About the 90 minute mark or so, I was thinking to myself that at least some of the negative/mixed reviews for The Day the Earth Stood Still must stem as much from an (arguably understandable) overly-reverential appreciation for the original as it did from any faults of the new movie. 1951's The Day the Earth Stood Still is, of course a classic piece of 50's sci-fi. But it's not Citizen Kane, so a contemporary update doesn't seem out of the question.
This is not to say I hadn't already recognized issues with the remake. The military 'shoot first and ask questions later' single/simple-mindedness for instance, while true to the original, is an antique SF trope that I would love to see retired. (All the while acknowledging that the past 8 years of our current foreign policy and military stance doesn't exactly fill me with confidence that we've really any more evolved than that 1950's mentality would indicate.)
And don't even get me started on Connelly's "We can do better!" defense. That's got the emotional weight of a damp kleenex, but they kept hitting it like that's supposed to convince this advanced alien intelligence we're worth saving? (Or maybe it was the Bach, right?) Now, John Cleese's character actually made the argument work, but as soon he was off-screen, we were back to petulant 'it's just not fair! whining.
But I could deal with that. I was going along for the ride, enjoying the geekiness of the grey goo approach to cleansing humanity from the globe, doing my best to ignore the idiot military plot… and then the movie ended.
No, I'm not going to complain about yet another 'we're going to leave the ending up to you' movie. I think I can accept the kind of ending we got. Rather, my reaction was more, "Really? That's the best you've got?" After 100+ minutes of 'we've gotta pay for our sins', I really was expecting something a little… less anticlimactic? Maybe I mean a little more climactic? Whatever the case, the movie just laid down and died. Cut, roll credits, that's a wrap. (Not that I have any particularly insightful "well you could have done THIS" suggestions. I just know there had to be something better.)
SPOILER ALERT
Ok, I really thought I could get by without actually talking about the ending, but the more I think about it, the more I can't just let it go.
About that 90 minute mark, I was thinking to myself, 'but what about the title? They haven't MADE the Earth stand still yet." Of course, the moment I start wondering this we GET the whole Earth standing still thing, which led me to my rather bemused reaction. "So THAT'S what he meant when he said we'd have to change our way of life… NOW I get it!" Yeah, right.
Let's face it, not only did Klaatu not do us any real favors by effectively reverting us to stone age culture, but he's not even taking any real risks. His ships have already gathered their samples of terrestrial life. If we don't survive our cultural reboot, his people can just repopulate the Earth from their arks and everything's works out according to the original plan.
And while I'm asking questions here… did he rewrite physics in the process of this great reboot? If he stopped all the destructive facets of our wasteful, polluting way of life from working, then what the hell is our next step? Does fire still work? How are our bodies still operating? How GOOD is he, that he can stop gasoline and fuel driven machinery from working, but doesn't put an end to any of the other chemical/physical processes that keep life possible? Klaatu's getting pretty godlike now.
I held off on going back and watching the original till after I had seen the remake, since I didn't want it to suffer by comparison. Now I think I have to go back and see it to clear the bad memories of yet another pointless remake. (I hear they're working on a remake of Forbidden Planet now. Gee, I can hardly wait! *sigh*)
This is not to say I hadn't already recognized issues with the remake. The military 'shoot first and ask questions later' single/simple-mindedness for instance, while true to the original, is an antique SF trope that I would love to see retired. (All the while acknowledging that the past 8 years of our current foreign policy and military stance doesn't exactly fill me with confidence that we've really any more evolved than that 1950's mentality would indicate.)
And don't even get me started on Connelly's "We can do better!" defense. That's got the emotional weight of a damp kleenex, but they kept hitting it like that's supposed to convince this advanced alien intelligence we're worth saving? (Or maybe it was the Bach, right?) Now, John Cleese's character actually made the argument work, but as soon he was off-screen, we were back to petulant 'it's just not fair! whining.
But I could deal with that. I was going along for the ride, enjoying the geekiness of the grey goo approach to cleansing humanity from the globe, doing my best to ignore the idiot military plot… and then the movie ended.
No, I'm not going to complain about yet another 'we're going to leave the ending up to you' movie. I think I can accept the kind of ending we got. Rather, my reaction was more, "Really? That's the best you've got?" After 100+ minutes of 'we've gotta pay for our sins', I really was expecting something a little… less anticlimactic? Maybe I mean a little more climactic? Whatever the case, the movie just laid down and died. Cut, roll credits, that's a wrap. (Not that I have any particularly insightful "well you could have done THIS" suggestions. I just know there had to be something better.)
SPOILER ALERT
Ok, I really thought I could get by without actually talking about the ending, but the more I think about it, the more I can't just let it go.
About that 90 minute mark, I was thinking to myself, 'but what about the title? They haven't MADE the Earth stand still yet." Of course, the moment I start wondering this we GET the whole Earth standing still thing, which led me to my rather bemused reaction. "So THAT'S what he meant when he said we'd have to change our way of life… NOW I get it!" Yeah, right.
Let's face it, not only did Klaatu not do us any real favors by effectively reverting us to stone age culture, but he's not even taking any real risks. His ships have already gathered their samples of terrestrial life. If we don't survive our cultural reboot, his people can just repopulate the Earth from their arks and everything's works out according to the original plan.
And while I'm asking questions here… did he rewrite physics in the process of this great reboot? If he stopped all the destructive facets of our wasteful, polluting way of life from working, then what the hell is our next step? Does fire still work? How are our bodies still operating? How GOOD is he, that he can stop gasoline and fuel driven machinery from working, but doesn't put an end to any of the other chemical/physical processes that keep life possible? Klaatu's getting pretty godlike now.
I held off on going back and watching the original till after I had seen the remake, since I didn't want it to suffer by comparison. Now I think I have to go back and see it to clear the bad memories of yet another pointless remake. (I hear they're working on a remake of Forbidden Planet now. Gee, I can hardly wait! *sigh*)
Comments
The problem with these horrible remakes is that they're so bad, you eventually spend part of the film comparing them to the original - which makes it suck even more.
BTW, there is a rumor that "Forbidden Planet" will be done by James Cameron. Cameron doing The Tempest in sci-fi?? That has potential.
Yep, that pretty much sums 'em up, doesn't it?
But "Forbidden Planet" by James Cameron? Ok, you've piqued my interest.