All throughout The Day the Earth Stood Still you just know that Keanu Reeves is an emotionless alien and not just for the character he plays, but for his acting.
If there was one movie not worth remaking, it was the original, The Day the Earth Stood Still. It's not that the original was a great movie not to be tinkered with, but that it's message of peace, love and kindness among men can be told in hundreds of ways that something original can be created without rehashing the old. The original is a classic sci-fi film, and it has wonderful sci-fi elements. To update to now means to mash up sci-fi with the CG thriller action idioms that dominate Hollywood movies today. To update to now means to take those precious rhythms of the original story and flatten them to a monotone of contemporary dreariness. To update to now means to make a very forgettable film. The original was not.
In the original, the viewer was active in confronting the need for change. In the latest, the viewer is replaced by the plaintive wail of a character expressing that things can change. In the former, it is left to each one to devise whether change can happen. In the latter, the need for change is just another story moment. It is groveling which hurt the latest. That character seems to whine too much. In the original, we must change because we are confronted with the need to; we the viewer are asked to act. The latest makes us passive, and it makes us fools. No more whining about it.
2 of 5 stars.
If there was one movie not worth remaking, it was the original, The Day the Earth Stood Still. It's not that the original was a great movie not to be tinkered with, but that it's message of peace, love and kindness among men can be told in hundreds of ways that something original can be created without rehashing the old. The original is a classic sci-fi film, and it has wonderful sci-fi elements. To update to now means to mash up sci-fi with the CG thriller action idioms that dominate Hollywood movies today. To update to now means to take those precious rhythms of the original story and flatten them to a monotone of contemporary dreariness. To update to now means to make a very forgettable film. The original was not.
In the original, the viewer was active in confronting the need for change. In the latest, the viewer is replaced by the plaintive wail of a character expressing that things can change. In the former, it is left to each one to devise whether change can happen. In the latter, the need for change is just another story moment. It is groveling which hurt the latest. That character seems to whine too much. In the original, we must change because we are confronted with the need to; we the viewer are asked to act. The latest makes us passive, and it makes us fools. No more whining about it.
2 of 5 stars.
@margeemateo said: