# The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008)



## TK-421 (Jul 15, 2008)

The trailer is available and it looks very intriguing.

Apple - Trailers - The Day the Earth Stood Still


----------



## Dave (Jul 15, 2008)

I can't believe this is true, I thought it was just an April's Fool joke!

I hate the idea of remaking an almost perfect film, but thinking on it a little longer, maybe our even heavier reliance on technology today could lead to some interesting new twists on the old concept. Nothing like that is shown in the trailer though, and Keanu Reeves is certainly no Michael Rennie. Most Excellent, Not!


----------



## Ursa major (Jul 15, 2008)

I'd've thought that Keanu Reeves would've been a shoo-in to play Gort.


----------



## j d worthington (Jul 15, 2008)

Sorry, but to me it simply looks like another badly-conceived, stereotypical remake which is all about the "gosh-wow" special effects and CGI, having little or nothing to do with either the original film of this title or the short story "Farewell to the Master" upon which that film was based. True, there are some details taken from the story present here (the protagonist being a reporter; the "ovoid" ship, etc.), but from what I'm seeing here, it bears extremely little resemblance to Harry Bates' tale....

Frankly, I'm more than a little tired of special effects extravaganzas, and would much prefer something which uses them sparingly and tells a more intimate story with spreading implications, rather than these continual doomsday scenarios that are a bit too reminiscent of the stereotyped space opera end of Golden Age (and before) sf....


----------



## Ursa major (Jul 15, 2008)

I myself fail to see what CGI would do (give or take a "shinier" ship).

When I first saw the film (on TV) when I was young, the most terrifying thing about Gort was that it could perform magic (in the Clarke sense). There was no explanation and so no way that we could even grasp how it was all done and how it could be prevented; we were like ants waiting for the foot to descend, only far more vulnerable.


I haven't read the original story, by the way.


----------



## j d worthington (Jul 15, 2008)

Ursa major said:


> I myself fail to see what CGI would do (give or take a "shinier" ship).


 
My point exactly... only I extend this to the overuse of special effects in general, as this more than anything else is being used as an excuse to remake classic films "because we now have the technology to do it right". Well, so we do... but we keep on getting WRONG, dammit!



> I haven't read the original story, by the way.


 
It's worth reading -- not spectacular, but some very good ideas there. And it is a quietly told story and all the more thoughtful for that....

Farewell to the Master by Harry Bates


----------



## Urien (Jul 15, 2008)

Whoa dudes, if you keep like using those nuke things, or totally slamming the planet then we're gonna have to go like totally awesome on your ass. It's like geno..gino... yeah lots of dead dudes. Peace. 

Oh noes Gort is like totally freaking.


----------



## Tillane (Jul 15, 2008)

To quote my friend when I showed him this trailer: "Oh, god.  They're ruining my childhood again."

It may be really good, but I'm not holding my breath and - like a lot of people - I don't see the point in remaking what was an already excellent movie.


----------



## TK-421 (Jul 15, 2008)

While I have not read the original story and can barely remember the original movie (a little before my time), I find myself taken aback from the reaction thus far.

It is true that special effects are used liberally in most sci-fi or fantasy movies but that part of the point isn't it. I thought the trailer gave a glimpse of a movie with some promise and I think we are fooling ourselves if we believe that the studios are going to make any sci-fi/fantasy movie without using special effects when they can. There have been some misses like War of the Worlds (due partly to Tom Cruise) but there have been some hits like The Matrix, LOTR or Beowulf.

Personally, I like Keanu and not because he's a fellow countryman. Yes, he has done some lame stuff in the past but may actually work here. Personally I am willing to give the movie a try.


----------



## Ursa major (Jul 15, 2008)

I didn't know LOTR (in its complete form), The Matrix, or Beowulf were remakes of earlier, well-known, films, TK.


