Introduction:
What was to be expected:
So this is a 2008 remake of a movie originally made in 1951 - in black and white to boot. You could expect that the movie would use all of the modern conveniences of the filmmaking trade like CG animation for special effects and so forth. So from a cinematography point of view, it was a beautiful movie. There was almost no reason to suspend disbelief or even use your imagination to put yourself into the movie.
***Note to Self*** - Has CG animation made us lazy? Do the special effects people have anything more to do than just surf the net while the computer cooks their effects? I think I need to check the movie "FX" out from the library and watch it again. That was a great movie that showed off the talents of special effects experts back when they had to work without safety nets (or the Internet).
So ludite that I am, I think that something has been lost when the viewer doesn't have to use their imagination. The filmmaker has already done it for us. (Kudos to M. Night Shamalayan however for what he did for us in "Unbreakable", "The Sixth Sense", "Village" and "Signs" - he made us think and he made us terrified, all by using the camera rather than the computer to build a movie)
What was good:
So the original was an "issue" movie. Modern viewers, who don't remember the cold war, and didn't build a fallout shelter or participate in nuclear distaster drills (just like fire drills - only with nukes) may not really get what the point of the movie is about. The new one tries to capitalize on a modern issue - the environment. It would not have worked to use the original premise in a new movie because despite the continued proliferance of nukes in the world, we don't really think about them or fear them --- although maybe we still should.
What was bad:
Keanu Reeves - Okay maybe I'm being too harsh. I've seen too many Keanu Reeves movies. He seems to have two extremes in his acting range (and he can't hit much in between) space cadet "Ted"from "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure", and the somber character that he played in this, the Matrix movies. I can't help but think that he isn't so much acting in his role as Klaatu, as it is the case that the writer and the director have conspired to create a role and a character that Reeves can do without working too hard.
Okay, maybe I'm being too harsh on Reeves. I need to go back and rewatch "Sweet November" again just to see. But I'm thinking that both in that movie and this one his performance works because he is cast opposite excellent actresses (Jennifer Connelly and Charlize Theron). I suspect that they managed to play their rolls in such a way as to contrast with Reeves.
Perhaps Connelly (as the conscience of the human race) made Reeves work out as Klaatu. I suspect that Theron did the same thing for him in "Sweet November" because she managed to make "Mighty Joe Young" work even though Bill Paxton phoned in his performance (emotionally anyway).
What Didn't work:
One thing that I walked out of the movie not getting a good feeling for was, "How are we supposed to feel about environmental issues ?" At some points in the movie it would seem that it is advocating for environmental protection, etc... but unlike the original movie, where the threat of annihilation still hung in the air - either because mankind would eventually push the button and do it, or because Gort and his friends would do it for us to protect the rest of the universe - this version ends with a really weird note.
Klaatu stops the destruction, not because we can fix (or have even started to fix) the problem, but rather because he comes to the realization, through his contact with Jennifer Connelly and John Cleese (in a rare serious role), that the human race is "special" and deserves the chance to prove it.
That ending is quite a change from the "it's not your planet" and "destroy the humans and the earth survives" message from earlier in the film.
I understand why the filmmakers did that. They were out to make a buck, and if they had kept with the hardcore message it would not have played well in the theater.
***Note: I also disagree with the "It's not your planet" and "destroy the humans and the earth survives" idea that hardcore environmentalists espouse. It is our planet. God created it for us -- if you have any question about that read Genesis 1-3 in the Bible.
Is it worth seeing?
Not sure.
If you are like me, and are a fan of the old school sci-fi movies, then yes it is worth seeing so you can see how they have chosen to update it. And comparisons between the old and the new movie will tell a lot about the culture now and from 57 years ago.
If however, you are looking just to be entertained, you might not like it. If you want to watch and emotionally gripping moving about Manhatten being destroyed (that doesn't have an overriding *social message*) try "Cloverfield". If you liked "The Day After Tomorrow" then maybe this one is for you.
~nuff said
