The Robert Wise original takes place in the pre-nuclear mccarthian age when paranoia and mistrust is abound. When an alien craft lands in Washington , the navigator/diplomat greets mankind with a message for our leaders whilst he is met with mistrust and apprehension as fear and ignorance mount. Michael Rennie’s portrayal as Klaatu in the original went beyond the capacity of humanity and mirrored our best qualities which eventually through the compassion and understanding of Helen Benson (in the original portrayed by Patricia Neal), succeeded in saving us from mass destruction due to our violent and destructive ways by the ever present pseudo companion/robot Gort. The message was clear: whether it be our force of a violent nature or through arrogant use of technology (nuclear weaponry) it would not be tolerated in the cosmos by other sentient species.

The original version has resonated well over time and the message is still very understandable today. So why make a remake ? Are there no more viable scripts available? Or did someone just want to make a huge blockbuster with CGI that would “blow up a lot of stuff” ?

So I asked myself why, being an admirer of the original. Though the original message is still very clear, something has changed since 1951. I am not talking about the basic social ambitions and cultural milestones of an era, no, I am talking about a feeling. It has risen and taken wing in perhaps the last decade or so, more so in recent years. We are now no longer fearing an unknown enemy or a distant neighbor. We fear our teachers, our friends, our lawmakers, our politicians - in other words the guy right beside us. In a world gone mad with paranoia and criticism we react violently rather than objectively, and in here is the new message for the new generation.

Scott Derricksons retold version is eerily similar to the original and resembles the original with all good intentions - but there are differences, some subtle and others not. The remarkable cast forms a tonal pallette of various hues.

Jennifer Connelly stars as Helen Benson as an astro biologist and a step-mother to Jaden Smith’s character. Her portrayal of Helen provides viewers with the warm rich tones of compassion, frustration, intellect and sincerity. Her performance is not only believable but she makes you want to believe in her (Helen) and to succeed about doing what is right even though she knows it may not succeed. She provides honest hope without mistrust, but with objectivity. I find this performance to be one of the best in her career.

Jaden Smith (son of Will Smith and Jada Pinkett Smith) provides the harsh tones of profound loss, mistrust, defiance and wilful independence. Not easy for any actor. But to do so at a young age is quite startling - so much so that he will defiantly be an actor to watch in forthcoming projects.

Jon Hamm is cast as a “moderator” type character that provides subtle undertones to Jennifer Connelly’s performance. Though portraying a scientist he provides “average guy” response to an extraordinary situation that is essentially for him, a leap of faith. A very big difference from his “Mad Men” character.

Kathy Bates’ character as Secretary of State and representing the President of the United States is both sincere and human, a very difficult portrayal giving the current arena of politics. One can’t help but see very subtle reminders of Gov. Sarah Palin in her performance, though clearly Ms. Bates does provide more depth. Her performance though restricted shows both the anxiety and paranoia that exists today, as well as the fearful knowledge of what might truly happen given the cinematic circumstances, were they to exist. One can’t help but be chilled and horrified at the impending doom with her words “the flood”.

John Cleese as Helen’s mentor provides both magic and whimsy, but most defiantly not in a Monty Python sense, but rather as an intellectual art form. He provides the true and natural curiosity of man, thereby providing the subtle earth tones to the pallette. My only regret is not seeing more of him.

Which brings us finally to Keanu Reeves. Make no mistake, this film is not about Keanu Reeves. His portrayal of Klaatu is the mirror to the pallette of all the other actors. He is portraying the observer, not the player. Even Gort (as a CGI character) can grab your attention faster. And therein lies the point. Mr. Reeve’s performance is so subtle, one can’t help but be drawn into the story and begin to see ourselves through Klaatu’s eyes. And in truth, it ain’t pretty. This for some may be both sinister and cold. However, re-discovering the compelling and complex virtues of humanity gives us hope for the future. One can’t help but wonder how difficult this may have been for Mr Reeves - to literally blank out all emotion in all physically expressive ways, then to imprint or mimic emotions. You can literally see the thought process working as each emotion expressed by the other actors, he absorbs. Though quite often criticized for his performance, Mr. Reeves shows us an alien that is thoughtful, intelligent, and slightly disturbing. Not an easy task at all. This is a riveting performance filled with physical grace (“this body will take some getting used to”) and a thought provoking understanding (“there is another side to you, I can see that now”) of humanity.

Scott Derrickson as a director has taken a classic film and given it new life, new science (bio nanites) and a new message. Every attention is made to give credibility and substance to a film at a time when superficiality and materialism have become the mantra for new generation. We have a choice to make: whether we choose to live in a state of paranoia and conspiracy hiding behind a superficial, disposable society; or, to embrace a new future that harmonizes the balance and respects all species of the planet and each other. Whether it be in 2012(the end of the Mayan calendar), 2046 (the possibility of a strike by the meteor Aphois) or by our own hand make no mistake the clock is ticking. Remember this if nothing else, “If the earth dies you die, if you die the earth survives”. Maybe it is a day to stand still. Someone or something may be listening.