----------



## Urien (Jul 15, 2008)

The original movie is a SF classic. It was one of the first to take a more philosophical tone and treat SF seriously. Equally it attempted to give an outside perspective on a very dangerous world.

Prior to this most SF films were of the Flash Gordon variety.

JD will have the full lowdown.


----------



## TK-421 (Jul 15, 2008)

Ursa major said:


> I didn't know LOTR (in its complete form), The Matrix, or Beowulf were remakes of earlier, well-known, films, TK.


 
Maybe I phrased it wrong but what I meant to say was that generally and not just speaking about remakes in particular, there have been misses and hits. I know that these are not or would not have used them as examples.


----------



## jezelf (Jul 16, 2008)

KLAATU's actually a friend of mine and asked me to pass on a message. As he's from 'across the gulf of space, minds immeasurably superior to ours', I've had to transcribe it so the message is easily communicated in a suitable medium...


" People of Earth. We are pleased to discover members of your community wish to tell a new generation, the original message I presented to you myself over fifty of your Earth years past. It is good that you recognise the importance of the survival of all in the Universe. However, I send a warning;

 "There must be security for all -- or no one is secure... This does not mean giving up any freedom except the freedom to act irresponsibly.We of the other planets have long accepted this principle. We have an organization for the mutual protection of all planets -- and for the complete elimination of all bad, cash-in, 'lets dig out some old gem and screw it up' entertainment  . 

"A sort of United Nations on the Planetary level. The test of any such higher authority, of course, is the police force that supports it. For our policemen, we created a race of robots. Their function is to patrol the planets -- in space ships, and preserve the quality. In matters of decent and worthy remakes of classic films we have given them absolute power over us.

"That includes - how shall I put it? - "dodgy" and "cheesy" actors like Mr Reeves and Ms Connelly and any 'style over substance' in your entertainment you also call 'movies'. We do not pretend to have achieved perfection -- but we do have a system -- and it works.

 "End of message".




 He said Gort's warming up his laser eye and heading over to the Producer's house just in case. Well I can't dispute, Klaatu's opinon. Why, if anyone,  Keanu Reeves and Jennifer Connelly? .*sigh* 

Also looks Will Smith's pulled a few strings and got his son in there - who's  probably better actor than either of them - but even still, I'm not sure I could see them more than actors from elsewhere than believe in them as characters. Rather much like Tom Cruise and Daokota Fanning in War of the Worlds, who again the child was the better actor! She was in a bunch of things on TV at the time 'Taken' was one. She is an amazingly talented actress just a shame about using actors with the over-saturation element - but that's what 'Hollywood' likes to do.

At best it'll be similar to WotW. At worst. ...well I have to lie down if I think about that!


I hope I'm pleasantly surprised - just trying to be optimistic....










Credits: Adapted from the 1951 original of *"THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL"* script by Edmund H. North​


----------



## j d worthington (Jul 16, 2008)

TK: I'm not trying to bash your enthusiasm, and I sincerely hope you're right, and that this _does_ turn out to be one of the exceptions. But judging from the trailer, I simply don't see that as likely to be the case. I personally don't have anything against either Keanu Reeves or Jennifer Connelly; both have done good as well as bad work. But I see nothing _substantive_ here requiring a remake; only special effects. If they're interested in doing _that_, for cryin' out loud, there are _*millions*_ of sf stories out there they could adapt and still have all the special effects they wanted. It just strikes me as another example of Hollywood laziness and unwillingness to do any new material in the more imaginative fields, rather simply sticking to retreads. That shows both a complete lack of imagination, an utter disrespect and disregard for the original material, and an extremely cynical view of their audiences... and then they wonder why box office is good the first few days/weeks and then falls off with so many films....

As for the subject of special effects -- as I said, I'm not _entirely_ against them, but they shouldn't be the _star_ of the damned film!!!! They should _enhance_, not _dominate_... and certainly not at the expense of a reasonable or (dare we even imagine it?) a superb script. And _that_ can be changed, if people (like us) will simply stop going to these things and once more cultivate the more literate end of the sff spectrum in films by giving _them_ our support. This is hardly the first time Hollywood has got in such a rut and had to be shaken out of it by audiences turning to other filmmakers with truly innovative work, and it could well happen again.

In the meantime, while I don't direct my comments at you and your enthusiasm and hope, what I'm seeing here is simply the same old thing all over again using this weeks nifty new special effects... and frankly, that bores the living bejeezus out of me....


----------



## The Procrastinator (Jul 16, 2008)

Well, I haven't looked at the trailer, as I have yet to install Quicktime on this computer (and was hoping not to). The comments so far have both intrigued me and put me off..._The Day the Earth Stood Still_ is one of the true classics and I can only see one point in a remake - bringing a great story to a new audience. As Dave said, there is great potential there in a modern setting. But as JD said, I hope to God its not another remake done purely to update the special effects. The original stood out for having a story strong enough not to be dependent on amazing special effects, though actually they did an excellent job on the effects there were. 

Not having seen the trailer yet, I can't be too critical (though I'm having a hard time imagining Keanu filling the shoes of Michael Rennie) - but I really, really hope they keep the story as strong as it was and not make the effects the point of the story.


----------



## Grimward (Jul 16, 2008)

I'm gonna side with TK on this one, if only because I (gasp!) haven't seen the original or read the book (OK, in this context as in many others I'm a Philistine, I admit it!). Possibly then, I will watch the original, and attempt to eliminate any "special effect" bias (in so doing become less Philistine-like...well, I can dream, can't I?!!!) in comparing the two. I will do this without reading the book first (almost invariably, reading the book first is a recipe for disappointment, as all here know).

If enough brain cells survive next Jan./Feb. to spark my memory, God willing, I will chime back in with impressions then. I'm sure you all will be waiting with baited breath...


----------



## The Procrastinator (Jul 16, 2008)

Never mind Grimey, I haven't read the book either. But do watch the movie - its wonderful. Really draws you in.


----------



## Talysia (Jul 16, 2008)

I'm not sure what to think about this. Whilst I haven't watched the film in a long time, I remember it being very good, and I'm a bit sceptical about any kind of remake. I still don't agree with the current trend toward trying to remake classic films - I'd rather see more imagination in terms of creating new SF or other similar genre movies, or adaptations of books/stories that haven't yet made it to the big screen. 

For now, I think I'll hold my opinion until I've seen the film.


----------



## Marcus15 (Jul 16, 2008)

Nothing could be better than the original. Leave the classics alone!!


----------



## jezelf (Jul 16, 2008)

I guess Keanu Reeves does have a similarity to Klaatu in the sense that he's not human....


----------



## j d worthington (Jul 16, 2008)

Ummm... one thing, people: it's not a _book_, it's a _short story_; a rather short short story, to be frank. Anyone interested can find it at the link given above....

From the trailer, I'm seeing a lot of special effects-CGI destruction of things going on... something which simply does not fit at all with the point of either the story or the original film, and turns it into simply another "special effects spectacular" of the "gosh-wow" sort. So far, I'm seeing little hint of the story from the Robert Wise film, and nothing but a tiny detail or two from Harry Bates' story... so why not just make an _original_ film, for pity's sake....?


----------



## Dave (Jul 16, 2008)

j. d. worthington said:


> ... so why not just make an _original_ film, for pity's sake....?


That's easy! More people will go and see it. People who never saw the original but have heard of the title, and people who know it is going to be trash, but have to see it just to make sure.

Your suggestion, that we just stay away from these films, is a good one, but that requires a strong will. What if it doesn't work and they just keep on remaking films instead?


----------



## j d worthington (Jul 16, 2008)

Dave said:


> Your suggestion, that we just stay away from these films, is a good one, but that requires a strong will. What if it doesn't work and they just keep on remaking films instead?


