission?
I guess, I’d like to discuss the deficiencies in the story…which might be difficult if one doesn’t realize there is a story.
December 20, 2008
#17
I guess the logic is lost on me about coming to a planet at the tail of the galaxy as if an advanced race couldn’t possibly terra-form planets into habitable worlds. It makes much greater sense in the original that Klaatu bothered, because mankind showed signs of expeditionary capability beyond this world. I understand the concept of stewardship and think the film could have said whatever it wanted about taking care of home, it just should have been about something bigger, to draw an advanced intelligence into a story. The cool factor would have went up as well. I would also like to think that an advanced enough civ. would have developed enough sociologically, psychologically to make a better effort to understand and project an affinity with human behavior. Say what you want about the original but when Rennie’s Klaatu needed to project warmth or range of emotion it was there in spades. For those who don’t know, thought proceeds from emotion. Where’s Mr. Reeves compreable effort? Radio waves have been emanating into outer space for over a hundred years now. In that length of time aliens are watching, but don’t get it? That seems more fantastical than the aliens actually coming here!
That is how I come to the conclusions I do. The movie my have literally ripped the pages from “Farewell To The Master,” but they didn’t take into account what man knows today about thought and behavior. If you want a story that was done better but kind of sets up the story similar to this movie in tone read Stanislaw Lem’s excellent book “Fiasco.” This crew should have turned it into a movie. It would’ve seemed way more original, and using the same sensibilities as this crew did, made way more bank…
December 20, 2008
#18
Fumikechu,
I wasn’t vague. I said that it appeared to me that the story, rather than being linear, was “supposed” to be a multiple viewpoint presentation, but that it appeared to have been chopped up so badly it lost all sense of connection.
That’s hardly “no story” without explanation. There might have been a story, but it got lost in translation and the result was, if you want to be pedantic about it, that the film ended up without a discernable story.
December 21, 2008
#19
Really, no discernible story?
Girl meets alien, helps alien escape detention, goes on the run with alien as alien makes preparations for destroying all humans. Throughout the alien’s journey, he meets people and gets into situations that shows him an previously unknown side to the species he’s about to extinct, where he ultimately changes his mind and gives humanity a second chance.
A 2nd grader could’ve discerned that.
Instead of saying the film has no discernible story, how about saying that you just didn’t like the story?
A kid could’ve discerned that.
December 21, 2008
#20
The first 30min or so actually pretended to be quite interesting till, it revealed the rest of the story which in turn became an old regurgitated pile of old clichés’ and an extra added annoyance… the kid.
I was hopeful in the beginning and I felt it would lead into something interesting and daring. It soon became obvious that the story wasn’t much more than an update of effects with the usual slap of ‘PC’ emblem on the story.
Keanu’s performance and Jennifer’s were good, I enjoyed it and it gave quite a bit to the movie. The concept was good, but since this is a remake I can’t validate any merit to it’s authenticity. In other words it failed where the original succeeded.
I liked the connection between Keanu and Jennifer, but it soon got derailed by moronic twists like the child’s derivation. To justify why they HAD to include Will Smiths kid (he’s black and well… Jennifer Connelly isn’t) they came up with this twisted story that while not unlikely, felt too forced to be explained in the movie. The story was simply that the kids father was black, once married to a black woman, then later married Jennifer and when he died she adopted the child. But the chemistry between mother and son in this film was so weak that forcing the explanation and story of the kid was just a complete waste of time. His presence was annoying and didn’t work for me. He was stalling the film from moving along for me. But then he wasn’t the only obstacle for me.
I like Kathy Bates, but in this film she was more of a Dick-head Cheney, incompetent and useless. Well her role that is. ;)
Somehow when everything is put together this film could have been great, could have been a big hit in the sense that it had valid points but came across to weak and too badly incorporated in the story.
Klaatu was a name that needed more attention, what I mean by that is that the character needed more attention. He went from, I come in peace, I want to give you a second chance or at least see what’s possible to do in order to save this world. He meets another Alien who’s been living with us for 70-80 years and all it boils down to is this sappy conversation that doesn’t mean anything. In fact if I was Klaatu I’d say; Right then, they’re all impossible to deal with and so the verdict is inhalation. But no, this Alien had to moan about how he can’t explain why (bad writers never can), the human race has made him love them. But never ONCE does he say, you know what, I don’t want them to die, I want them to live because they have potential. Instead he says, screw it, let me die as one of them… (right makes no sense).
But then here comes the major flaw in the movie. While they try to introduce a kinder side to humanity they present John Cleese. He’s been put in this film to show some resemblance of a cast that’s more than two people. But we see him in less than 4min in total and is pretty useless. He tries to make Klaatu see the Humans as good people. Fails miserably though…
Funny thing about the introduction to the Alien landing on earth, we see a series of massive insanity and chaos around the world, something that’s completely ignored through out the entire film, as they soon come to the end conclusion that humans are worth saving because we CAN change and that we DID change?
Now the major flaw in this movie is the fact that Klaatu only hangs around two people and bumps into a few others. He NEVER meets the world leaders, never communicates with everyone via TV or some other means in order to reach as many people as possible (in doing that also ‘changing’ them). He looks as two people and says, “yeah, they’re good, let’s do this, we’ll give you another chance”.
That was the weakest bit for me in this movie. It made NO sense, that humans would ever chance cause at the beginning of the film it pretty much showed the true nature of mankind in the event of something alien landing on planet earth. Oh and the Aliens at that point didn’t do anything. So no… it made no sense that all of the sudden we’re having two people convincing an entire community of Alien races to save earth because we’re going to change.