And it's not a 'green' movie, either. I mean, Klaatu is actually eating a tuna sandwich…

But it's no blockbuster material, either. Or at least,doesn't seem like it to me.

It's got beautiful cinematography, though . AND little subversive lines. (And for those who complain this movie has images which remind us of The Sphere, Contact, or Close Encounters of the Third Kind… pop-quiz , what do all these movies have in common ? answer : they hold the mirror at US)

It doesn't preach, it just suggests. It gives us the test paper, but we're the ones who have to connect the dots and find the hidden figure in the drawing… It doesn't have any moralist speech at the end . we're past speeches. "They" have tried to talk with our elected authorities, but all we did in response was to wave our guns. So the message is given at an individual level. And there is where we'll have to look for salvation, in the end. Inside us. The change will start with each and every individual who'll make it.

It has an interesting parallel, too : in both versions, Klaatu learns what it means to be human mostly from the boy. But in the 2008 version, the kid mirrors the "us against them" mentality of the society. " we should kill them anyway, just to make sure" . Thing is, this kid is able to change. How about the rest of us?

As for Reeves' Klaatu… it's been said he's sinister, menacing… he might appear that way. But above all, he's simply… ALIEN. From the very first moment, you get a clear feeling that whatever's watching through those eyes, it's not human.

as for the scene in which Klaatu attempts to drink water... I consider it one of the few which define the movie.

Regina Jackson: My name is Regina Jackson. I'm the Secretary of Defense of the United States of America.
Klaatu: This body will take some getting used to.
Regina Jackson: I've been sent here to determine who or what you represent and what your intentions are.
Klaatu: It feels unreal to me. Alien. It will take time to adapt.

what we've got here is failure to communicate ;)

Yet the film was far from being boring. It was, in fact, highly entertaining, much more than I would have thought. But was it a good film? - no, not really. The script was George-Lucas-prequel-trilogy-bad, and unintentionally hilarious as a result. The phrase 'fun romp' comes to mind. Popcorn flick, though sad to say I didn't have any popcorn. It's the kind of film that gets people to say things like, "It sucked, but I loved it." It probably won't make any top ten film list, but it's rewatchable.

I had seen the original 1951 Robert Wise film prior to watching the remake, thought it okay and pretty good for its time though nothing special, and see this remake as being connected to that in the same way that the prequel Star Wars films are connected to the original trilogy. There are moments when it seems like just another modern day sci-fi blockbuster, and other times when there is that feeling of harking back and paying homage to the original film in a vague but there sort of way that you can't quite pin down. Some part of the original's spirit does survive in the remake, mostly in the general feel of the film. All the same, though, I think it works better as a standalone piece.

People have complained about the pacing, claiming that it was too slow, and I can't see this; I thought the film had near perfect pacing with nary a dull moment. When it comes to pace, my only criticism is of the overly-abrupt and very anti-climatic ending which is nonetheless not that different from the abrupt and anti-climatic ending of the original film. And that TDTESS had slow pacing. To its credit, that helped greatly in building up the atmosphere and overall suspense, but all the same if people think the remake's pacing was slow, wait 'til they see the original.

For me one of the best aspects of the film was the visuals. Director Scott Derrickson was reputedly very concerned about the look of the film especially with regards to the use of colour, and it definitely shows in the final product. There are a lot of beautiful stills in there. At the same time, unlike films such as 1992's Bram Stoker's Dracula, the visuals do not feel jarringly out of place with the overall quality of the film, but complement it pretty well.

When it comes to the CGI, it did not feel overdone at all; it had actually a fairly minimal use of special effects for a contemporary sci-fi, and none of it felt tacky or fake, melding well with the natural components of the set. Productions notes say that the CGI was often used together with 'real' special effects to enhance rather than replace them, and in the final product it is near impossible to differentiate one from the other. Good job there.

Sidenote: There is an unusually high number of '42s' spread throughout the film, almost to the extent that I think it might have been intentional. Just about every instance when a number is mentioned, there's a 42. It's uncanny.

(Which actually brings me to how there was something very Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy about the whole film, partly the 42s, partly the story, partly the John Cleese, though he doesn't have any direct connections to H2G2 apart from being British and looking in constant need of tea.)