 
Unlikely, as they're in this for the money; no audience or less audience = no (or less) money; whereas they also keep an eye on how independent and foreign films are doing, and if they're raking in the dough, try to find out why so they can get a slice of the pie. This has happened repeatedly with Hollywood, since the silent era, and I rather venture to think this is what we see happening again (albeit at a somewhat slower pace than in times past).

As for the other... considering how often this film is shown on cable tv, how easily available it is for purchase or rent, etc., I rather doubt that has as much to do with it as people simply being lazy and accepting whatever is thrown at them... hence the various horror/tortureporn franchises that seem to be racking up sequels faster than the box office results can be counted -- it takes a while for them to realize this one (speaking generically rather than specifically) has gone to "straight-to-DVD/video" status as it would be a drug on the market as far as theaters are concerned. Eventually someone wakes up and takes notice, and a new formula is tried. Problem is, that's all we're getting: formulaic crap, because people do keep going to see it. They kvetch about it, but they keep spending their money on it, and hence that's what they'll continue to get. Spend the money wisely, on something worth watching, and the producers will catch the shift in the wind and back films accordingly....


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Jul 16, 2008)

I do think that the clunky sets and effects distract from the original and probably put off a lot of people who might otherwise be exposed to this excellent film. I'd like to see a remake, if it was done well.  Unfortunately, going by the trailer, this doesn't look like it's going to be that remake.

I can think of several actors who could fill Michael Rennie's shoes ... but Keanu Reeves most certainly is not one of them.


----------



## Dave (Jul 16, 2008)

Rumours are that the plot involves the aliens being concerned about our destruction of our environment rather than of Nuclear testing and armament. That may be more topical, but in that case, shouldn't they call it _The Man Who Fell to Earth_ instead?

JD - Thanks for the link to _Farewell to the Master_.  I read it earlier tonight. I wonder why they changed the name of Gnut to Gort?

I'm never going to be convinced that all these remakes are good, not when there are so may good books that have not been adapted.


----------



## j d worthington (Jul 17, 2008)

Dave said:


> Rumours are that the plot involves the aliens being concerned about our destruction of our environment rather than of Nuclear testing and armament. That may be more topical, but in that case, shouldn't they call it _The Man Who Fell to Earth_ instead?


 
That's just the thing, though, with the original film. While it did deal, on the surface, with the Cold War mentality, the larger implication was simply that we had now reached a point where we could not only destroy ourselves, but might take our belligerence out to the stars, where it would affect others. It was about the underlying causes and the need to examine and learn to control and direct them properly, rather than just the Cold War arms race itself. Anything which limits that to a more topical message is going to make this remake even more dated in less time....



> JD - Thanks for the link to _Farewell to the Master_. I read it earlier tonight. I wonder why they changed the name of Gnut to Gort?


 
You're welcome; and I have no idea on that one. It is a good tale, worth reading and, despite its flaws, it is a more thoughtful piece than one might expect.



> I'm never going to be convinced that all these remakes are good, not when there are so may good books that have not been adapted.


 
Ditto. I'm not entirely against remakes, but I strongly feel they should be the exception, rather than the rule... and only done if you can actually improve on the original in some substantive way, not just with the surface aspect of current special effects which, in ten years' time, will look even more dated and even less charming and quaint than the things you're attempting to replace....


----------



## Urien (Jul 17, 2008)

Destruction of our environment? Really? Gosh we hadn't noticed. Thank goodness the space aliens are coming to tell us the bleeding obvious.

Hopefully the message is "here's lots of technology to help you fix it" rather than "Fix it or we'll killllll you all."


