Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: The Day The Earth Stood Still (2008)

This is topic The Day The Earth Stood Still (2008) in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=001499

Posted by Justin Gorka (Member # 3727) on 12-12-2008, 05:58 AM:

Enjoyed this one. Reeves is ideal as the part of Klato, though some of the other characters are miss placed. Effects are well done without being OTT. The ending seems to be have been a bit rushed, but that may down to the Studio wishing to keep the running lime under 2 hours.
Comparisons will be made to the original, but this would be unfair as it owes more to the original book.
3/5

Posted by Marco Giustini (Member # 4544) on 12-12-2008, 04:06 PM:

"Well, we left a guy here for 70 years tu judge the Humanity, but he was wrong"...

Come ooooon!!! [Smile]

Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 12-12-2008, 06:20 PM:

What a piece of crap this movie was, full of the same old lame SF cliches. Obligatory large object approaching from space, obligatory mean old government people driving around in black SUVs, speaking in clipped, highly efficient dialogue, arriving at a scientists house at night demanding he/she come with them with promises of an explanation later, obligatory use of computer display GUIs that don't look like anything anyone has ever seen and shiny gleaming technology that can do seemingly impossible feats of detection over long distances, obligatory single mother, obligatory government official that only wants to oppress information/heroism/non-conformity, obligatory dunning product placements (in order: Microsoft, McDonalds, LG, Citizen), obligatory "OK these people are capable of love so I guess we can spare them" trite-ass ending. Horse puckey.

quote: Justin Gorka
Comparisons will be made to the original, but this would be unfair as it owes more to the original book.

Neither of these movies share anything with the original book ("Farewell to The Master" by Harry Bates) except the robot reviving Klaatu after he gets shot. That's all. The book has none of the whole warning-to-Earth stuff that the movies added.

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 12-12-2008, 06:53 PM:

Too much Klaatu, Not enough GORT. The robot could have been used much more effectively.

Nothing special...just an overblown action film. Lots of booms in the subs, but even that got tiring after awhile. None of the characters are very interesting. Could have used some more John Cleese, though.

Absolutely NOTHING is special about the IMAX NON-DIGITAL EXPERIENCE. Picture looked just as if it were 35mm, although a bit brighter..but, the audience is also closer to the screen. Nice clean sound, and, as I've stated before, I prefer the back corner surround speaker location.

I'll give it a C+. Should make some money the first weekend, but will quickly die off.

Posted by Benny Walters (Member # 4894) on 12-12-2008, 07:04 PM:

I think I'm with Mark on this one. More GORT could have been a real treat with the money they dropped on other special effects. Also, I did spend the first three reels waiting for John Cleese to show up. Kathy Bates was believable but nothing to write home about. I think Klaatu is a good role for the often inhuman Keanu Reeves.

C

I am a big fan of the original (1951) and recommend a viewing of that as opposed to this remake.

[thumbsdown]

[ 12-12-2008, 09:18 PM: Message edited by: Benny Walters ]

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-12-2008, 09:15 PM:

Is there any Klaatu music on the soundtrack? ("Calling Occupants of Interplanetary Craft") If not, there obviously should be!

Posted by Steve Wilson (Member # 2411) on 12-12-2008, 10:05 PM:

This was one of my favorite Space Movies from the 1950s. I was expecting so much more and I came away feeling, what a missed oppurtunity. I would rate this well below War of the Worlds with Tom the Cruise, and it was no real winner either.

One of my buddies, says that I have never saw a bad film. This one is watchable, but thats about it. I would give it 2 of 5 Stars.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-12-2008, 11:09 PM:

Hey, this version didn't have Bernard Herrmann to do the score so it HAS TO SUCK! I'm not even going to bother with this movie... I did purchase the Original 1950's version on Blue Ray last weekend and it looks exceptional and sounds good.

Mark

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-13-2008, 12:42 AM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
"Calling Occupants of Interplanetary Craft"

(woo, an old classic Carpenter's song.....)

Saw some of this tonite and agree with Mark; No Bernard Herrmann score, not a classic. Plus a look-a-like of "War of the Worlds."

NOW, if they do a remake of "This Island Earth" or "Forbidden Planet" and ruin them like they did with 2000's "the Time Machine", that'll be the death of it all..

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 12-13-2008, 09:05 AM:

quote:
quote: Mike Blakesley
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Calling Occupants of Interplanetary Craft"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(woo, an old classic Carpenter's song.....)

Which was originally recorded by the group KLAATU, as Mike pointed out. It would have been a nice touch.