On to the acting. That of Keanu Reeves was only what I can describe as strange and can only analyse in point form. So: Was he believable as a non-human? Yep. Did he successfully manage to rid himself of all natural human expression and mannerism? Yep. Was this like previous performances of his? Not really, though he gave off vague Constantine-vibes towards the end. (THERE WAS NO NEO. SERIOUSLY. WHY DID PEOPLE KEEP SAYING THEY SAW NEO IN KLAATU. THERE IS NO NEO THERE AT ALL. ZARK YOU.) Could you see him acting? Sadly, yes, and kind of surprisingly, because this is something that I've always maintained that one cannot see him do in most of his films. This is one of the exceptions, possibly because of the nature of the role. He did fine with the forced blankness, but not as well with the parts where - ironically - it involved Klaatu attempting to act human, or moving excessively such as in the struggle in the tank near the beginning of the film and his attempt to drink water.

This failing-at-being-realistically-human might therefore actually count as a point towards his performance, and it's possible that that's exactly what the filmmakers were aiming for, but somehow it didn't quite work. Overall his performance felt inconsistent at best. It felt fake, but then again it was meant to feel fake, but that doesn't change the fact that it still does feel fake, and that makes my brain hurt.

There were however parts where he did shine, most noticeably in the scene with John Cleese, which was pretty much flawless in terms of performance on the part of both actors. Probably an important point here was that minimal talking was required - as has been pointed out time and again, Keanu is a much better physical actor than verbal one. (Interestingly, in support of this point, most of the acting awards he has received were from foreign countries where his voice was dubbed.)

Some of the problem with my inconsistent suspension of disbelief might admittedly be down to the multitude of articles and interviews on the film that I had been reading and formatting for inclusion on my website, knowing too much about what went on behind-the-scenes to properly appreciate the film as an impartial audience member. So maybe it was just me.

Or maybe I was too busy being amused by the presence of John Cleese to pay proper attention to anything else. This is possibly the only non-comedic role of Cleese's that I have seen, and to his credit, if one was unaware of his other work, one would have been able to take him seriously; the only funny thing he does in this film is to look an amazing lot like John Cleese. That in itself is intrinsically hilarious. Poor guy can't help it though.

Oscar-winner Jennifer Connelly did fine in what was mostly an unchallenging role, one that could have probably been filled competently by a less talented actress. Not much room for stretching here in terms of acting. Critics have described her updated character of Helen Benson as being Mary Sue -like, but I definitely didn't get that feeling at all, and I have (sadly) much exposure to Mary Sues. She felt real and believable enough - human enough in juxtaposition to Keanu's alien performance, and Helen's much greater involvement in this film as compared to the original also worked fine and didn't feel forcefully politically-correct or anything. (Heck, original!Helen felt more of a Mary Sue IMO in a perfect-50s-housewife kind of way.)

This was the second film for Will Smith's and Jada Pinkett-Smith's offspring Jaden, and likewise he pulled it off well, and didn't at all "ruin" the film as people have claimed. If there was anything annoying about his performance, it was just because his character was written that way, and no fault of his. I think much of the criticism stems from people who insist on comparing his character Jacob to the Bobby of the original film, because they are definitely different entities; the former more impulsive and rebellious, weaned on video games and other wonders of the 21st century, the latter the quintessential wide-eyed innocent American 50s boy. I guess it's therefore mostly a question of expectations; people who insist on comparing every aspect of the remake to the original are definitely not going to be happy.

Gort = awesome. Only now he's called GORT and is an acronym for something I forget, which I actually find kind of amusing because in the original short story he's called Gnut and in the 1951 film he's called Gort and in the remake he's now an acronym. It's like a nod to the short story.

Okay, now the re-imagined story, focus of much criticism before and after the film's release. Sure, they shifted the emphasis from the danger of nuclear weapons to the humans-being-mean-to-planet theme, but it did make sense in the context given. Early online criticism kept asking why a bunch of aliens would be concerned about humans and their polluting, seeing as how it wouldn't affect them, unlike the prospect of humans bringing their war-like mentality to the cosmos as in the original film. But in the remake there was an in-film explanation given, and it makes sense - i.e., there are only a tiny precious handful of planets in the universe capable of supporting life, Earth is one of them, and one of its species i.e. humans were killing it, ergo that was bad and had to be stopped. The message didn't feel particularly forced in any way, and I continue to fail to see the controversy over environmental issues that seems so pervasive in American culture.

The product placement didn't feel forced either. I doubt I would have noticed it if people hadn't mentioned it. A McDonald's is a perfectly reasonable place to go. A Honda is a perfectly reasonable car to have. Their presence in the film does not equate "in-your-face" product placement, as an IMDber whined. What do they want - brandless goods? Recognisable brands add verisimilitude, as Stephen King has learnt. Deal with it.

Film editing! Nice surprise, especially after the choppy nature of some of the trailers. The trailers were probably put together by a different person, because the film's editing was very smooth with great transitions from scene to scene; no jarring unexpected cuts out of nowhere, scenes flowing naturally from one to to the other, and it felt like one complete film rather than a bunch of scenes thrown haphazardly together.

6.5/10