----------



## Omphalos (Jul 17, 2008)

Im already pissed off at this, and all I have seen is the trailer. It is going to be such a dog, and I am going to be compelled to watch it by these weird SF genes of mine. The subtlety of the original is going to be completely lost. It was about a race of beings that came here and said, "hey, do your own little things on this planet, but start screwing around with forces that could come our way, and we will wipe you out now." The perfect cold war fear/brinksmanship story. Now Klaatu Reeves is coming here to say "you butt-scratch humans don't deserve to have the planet god gave you, so were going eliminate you." What a crock. What a waste. What a sad, misguided perversion of something wonderful. Its like Kevin J. Anderson and Brian Herbert joined the E.L.F. and together put this script together.


----------



## Ashley R (Jul 22, 2008)

While without any doubt the original film is a classic, I would observe that films are much more disposable culture. The black & white films are generally relegated to the afternoon TV slot etc.

Now, like a lot of people, I won't be holding my breath on this one, but OTOH I will be holding my judgment until I see the movie.


----------



## steve12553 (Jul 25, 2008)

I'm in the process of loading the Apple program so I haven't seen the trailer yet. I can't hold back adding to this thread, though. The original movie was wonderful. The acting was wonderful and the effects were done with care so that even with 57 year old technology it was still believable. The message of the story didn't need incredible effects just subtle and believable. I read the story more than once and I bought the DVD so that I can rewatch the film every so often. A remake will come out like the 1976 version of King Kong.


----------



## Lenny (Jul 26, 2008)

It looks... not bad... ish. I've not seen the original, nor have I read the short story (I didn't even know there was one!) and, although it doesn't look terrible, I doubt I'll see the remake, to be honest. The only thing that interested me in that trailer was the fact that they were using Windows Vista.


----------



## Vladd67 (Jul 28, 2008)

As a side point about classics and modern blockbusters
Vladd's view of the World: Cult classics take on the blockbusters as audiences switch on to internet downloads
When it comes to classic films I'm sure we all know people who refuse to watch something because it is B&W or has subtitles.


----------



## imls1978 (Nov 12, 2008)

don't know the original so i will watch it as a new movie, keanu is a great actor


----------



## clovis-man (Nov 12, 2008)

Just a snide comment appropos of nothing: I think it's a shame (and a little bit of a surprise) that so many have not seen the original film. It should be a prerequisite, like being admitted to a college class: can't see the new film until you have the old one under your belt.


----------



## TK-421 (Nov 12, 2008)

OK. I can accept that and besides I love movies, so it's not like a chore or anything. I'm sure I can find it at my local Blockbuster.


----------



## TK-421 (Dec 12, 2008)

Well, some reviews are out and unfortunately they are not great:

Greetings, Earthlings

globeandmail.com: Preachy but not much fun

The purists on this forum should have a field day with it. But please leave Keanu alone


----------



## Ashley R (Dec 12, 2008)

Saw it last night as a early preview. It started well, ramped up well, but then fell flat.

Trouble is that at its heart it is fundamentally anti-human. Then again we live in the age of humans bad, plants and cuddly Polar bears good.


----------



## QSR Joshua (Dec 16, 2008)

Okay

Just saw it, and my advice to anyone who hasn't, don't. I can't imagine a worse way to remake this movie than this. I didn't even get the one thing I was waiting for that was promised by the producers. Maybe I slept through it though.


----------



## Connavar (Dec 16, 2008)

I have wanted to watch the original for a while.  Just like many classic SF movies its hard to get cause there arent dvds for every old movie.  Renting is impossible for old movies outside Seven Samurai type mainstream classics.

I dislike Keanu so i have no interest at all, i think he is a horrible actor outside Matrix.  Typical talentless blockbuster actor that is made for this era of hollywood....

I have heard of the superman like Klaatu and the reviews of how they turned it to a superheroic action.   How shocking the biggest money maker is superhero movies.


----------



## williamjm (Dec 29, 2008)

I saw the film a few days ago. It's a fairly average film, not great but not terrible either. I definitely preferred the original, and I can't say the new version really added anything to the story. Keanu's performance was actually reasonably good for the role, but the rest of the acting was a bit bland and forgettable. The plot didn't really seem to have been entirely thought through at times and the ending was predictable and raised the question of why Klaatu didn't try to do what he did to begin with instead of trying an alternative plan first.


