comment #1

Movie fan09 says ...

The question is why? Why do such stories have to be depicted with the totally cliched visual sensibilities of a once-great director whose hot wunderkind period peaked 25 years ago?

what?
and actually challenge writers to think and studios to risk losing money?
you're giving these people way too much credit Jeff.

comment #2

actionman says ...

The main question I have with this remake is WHY in general? Why remake one of the best and most important sci-fi films of all-time, even if it is in name only? Greedy Fox execs with zero taste.

The trailer looks dependably average, what you'd expect from someone like Scott Derrickson. The one thing it has going for it is John Hamm, though he'll always be Don Draper in my eyes and it will be distracting seeing him in anything other than Mad Men.

comment #3

actionman says ...

And Wells, I love you, I really do, and I respect your judgement, and look forward to your reviews and musings. But Spielberg should hardly be considered a "once-great" director.

comment #4

drbob says ...

I have always had a problem with the ethics of the original TDTESS. Klaatu comes to earth and threatens that if Earthlings don't give up their warring ways, aliens will come to earth and annihilate everyone. Some peace loving alien that is. The message is essentially "the species with the biggest and best weapons makes the rules." Sounds like today's U.S. foreign policy.

comment #5

Ray says ...

The idea of an alien race landing on Earth and lecturing us probably seemed amazing in the fifties, but such an idea has become passe in the decades since then. I guess that's why they have filled the "remake" with lots of shots of alien ships floating around, causing havoc.

And drbob, you make a good point about the original message of the film. The revised message of this one - stop destroying the Earth, or we will destroy you - makes a bit more sense.

comment #6

Rich S. says ...

Ironically, the one director who has essentially broken from the Spielberg template is....Spielberg, in War of the Worlds. The use of the lightning to place the aliens in the pods was less than successful, though.

The one thing I did like, however, was the war machine's use of the deep bass horn, which sounded almost exactly like the ship in CE3K. Kind of a chilling counterpoint, that.

comment #7

Rich S. says ...

And I believe the point of the original Day the Earth Stood Still, which is made far clearer in the novella, was that the aliens had entrusted law enforcement to dispassionate robots, who would govern fairly and evenly without emotion. It seemed to promote a kind of intergalactic United Nations. Still coercive, of course, but it was not Klaatu's people per se that were doing the coercion.

comment #8

Mark says ...

Draper has a certain look and guarded mannerisims that will enable Hamm to easily become someone else. Keanu, however, is still Neo, and should never be allowed in an Agent Smith suit.

comment #9

actionman says ...

The way Hamm has cut such a convincing portrait of a suit-wearing sociopath, it's gonna be next to impossible for me to see anyone else but Draper when I look at him. I really hope he wins the Emmy.

comment #10

btwnproductions says ...

Casting an unknown (as Michael Rennie was in the original) is a better, more otherworldy choice, but that's not the age we're living in. This looks like an average hardware movie, updated for our go-green era.

comment #11

Pertwillaby says ...

Same old, same old... I mean the movie not Jeff's article.

comment #12

DarthCorleone says ...

I think we discussed this in another thread here on this topic, but just to be fair, the imagery predates both ID4 and CE3K (and the television series V, if you want to include one that really cribbed it). I would credit the beginning of Arthur C. Clarke's Childhood's End as the main influence. (And in that book, the aliens present a similar peace ultimatum.)

comment #13

Mark says ...

An unknown would have been great; like Caviezel in Thin Red LIne. People are going for the effects anyway, and Reeves has really only opened one movie in his career, i.e., Constantine, which had a no longer existing Matrix residue. (Buzz opened Matrix, btw.)

comment #14

Markj74 says ...

The totally wooden and blank acting from Jennifer Connelly and the bland filmmaking tells me everything I want to know about this 'film'.

Saving the money for 'Avatar'.

comment #15

Rev. Slappy says ...

I will parrot what actionman says. I am not that angry with remakes in general. I come from the theater world where revivals of classic plays happen all the time. It keeps them fresh when a new approach to the material is presented and audiences don't always get the chance to see them of stage. But films last forever, If a flawed film with a brilliant concept can be improved upon, I have no problem with that. But what's the point of trying to remake a classic like this? They got it right the first time. This project is doomed to fail.

comment #16

bmcintire says ...

It will fail with critics and fans of the original, but it will make shitloads of cash - so maybe "suck" is the verb you are looking for.
And I would have much preferred John Hamm in the Klaatu role. If anyone looked archetypically cut-from-a-catalog, it's him. Plus, he'd have more screen time and we wouldn't have to suffer through Keanu's interpretation of roboticism.

comment #17

Deathtongue_Groupie says ...

Well, the specific look of the craft is lifted from Carpenter's Starman. It's also nowhere near the scale of the ships in those other movies either.

Agree that the choice of Reeves is suspect, an unknown would make the film works so much better. But then, at Fox with Rothman this was impossible.

comment #18

NDH says ...

I agree with DarthCorleone. Arthur Clarke came up with all of this long before Spielberg. It seems the majority of these "aliens descending upon Earth" movies are just ripping off the beginning of Childhood's End.

comment #19

Richardson says ...

"Why do such stories have to be depicted with the totally cliched visual sensibilities of a once-great director whose hot wunderkind period peaked 25 years ago?"

I want to use this moment of totally cliche Spielberg bashing to point out that Jeff really liked 'Crystal Skull' a lot before everybody else hated it, and then he decided it wasn't good either.

So it's not that he hates Spielberg unreasonably; he only hates good or great Spielberg movies unreasonably. He's a sucker for lousy Spielberg movies (read the above sentence and ask yourself if there's a movie this year that it applies to better than 'Crystal Skull').

comment #20

D.Z. says ...

"Indeed, TDTESS seems to be literally flaunting its Spielbergian-ness."

It's also flaunting blatant Akira homages...

actionman: "But Spielberg should hardly be considered a "once-great" director."

I have no problem applying that label to anyone who shamelessly endorses Bay's Transformers and the non-Darabont Indy 4.

Mark: "People are going for the effects anyway, and Reeves has really only opened one movie in his career, i.e., Constantine,"

You forgot about Speed.

bmc: "It will fail with critics and fans of the original, but it will make shitloads of cash -"

Doubtful-unless it has some action scenes, like I, Robot and I Am Legend. It's still too "slow" for today's audiences.

Richardson: "I want to use this moment of totally cliche Spielberg bashing to point out that Jeff really liked 'Crystal Skull' a lot before everybody else hated it, and then he decided it wasn't good either."

He enjoyed it, but didn't think it was particularly special.

comment #21

BurmaShave says ...

I'm getting major INVASION vibes from this.

comment #22

Richardson says ...

DZ - you don't have to defend Wells. He doesn't defend you when I point out the fact that you're a stupid piece of shit.

comment #23

D.Z. says ...

Richardson: I imagine he doesn't defend me, because he knows I'm mature enough to stand up to myself against petty people on my own.

comment #24

Richardson says ...

I'm surprised; you usually have more trouble distinguishing between your own imagination and facts. is this a step in the right direction, or is it just that even you know that the idea that anybody could possibly have any respect for you at all is pure imagination at best?

Presumably, the second one.

comment #25

D.Z. says ...

Richardson: Yes, I'm so much less respectable than a guy who cruises on entertainment boards to use the comments of someone they don't like against that person.