The Day The Earth Stood Still

January 5, 2009 12:08am CST
So I finally got around to watching the 2008 remake of this sci-fi classic and all I can say is: "What a pile of utter rubbish." The story's pathetic. There's absolutely no clear message, just a bunch of namby-pamby "we can change" nonsense that has no basis, even in the story itself. It flounders around, trying to be impressive and dramatic, trying to use occasional scenes from the original. It fails dismally - and not because of the actors, since they're all pretty good. The problem is that the story makes no sense. The whole point of the original was to communicate one vital message. The new version fails utterly and just leaves the viewer with the vague impression that something important was probably in there, but it was never really clear. And as for the Earth standing still - well, for ten seconds in the last minute or so? Where's the message in that? What's the point? What a waste of time and money. The 1950s version was SO much better and - even today - SO much more relevant. Completely disappointed. :(
2 people like this
13 responses
• United States
5 Jan 09
I was wondering about the movie. The previews looked ok, but not something my husband and I wanted to rush out and see (and spend $50.00 for between tickets and concessions!!!). I'm glad I'm getting a chance to read some reviews first. We'll probably save our money and rent the video!
2 people like this
5 Jan 09
Definitely a rental, though personally I wouldn't even spend that much on it.
• Malaysia
6 Jan 09
I totally agree with you, Spike...whatever you are (a lobster?}! Klaatu should have more interaction with human and most importantly fall in love with the beautiful Helen. At least turning into a love story would be much better than pointless.
1 person likes this
6 Jan 09
Oh no! That would have been even worse! Can you imagine just how bad it would have been with a love interest? Ick. I mean, the sugar-coated little kid was bad enough...
@Anchopy (1453)
• Paraguay
6 Jan 09
I think that you are right. What a waste of time and money, Keanu deserves better movies.. He can always make a good performance on almost any money like Matrix and Devil's advocate. Maybe if the story was a little more interesting then people still would love it like the 1950's version
6 Jan 09
Personally, I think they should just have remade it. I mean, it's been around 50 years, so updating the original with new science, new effects and so on would work just fine. But they rewrote it. Badly. If it had been an almost-literal remake of the original, I believe it would have been a bigger hit at the cinema - let alone a better film.
• United States
6 Jan 09
i didnt watch the 2008 one but i did watch the 1950s which was good.Im going rent the 2008 one when it comes out the commercial looks kool but reviews are bad not many remakes are good. Originals are the best for me :) :)
1 person likes this
6 Jan 09
The original was (and still is) a powerful, thought-provoking story. It's still one of my favourite SF films, regardless of the dated effects and so on, simply because it's so good. I fear you will be horribly disappointed by the new one, as was I.
@dawnald (84131)
• Shingle Springs, California
5 Jan 09
The critics were right, huh? I saw the previews, decided that they had taken way too much liberty with the story and decided to pass on it!
1 person likes this
6 Jan 09
They just cut out the names and stuck them onto a script made of entirely new material. The story got thrown away...! :)
@jaredlp (418)
• United States
5 Jan 09
I had a huge issue with them making it completly US based and not world based. It seemed to me the film remakers had an agenda. I also was disapointed in the over flow of the movie, it did seem to lack something.
1 person likes this
6 Jan 09
It's a US film. American mainstream films are nearly always in America, with Americans saving the world. They did have John Cleese in it and a couple of shots of London and other places, but like most Hollywood productions, America is the whole world. ;)
@anniepa (27244)
• United States
5 Jan 09
Wow, I'm glad I read this discussion! I was planning on seeing this movie, maybe even for it to be one of my very rare visits to the theater but now I think I'll wait until it comes out on DVD or maybe even for HBO or some other TV station. I like Keanu Reeves, Jennifer Connelly and Kyle Chandler so it was the cast that made me think it would be worth seeing but probably not worth all the money it would cost me at the cinema...lol! Annie
1 person likes this
6 Jan 09
yeah, I like the actors, too (though not overly keen on Keanu). That's why I wanted to see it. Even decent acting skills couldn't save this mess...
@jesbellaine (4157)
• Philippines
5 Jan 09
Hello There! I just watched it few nights ago in DVD bought by my cousin and I really don’t like the film. I am very disappointed on how they made the film. I mean the title is so good that you feel that it is better than any movie that ever been created about the earth and stuff like that but when I saw the movie, I said “yuck”… not a good movie to watch… a waste of money. My cousin and siblings too were disappointed in this movie… they were expecting like a not boring movie like “the day after tomorrow” or other cool movies similar to what they created. From 1 to 5, I will give it a 2 because of the story itself… the actors are good but the story of the movie s***cks… I don’t recommend this movie! Thanks for the discussion! Happy Mylotting and have a great day ahead! Cheers!
1 person likes this
5 Jan 09
Exactly how I felt about it. If I may make a suggestion, though - watch the original 1950s version. It's much, much better and very relevant even today. There's less eye candy, of course, but it's so incredibly well made and has such a strong script that the relative lack of effects is unimportant. It's still one of the best movies I've seen.
• United States
5 Jan 09
I'm totally disappointed! The trailers looked so impressive. Of course I rarely believe the trailers anymore. They put all the good parts in the trailers and that's all there is. Please tell me the special effects were halfway decent and that Klaatu barada nikto was in there somewhere!
1 person likes this
5 Jan 09
The special effects are very pretty, yes. They have little relevance, to be honest, so they're very much 'window dressing' and that's it. And no - horror of horrors! - nobody gets to say 'Klaatu barada nikto'. Suckage!
@lhenax15 (117)
• Philippines
6 Jan 09
The movie is so boring. I wonder why Reeves accepted that role. I was dismay when i saw this movie on the dvd.
1 person likes this
@max1950 (2313)
• United States
5 Jan 09
well i just saved myself a 20,thanks
1 person likes this
@ElicBxn (60763)
• United States
5 Jan 09
Well, I'm glad I'd already marked that one as a "must miss."
1 person likes this
• India
5 Jan 09
First time in my conscious, I have seen Keanu Reeves in such a pathetic role. No face expressions, no superlative fighting scenes, nothing..... Just an alien try to save.... well I must not reveal the story but I think in alien role Eddie murphy done much better role in MEET DAVE. Lot was expected from Keanu.
1 person likes this