Keanu Reeves in the Day the Earth Stood Still.
Courtesy Twentieth-Century Fox

I wrote earlier a preview of the remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still.  You can find that here.  But this is what I said about it:

What quickly comes to mind from the trailer is that the production quality and the effects are off the charts.  Unlike Twilight, at least this movie looks like it was done by professionals.  I am rather pleased with that.  However, whenever a movie is remade, the question I always ask myself is: why?  Don’t get me wrong, it is perfectly legit to remake a film if good material was done poorly.  It has happened before.  Or, good material can suddenly become relevant again which would make appropriate to spotlight it.  But with a movie as iconic as The Day the Earth Stood Still, there had better be a damn good reason for bringing it through again.  One of the problems with classics is that they are done right the first time.  And when good material meets good production, you get the kind of quality that doesn’t happen very often.  It is what makes them, um, classic.  They are both timely and timeless.  They were innovative and provacative when they came out, and they remain so through time.  Casablanca should not, and absolutely could not be re-done.  Neither should this one.  I predict another War of the Worlds.  Lots of money and suspense, but lacking any lasting significance that its predecessor has.

The short answer to whether I was right or not about this film is: YES!  If you have a short attention span, then that’s all you need to know.  Don’t spend any of your hard earned money on this.  Wait for it to show up on cable if you must see it.  For those of you more sophisticated readers, please stay for a greater understanding of exactly why this movie is sub-par.

** Spoiler Alert! If you don’t like key plot elements to be revealed prior to watching the movie, do not read further. **

So let’s start with that first question from my preview, which can be read here.  Why was this film remade?  My answer: I don’t know.  My fear was that this was going to be another Steven Spielberg War of the Worlds.  As I said here.  Unfortunately, it wasn’t quite that good.

The thing is, I love apocalyptic films.  Whether they be near apocalypse or survival of apocalypse, it doesn’t matter.  Generally, I prefer to see the effects and the aftermath more than seeing a “near-miss.”  Or “near-hit,” I can never remember the proper terminology,  but either will do.  There is no greater precipice of drama than the potential death of EVERYTHING!

But the resolution of this situation is delicate indeed.  It requires much more care and consideration that is equal to the size and consequence of the problem.  Small things cannot be overlooked.

If you are familiar with the first movie, there aren’t many real shifts from this one save for technological explanation and filmic production quality.  Klatuu (Keanu Reeves) is an alien ambassador sent to discuss human behavior and the dire consequences of it for their race.  In the first, the focus is nuclear proliferation.  The solution for this problem is obvious: destroy the humans! Really?  Humans are too violent for their own good and so the solution is genocide?  Interesting bit of irony that only superior beings don’t seem to get.

In the new version, the point of contention here is human behavior and its affect on the Earth.  Humans are killing the Earth and the alien confederation is distraught by this.  Earth is a rare life-supporting planet and according to the aliens, it must be preserved at all costs.  So they send Klaatu.

Klaatu arrives and is accidentally shot, taken in for medical care, secured by the military and grows and recovers.  There is more to the whole scientific explanations of how he knows English and can survive in the Earth’s biosphere, but it is sufficient enough and is not really crucial to the plot.

The Secretary of Defense (Kathy Bates) appears for first diplomatic contact with Klaatu and denies him to speak at the United Nations until he gives them more information on what he is doing here.  Klaatu doesn’t answer.  Dr. Helen Benson (Jennifer Connelly) is an astrobiologist who is on an elite government team of scientists charged with information gathering, study, and consultation.

Benson helps Klaatu escape military custody so that he can eventually end up in a McDonald’s to talk to an alien spy, who’s lived on Earth for 70 years, to decide whether or not to destroy the human race.  The aliens go ahead and decide to destroy all humans.  Klaatu then begins the process of destruction.  Benson tags along and tries, not very hard, to talk him out of it.

At this point, I’m lost, because this seems rather rash.  Klaatu points out that he tried to reason with the humans but was denied access to the U.N.  Yeah, he made a real concerted effort there.  Let me sum up the evolution of his decision for you in a time saving exchange.

Klaatu: I want to talk to the world leaders.

SecDef: Not until you tell me that you are not a threat to this planet.

Klaatu: It’s not your planet.

SecDef: Yeah-huh.

Klaatu: Nuh-uh.

SecDef: Well, you’re not talking to them until we know more about what’s going on.

CUT TO: McDonald’s

Klaatu: Should we murder the humans?

Old Chinese Guy Who’s Actually an Alien Spy: Yep, even though I like ‘em a lot, they are retarded and have no hope of changing, despite centuries of evidence to the contrary.

Klaatu: Okay, that’s enough for my decision.  Are you going to eat those fries?

I sincerely wished that I was exaggerating, but I can’t say that I am.  Apparently, such an advanced coalition of alien species who have achieved near light-speed travel, wonders in medical science that are akin to magic to us, indestructable military robots, and nano-technology that would bring scientists to tears, but they can’t spare us energy efficient solutions to our environmental problems?  Nor has any of their scientific research resulted in the ability to clean the environment while we are still living on the planet?  It just doesn’t make sense.

What’s worse is that the aliens are so fickle that they decide they don’t want to kill us after all, but trust we will change.  Any direction in that change to bring about a new era in inter-stellar partnerships?  No.  The situation was so critical that the immediate destruction of humankind was imminent, but all of the sudden, not any more?  I don’t get it.  It is almost as illogical as M. Night Shyamalans’ Signs.  Yes, it is that perplexing.

The acting and production quality are fine.  The flaws in this film exist in the story and lack of real substance.  The pop-culture and filmic significance of the original movie (which is overrated I think) is hijacked for political purposes and ends up doing more harm to the environmental movement than had they left it alone.

Politics and movies rarely mix.  At least The Day After Tomorrow was more fun, despite the eye-rollingly lame political commentary.  Lately the flood of politically bent films and their lack of success would hope to discourage Hollywood from pursuing them, but alas, I don’t believe this will happen.

Perhaps the greatest benefit of the film was seeing the new trailer to Bryan Singer’s and Tom Cruise’s much maligned Valkyrie, which looks like a quality film.  And it showcased the much anticipated Wolverine trailer.  Otherwise, I wished I had stayed home.