Posted by Justin Gorka (Member # 3727) on 12-13-2008, 05:14 PM:

Apparently the director took is ideas from the original book (1932?) so who know. Did like the grainy Gort....thought at first it was dodgy CGI but know we know different. Still think it's a reasonable film though(sorry....movie)

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-13-2008, 07:06 PM:

Wow, forgot about that group "Klaatu" (being a TAS recommended recording group)

Posted by Todd Shelskt (Member # 4684) on 12-15-2008, 10:48 AM:

I haven't seen the movie yet, but one critic's comments made me laugh:

"Keanu Reeves plays an alien who doesn't talk much and shows no emotion. I really think he has found his perfect role." Kevin Carr

Everything tends to be so formulaic these days. Mylie Cyrus, product tie-ins, slick action, government agents. Where's the imagination? I loved the original "Day the Earth Stood Still." I have a feeling the new one's a stinker.

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 12-16-2008, 04:32 PM:

Klaatu (the group) came out in the late 70s and were rumored to be the reunited Beatles at first. Their self-titled original album is worth a listen and you will pick up the Beatle similarities. Maybe they should have had a "Sub Rosa Subway" sign in the movie.

As for the movie I agree with the consensus here. Much ado about nothing. The original version - while not the most exciting sci-fi film - was at least thought provoking. This one is a mind-numbing exercise in environmentalist wacko propaganda. It doesn't even end...it just stops. IMAX 15/70 didn't even help this turkey. Reeves wooden acting style was actually beneficial to the role of Klaatu. The sexy new Gort and aging John Cleese were entirely underused. A missed oportunity.

Posted by Shane Cooper (Member # 2510) on 12-16-2008, 09:32 PM:

quote: Justin Gorka
Apparently the director took is ideas from the original book (1932?) so who know. Did like the grainy Gort....thought at first it was dodgy CGI but know we know different. Still think it's a reasonable film though(sorry....movie)

Full disclosure: I am fan of the original and after watching this remake, I am ready to set it on fire.

Gort is the part I actually had the biggest problem with. Very inconsistent. You see "The Swarm" dissolve major structures like Giants Stadium in seconds, but when it comes to close ups, you see glass cracking instead of dissolving.

What a crock of [bs]

More importantly I found the whole thing incredibly boring. At least with the crap Michael Bay puts out I can enjoy it for two hours.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 12-17-2008, 12:02 AM:

I have bought relatively few DVDs over the years. Probably no more than two dozen or so.

From memory: "Metropolis" - "THX-1138" - "Barbarella" - "Logan's Run" - "Silent Running" - "Soylent Green" - "Omega Man" - "Dr. Strangelove" - "Blade Runner" - "The Day the Earth Stood Still."

No,I don't have any "Star Wars"

There's a smattering of others like Hitchcock and Mel Brooks, etc. I can't remember any more for sure and I'm too damn lazy to go get them all out and list them. It doesn't matter anyway. You can tell what kind of movies I collect from this list.

Watching movies is WORK for me. Consequently, I don't collect junk. The movies I want to have in my collection are the ones that set standards for other movies that follow.

I really don't think I'm going to put forth the effort or the money to see any remake of "The Day the Earth Stood Still."

If it gets rave reviews and wide acclaim, I MIGHT go see it.

Judging by what's been said above, I don't think I'll be missing anything.

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 12-18-2008, 08:57 AM:

Well, I re-watched the original this morning. Great Film.
I guess I'm glad I got to meet Patricia Neal a few years back. I keep forgetting that she was hot back in the day.

I have decided that I will NEVER watch the new film that was just released. Sorry to boycott something having to do with my industry. But Hollywood has got to stop with this crap.

This is officially my "anti" review of the film. I refuse to watch it, which means it doesn't even deserve a rating and it is total crap. Thank you and have a nice day. [puke]

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-18-2008, 09:48 AM:

quote: Dennis Benjamin
I refuse to watch it, which means it doesn't even deserve a rating and it is total crap.

You sound like one of those fundamentalist preachers who condemns a film without seeing it. (Except a preacher probably would say "garbage" instead of "crap.") [Big Grin]

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 12-18-2008, 12:14 PM:

I thought there were some good ideas in the new version and that it wasn't half bad, although the ending was very disappointing and left the audience hanging.

(But hey - who can complain about any film that stars the lovely Ms. Jennifer Connelly? [Smile]

)

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 12-18-2008, 01:26 PM:

quote: Brian Guckian
who can complain about any film that stars the lovely Ms. Jennifer Connelly?