Remember how the US government said they’d keep things hidden from the public? Ummm, then how will people ever know or even change if they never learn the truth? And even so, would that ever be enough?
As I said.. weak, weak and weak…
But it had great potential, if only they’d stick with the relevance of the concept and go with some mystery other than flashy cool effects and a giant robot.
For me this was just a failure on so many levels. But I guess… with all the economic disaster in the world, films like this still get a budget of over 30mil. Actual price I don’t know, but trust me it wasn’t $8000 like PRIMER.
Ways of improvements :
• Get rid of the kid!
• Try and build a more solid character out of Klaatu
• A better depiction of humanity and reason to save them
• A bond between Klaatu and the woman that is justified.
• Show the real threat early on to add tension
• Make the action of the movie more emotional towards the end. Let’s care about the Alien and us
• Introduce two more important characters (likable and one not so likable)
• And finally some scale… the stock footage from around the world seemed so damn cheesy.
2 stars out of 5, for the only reason that it had potential and I liked Keanu and Jen.
December 21, 2008
#21
Off topic, but where’s the Valkyrie thread? Has the review embargo been lifted yet?
December 21, 2008
#22
I might actually review Valkyrie FuMikechu, but honestly I don’t expect it too be good. I like Tom Cruise and that is why I will see it. But I haven’t heard good things. I’ll let everyone know if it was good or not.
December 21, 2008
#23
I saw it Friday night at the Linwood Dunn screening room, with a Q&A from Singer and Ottman afterwards. It’s good…but I’m curious what negative things will be written about the film.
What are some of the bad things you heard it?
December 21, 2008
#24
Well, I am not saying that I think it will be bad, first off. I am glad you liked it, hearing anything positive is good news to me. I have not heard much specifics about the film. Just general things. So I don’t necessarily hold them in the highest regard. One particular complaint that I heard was from a film reviewer who claimed to see an early screening (don’t know if this is true) he said the action was formulaic and the plot was not very exciting. Specifically, he said he had a big problem with Cruise not speaking with a German accent. He claimed that the beginning of the film had a voice over with Cruise speaking German, or someone speaking German for him. And that was it. Now granted I don’t know too much about the film, but isn’t Cruise playing a German soldier trying to assassinate Hitler? Shouldn’t he have some sort of German accent? If I’m wrong, FuMikechu, please let me know. I’d feel a lot better about the movie if I was. But in the trailers I saw, this reviewers opinion on the accent seems accurate.
December 21, 2008
#25
Cruise didn’t have a German accent but that wasn’t a major problem for me. Actually, if he had a German accent, well, it wouldn’t have made sense.
Lets say he’s got a German accent, well, why is he speaking English with a German accent? Why doesn’t he just speak German?
This does get addressed very early in the film in a way that reminds me how the language barrier issue was dealt with in McTiernan’s The 13 Warrior.
SPOILERS***
The person that revealed the that Cruise speaks German early in the film was correct. He writes in a journal, in German and we hear his VO speaking his thoughts in German, ’cause…well, he’s German. Then we slowly transition into English and it’s understood that from now on, whenever we hear anyone speak English, they are actually speaking German, we’re just hearing it in English.
It’s just a moment where you have the opportunity to suspend disbelief or not. If you don’t, well you’re screwed for the rest of the film but if you go with it, it works just fine.
Consider the dialogue a non-diegetic interpretation of what the characters are actually saying. For instance, we generally don’t get distracted when the composer’s score starts playing, but that music isn’t actually source music; non of the characters can hear it and it doesn’t make sense that music would just start coming out of nowhere, yet as moviegoers, we’ve accepted this idea for decades and it’s now a crucial part of the filmgoing experience. Scores are generally non-diegetic. What about when we hear a character’s VO? No one freaks out when we narration, it’s accepted, yet it’s a very non-diegetic film convention.
So is hearing German characters speaking English. Especially since the film addresses this by letting us initially hear the German dialogue before it converts into English. It works, in my opinion.
As for Cruise using a German accent, that would actually be distracting. Why use a German accent when it will only remind us he’s supposed to be speaking German and not English.
In the reality of the film, he is speaking German but from our Godlike perspective, we are hearing him in our native language, although he is speaking his. You know?
A German accent would only be more distracting and would make for a less appealing film.
However, I think I noticed a few German accents from some of the other characters, as well as British accents and American accents.
December 21, 2008
#26
Like in Defiance. None of those characters are actually speaking English but Russian and Polish and Hebrew and they slip into those actual languages a few times, but everytime they speak English, we know they’re not actually speaking English. It’s more for the audience.
Also, Valkyrie is a great example of keeping suspense in a story that we ultimately already know the ending to. Much better than Apollo 13.
December 21, 2008
#27
Could we please move this discussion over to here guys?
http://www.movieguys.org/movie-news/weekly-rundown-12212008/
December 21, 2008
#28
I few parting comments on this thread,,,
@FuMikechu, just because the film was produced by a Hollywood Studio doesn’t mean its not propaganda. Look into who owns the studios,,,look at other films. There’s a message in them all,,, (C)
Also if you want to see a fictional documentary on the environment there are a ton of those out there,,, start with “An Inconvenient Truth.” The Gore epic. In’ it weird how peoples names subtly give away there life path?
^
@Steve Davidson, thanks for coming back and sharing your opinions on the film. :-)
^
@Ergo, great points on the remake vs original.
^
Hey FuMikechu have you seen “Primer”?