----------



## The Procrastinator (Jan 1, 2009)

Saw this a few days ago, went in with fairly low expectations. I'm with williamjm, I thought it was not great but not terrible, and preferred the original. Keanu was actually pretty good but the movie, after starting out quite well, didn't really hold the attention and ended up as your average disaster type special effects "thriller". Parts of it were good, but parts of it were really blah, not to mention preachy and heavy handed, and the major premise left somewhat to be desired. Although it was an ok film and I didn't mind it, I'm left thinking that this was a pretty pointless remake really.


----------



## GOLLUM (Jan 1, 2009)

Another Hollywood remake disaster by all accounts then...I think I'll stick to the orginal, one of the first films I ever saw in the cinema and it was an old style cinema at that and for my brother's birthday back in the 1970s, so it has always stuck with me.


----------



## Quokka (Jan 3, 2009)

**SPOILERS**

I was actually planning on waiting for this on DVD but a friend wanted to see it the other day so we went along to the movies. I'll try not to post a lot of plot spoilers as it seems a lot of people are posting here who are yet to watch it, still the warning is there. 

I thought this was about as bad as a remake gets which is a shame as imo it's probably been long enough since the original and yet it's still relevant enough that a remake could have worked. I didn't really mind the switch from developing weapons to the environmental threat but what really bugged me was that in the original the alien is from an advanced race comes here with his warning and basically leaves in the same way, he's from a massively advanced civilisation and doesn't have a lot to learn from our little planet. In the remake of course humans have to be the heros and so the alien is taught a lesson and learns what 80 years of observations never suggested.  

Other than that it just seemed that the writing was so lazy, all the little things just kept pulling me out of the movie. At one point some characters are running away from helicopters, they stop, have a conversation and then mid way through one of them is abducted by a solider who drops down from a helicopter hovering above them. No one saw or heard an army helicopter fly over them? So much of it seemed like it could have at least made a little sense if they had just stopped and done a bit of a rewrite.

One last gripe, CGI Helicopters .


----------



## jordanasmith (Jan 6, 2009)

movie was not upto the mark....


----------



## Dave (Jun 30, 2012)

I finally gave in and watched this on TV and was actually pleasantly surprised. I thought it was a good way of re-imaging it. Changing nuclear annihilation for environmental disaster worked. The US military and government were made far more sinister and cowardly, which meets all conspiracy theorists expectations. The female lead is no longer a secretary but a noted biologist. Her family and social life are completely disjointed to reflect modern times.



Dave said:


> I'm never going to be convinced that all these remakes are good, not when there are so may good books that have not been adapted.


That is my real problem, not that remakes cannot be good, but that there are so many untapped books to be filmed.

The nano-bot nanite storm is exactly as I imaged them to be in the novel _Prey_. Why could that not be filmed?



Quokka said:


> In the remake of course humans have to be the heros and so the alien is taught a lesson and learns what 80 years of observations never suggested.


Not true, the alien Asian man Klaatu met at McDonald's had come to much the same conclusion after living among us. The problem was, as Professor Bernhardt said, that only on the brink of destruction can we change. An odd casting that - John Cleese - though he did do the job. 


Quokka said:


> One last gripe, CGI Helicopters


They did look like they had escaped from a computer game. Strange!
Central Park is a dangerous place. Apart from the muggers, wasn't that the same arch they hid underneath in _Cloverfield_?

My son, who has seen this film several times now, because as he says, _it is always on TV_, has a problem with the ending. It did sort of stop suddenly unless you have seen the original film. In that, the power was cut off about half way through the film and everyone said, _wow, this Klaatu is so powerful we need to take him seriously_. That wouldn't really work today, so his shutting down everything was instead an alternative to destroying everything.


----------



## wonkishere (Jun 30, 2012)

The problem with the remakes that Hollywood is doing is that they have a way of disappointing people.  The thing is, I don't think the remake is really the same movie as the original.  They had to change the plot, and obviously it's a modern movie with CGA and very different actors.  They might have been better off just giving it a different title.

I saw the remake, and the original of course.  While it does not hold up to the original I thought it was ok.  I'd go see it, just don't put impossible expectations on it.


----------



## Ursa major (Jun 30, 2012)

wonkishere said:


> The thing is, I don't think the remake is really the same movie as the original.  They had to change the plot, and obviously it's a modern movie with CGA and very different actors.  They might have been better off just giving it a different title.


Exactly.

And the problem with using the same title is that those who don't know will believe - if they even know the original film exists, that is - that the newer one is simply a technical update of - or worse, an "improvement" on - the original. Even if the newer film was excellent, even if it was a lot better than the original, it would have the effect of blotting out the original, which deserves to be known in its own right.

In fact, I'd go so far as saying that by reusing the title, the new film's makers have done a disservice to both films.


----------



## Anthony G Williams (Dec 17, 2013)

My take on it, from my SFF blog: Science Fiction & Fantasy

I vaguely recall seeing the original 1951 film *The Day the Earth Stood Still*, but it was many years ago so I had to use Wiki to refresh my memory in order to compare it with the 2008 remake which I saw recently. I learned something from this, which is that the 1951 film was based on the short story _Farewell to the Master_ (1940) by Harry Bates, not one that I recall reading.

The 2008 remake sticks quite closely to the general plot and spirit of the original with some changes to the detail, partly to take advantage of modern CGI. To summarise (with spoilers – skip the rest of this paragraph if you don't want to know what happened): a huge, transparent, globe filled with swirling patterns arrives from space and lands in Central Park, New York. It is promptly surrounded by military forces plus some selected scientists. A humanoid figure emerges from the sphere but is shot and wounded; a giant robot then emerges and shuts down the power to the weapons. The humanoid (who turns out to be physically human once the outer covering is removed and bears a remarkable resemblance to Keanu Reeves) is taken away by the military from whom he is helped to escape by one of the scientists, Dr Helen Benson (Jennifer Connelly). He has a message from an association of civilisations in the galactic vicinity who have become worried about human aggressiveness: change, or be exterminated. He eventually decides that humanity will never change and sets in motion world-wide destruction of humanity and its works (the opportunity for some novel CGI), before Benson puts in a final appeal for a reprieve.

It clearly would not be fair to assess the 2008 film by the same standards as the 1951 version. The original was a ground-breaking film which has rightly become a classic; the new version merely updates the story for a modern audience. Ignoring the original for the moment and judging the 2008 version on its merits, it is not a bad SF thriller and is painless to watch, although not particularly gripping. Perhaps the worst aspect is the comic-book military action, including one point of detail which particularly jarred with me: someone in the production team was obviously impressed by the name "Sidewinder" since they used Sidewinder missiles to attack the globe on two occasions. In fact, this is a short-range air-to-air missile with a very small warhead, which is just about the least suitable missile in the US inventory for attacking such a target. 

Overall, not a film worth making a point of watching, but bearable. Probably more rewarding to spend the time watching the 1951 original, which although obviously dated is a genuine landmark.


----------



## Triceratops (Dec 29, 2013)

The remake was an absolute disaster in my view. No heart or charm. Lost a certain urgency. This is not to say the the original was flawless, but it did get the point across with a lasting and memorable moral message, unlike, IMO, the remake failed to do. I also think the casting and direction was bobbled.

chris


----------



## George Ian (Jun 11, 2014)

The Day Keanu Reeves Stood Still.


----------



## BAYLOR (Jun 28, 2015)

Keau Reeves is no Michael Rene but I rather like him in the role of Klaatu . As remakes go,(It can never top the original 1951) film this one was pretty good.


----------