Is it just me or did Jennifer Connelly look...shall I say..."de-enhanced"?

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 12-18-2008, 01:37 PM:

Yah it's that "DI look" [Big Grin]

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 12-18-2008, 03:20 PM:

Hey if the fundamentalist preachers can do it, so can I.

I am making an effort NOT to watch anymore movies that waste my time.

[Big Grin]

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 12-18-2008, 07:42 PM:

How can you make a remake of TDTESS and not have someone at some point speak the iconic line, "Gort, Klaatu berada nikto!"? For shame! And yah, I agree, Gort was the best thing in the film. His appearance was way impressive....he looked damn dangerous. And then they practically forgot he was there and went instead to those stupid metal cockeroaches for suspense and tension.

Transforming the wonderful Patricia Neal's character from a warm, vulnerable mom to some smartass, hot microbiologist made it much less believable, and what was that kid all about? That character was terribly constructed; yes, he missed his father, but that certainly didn't explain his obnoxious behavior which, after about the second reel, I was hoping he'd get caught in some of the gratuitous cross-fire. BTW, you would think someone in all of the entire breath and width of the US Armed Forces, SOMEONE would have had the brains to figure out that firing our wussy weapons at the aliens wasn't going to do a damn thing except really piss them off.

************SPOILER ***********
And the worst cliche of all was the idea that Klaatu, in the middle of the enihalation of the entire presumably worthless human species, would stop the roach feed-fest just because the bratty kid wimpered that he missed his dad. At least Cameron in THE ABYSS gave the aliens a fairly substantial reason to let us be, i.e., the selfless sacrifice for love of one human for another, willing to die to save another's life. But nothing more than a, "Boo-hoo....I miss my daddy?" Come on. What was Klaatu thinking? "Oh, yah kid, that makes ALL the difference....hang on -- hey metal roaches....cool it, the kid misses his dad." World saved. Puke.

1.5/5

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-18-2008, 07:46 PM:

quote: Dennis Benjamin

I am making an effort NOT to watch anymore movies that waste my time.

Huh? You're going to stop watching new movies altogether???

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 12-19-2008, 07:45 AM:

----- Possible Spoiler -----

Early in the film, after the ship lands and Gort is attacking, I thought I heard Klatuu say the "KLAATU BARADA" line to stop the robot, but very soft and muffled. Someone might be able to watch that scene and confirm or deny that.

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 12-19-2008, 11:40 AM:

If the newest version had been released 50 years ago and the '50s version was the remake which would everybody be sentimental about and consider better?

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-19-2008, 12:28 PM:

If that happened, people would be too busy griping about the cheap/cheesy special effects and poor quality color, etc. to notice the acting or the story.

Posted by Galen Murphy-Fahlgren (Member # 4535) on 12-19-2008, 02:50 PM:

Bill, that is the difference between "classic" movies and "old" ones. Nobody gives a rat's ass if you remake an "old" movie. I am hard pressed to come up with a specific example, but I think that is only further demonstration of this principle.

Posted by Justin Gorka (Member # 3727) on 12-19-2008, 03:08 PM:

One has to remember that this film is actually base on the book (which name escapes me). Hence the globes and no spaceship. I also get the feeling that the editing was done to get the 12A(UK) audience rather than the 15 I believe it should have been. The real ending should have shown people suffering. Obviously not 12A material. (It's OK to see an Ork's head chopped off with blood spewing out but not a humans?).
Censor the sensors and sack the studio chiefs for not letting the directors do what they want!

Posted by Jon P. Inghram (Member # 4125) on 12-21-2008, 10:53 AM:

The short story the first movie was loosely based on, Farewell to the Master, has very little at all to do with the new movie, beyond have a character named Klatu.

[ 12-21-2008, 12:46 PM: Message edited by: Jon P. Inghram ]

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 12-21-2008, 07:06 PM:

I've seen the old one and I can't find anything to be sentimental about---just an old badly done even for the day sci-fi.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-22-2008, 11:36 AM:

I watched the first 15 min., and the last 15 min at a job site last week. That was enough. What a piece of crap!

