?

Log in

No account? Create an account
The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008 remake) - Danny Danger Oz [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008 remake) [Oct. 14th, 2009|09:49 am]
dalekboy
[Tags|, , ]
[mood |annoyedannoyed]

While I don't see the point of most remakes, there are some that I think are better than the originals, like Ocean's Eleven and Little Shop of Horrors, or different but more or less equal to the originals, like The Thing and Cat People.

The local video library has brought back $2 Tuesday, so I thought it was time to check out the remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still.

It's a pointless remake that will be deservedly forgotten within a couple of years, along with the remakes of The Time Machine and The War of the Worlds. It was okay to bearable for the first half, but quickly dissolved into a painful and obvious piece of rubbish by the second. I don't mind the green message, that was an appropriate updating, making the film as relevant to now as the original was to its time. No, it's the characters who are so badly written and by the numbers that they hurt the film. Well that and the need for massive spectacle where subtlety would be far more effective.

Oh, and Gort is crap. They missed the point of what made the original scary. They made their Gort a little bit too humanoid and not quite robotic enough, but mostly I found the lack of the slow reveal of Gort's laser eye meant there was no tension. In the original Gort was impressive enough, but it was when his visor slowly moved aside and one saw the glow beneath, you knew it was bad and had time to wonder how bad it would be.

Oh, and there's lots of CG where there really doesn't need to be. And it's really obvious. What, can't Hollywood afford to hire real helicopters anymore?

This film is exactly why I don't go see major films at the cinema unless I get glowing reports from people. It wasn't worth my time or my money. In fact I originally thought that $2 would be a fair price to see this, but now having seen it, it wasn't even that good.

Don't bother. Hire or buy the original. Yes it's got its flaws, but it was written by people who knew how to write, and made by people who knew how to make films.
linkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: battblush
2009-10-14 05:07 am (UTC)
The general opinion in the Batthouse was "It was a good movie if you changed the last 1/4 and the title."

We enjoyed it as a movie in its own right, but felt it definitely failed to live up to the great standard set by the original.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: dalekboy
2009-10-14 06:04 am (UTC)
Yep, I'd go along with that. I thought it was okay, then the second half it start to crash and burn. And Will Smith's kid is rubbish, though a chunk of that is the crappy material he's given to work with.

It's yet another remake, like The Italian Job, where they completely missed what it was that made the original work. Give the film a different title, and that doesn't matter.

And of course it lacked subtlety. In the original no one is hurt except for Klaatu, but everyone gets given the message, "We have the power to do what we want, so play nice."
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: arcadiagt5
2009-10-14 06:41 am (UTC)
Chuckle.

Don't hold back Danny, tell us what you really think. :)
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: dalekboy
2009-10-14 08:44 am (UTC)
It's not complete arse-gravy, unlike Time Machine.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: hespa
2009-10-14 09:31 am (UTC)
**raises one eyebrow**

...arse-gravy.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: dalekboy
2009-10-14 12:44 pm (UTC)
Hey, if it's good enough for Stephen Fry to use to when describing The Da Vinci Code, it's good enough for me.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: arcadiagt5
2009-10-14 10:52 am (UTC)
Then again maybe that wasn't such a good idea. :)

I do like the new userpic though - and I actually like the two new DW logos a fair bit.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)