Posted by Chad M Calpito (Member # 3736) on 12-22-2008, 10:03 PM:

I saw the movie yesterday at AMC La Jolla 12. I thought it was ok. To me, the original was the best. The special effects were good, but the idea of Gort becoming those little bugs that were to disintegrate every thing was way to far-fetched, especially the windows. Makes me wonder what those studio people are thinking. Oh well. I rate this film at a measly 2 out of 5 stars.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 12-24-2008, 09:20 AM:

quote: Bill Enos
I've seen the old one and I can't find anything to be sentimental about---just an old badly done even for the day sci-fi.

quote: Chad M Calpito
The special effects were good, but the idea of Gort becoming those little bugs that were to disintegrate every thing was way to far-fetched, especially the windows.

This plays right into the hands of "Fitzkee's Fallacy."
The idea that nobody will want to watch something unless there are special effects to "spice it up."

The term was first applied, specifically, to magic shows by Darwin Ortiz in the book "Strong Magic."
Basically, think about the "David Copperfield" type show where there are 15 minutes of scantily-clad women dancing on stage interspersed with about 90 seconds of actual magic. The presumption is that nobody will want to watch the show unless there are other things (girls, music and special effects) to "entertain" the audience.
Consider the counterpoint of a magician like David Blaine or Chris Angel who can basically bring an audience to its knees standing in the middle of Central Park, wearing nothing but a pair of bluejeans and a white T-shirt.

Apply this concept to a movie:

We have movies like Luca's "American Grafitti" which, by most accounts is a great movie but has few, if any, special effects. Then we have his "Star Wars" series. "Episode I" through "Episode III" are heavy on special effects but are not considered to be Luca's best work by any but the faithful Star Wars fans.
It is only the original "Star Wars" movie (Epsisode IV) which has a good blend of special effects and plot that make the movie believable.

Now, consider "The Day the Earth Stood Still"... The original movie and the remake.

We have the old 1950's version which has poor effects, even for the day, but is considered a good movie because it has plot and story elements that people will WANT to watch. They will "suspend disbelief" relative to the special effects because the REST of the movie is enjoyable.

On the other hand, we have the remake version which, by all accounts, pales by comparison even though the special effects are orders of magnitude better than the first version.

As a matter of fact, the very first post in this thread stated:

quote: "Justin Gorka"
Effects are well done without being OTT.

I guess we could say that there is a new genre of movie: The "Special Effects" movie. It is the type of movie which has a purpose none other than to showcase the studio's SFX department. These films have been around for a long time, only coming into their own when digital (CGI) effets became viable. But, nowadays, with films like the "Star Wars" prequels I suppose we can say that they are in a class of their own.

So, the question is: Do you consider "The Day the Earth Stood Still" to be a "Special Effect" movie?

Frankly, I don't think it is. Nor should it be.

And, so... "When somebody mentions a movie like this but one of the first things they mention are special effects, I KNOW it's going to be a bad movie. Or, at least a mediocre one with lots of SFX.

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 12-24-2008, 10:46 AM:

I go to a movie for the whole thing, to me a good story is wasted if the rest is intolerable crap as this thing was. Do you want to sit through a Harry Potter or Dark Knight with effects at that level?

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 12-24-2008, 12:24 PM:

I always grin when somebody says they "sat through" a movie. [Big Grin]

It implies that they simply sat there and "tolerated" it rather than watched and enjoyed the show. [Big Grin]

I rarely, if ever, "sit through" a movie.
The only time I do it is when I am with another person who wants to watch it such that it would be impolite for me to walk out.

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 12-26-2008, 12:58 PM:

Sometimes I'm thinking it can't get any worse than this, maybe it'll get better, usually doesn't though.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 01-04-2009, 07:30 PM:

Caught up with this today at Regal 15 in Eugene, #11. Looked and sounded good. [thumbsup]

This movie is not very good, notwithstanding some nice visual effects. It's like the actors are just reciting dialog a lot of the time, and not always well-written dialog. Kind of lifeless. Hard to put my finger on exactly what's wrong except it just kind of falls flat.

2 out of 5.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 01-05-2009, 01:18 AM:

quote: David Stambaugh
what's wrong except it just kind of falls flat.

It seems like a lot of movies made lately does this - like the director suddenly guns down on the throttle towards the end just to get this project done.

..and you walk out wondering what you just saw...

-Monte

Posted by Caleb Johnstone-Cowan (Member # 3710) on 01-05-2009, 09:29 PM:

This film was atrocious, I'm not even glad that I was paid to watch it (we usher some shows now). It was just boring. The characters didn't endear themselves, there was no humour, and there was a total lack of action. It looked like the producers thought seeing Giants Stadium turn to dust would be enough to satisfy the audience. One of the worst films of 2008.

The only good thing was it reminded me how much I love Independence Day, that's how a sci-fi event film should be done!