Print Page | Close Window

Whoah, Dude...They’re Gonna Blow Up WHAT?

Printed From: Official RAZZIE® Forum
Category: FORUMS on 29th ANNUAL RAZZIE® NOMINEES
Forum Name: THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL
Forum Discription: Nominated for WORST PREQUEL, REMAKE, RIP-OFF or SEQUEL
URL: http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2986
Printed Date: October 25 2014 at 5:07am


Topic: Whoah, Dude...They’re Gonna Blow Up WHAT?
Posted By: HeadRAZZBerry
Subject: Whoah, Dude...They’re Gonna Blow Up WHAT?
Date Posted: August 04 2008 at 3:55am

THE ORIGINAL 1951 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0043456/ - STILL RANKS AS ONE of the CLASSIEST SCI-FI MOVIES of ALL TIME.  THIS BIG-BUDGET, OVERBLOWN REMAKE...NOT SO MUCH.

ON FIRST IMPRESSION, YOU MIGHT THINK CASTING "STOIC" (READ "STONE-FACED")  http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Keanu+Reeves&btnG=Search+Razzies.com&domains=razzies.com&sitesearch=razzies.com - as a COLD, EMOTIONLESS ALIEN IS BORDERLINE BRILLIANT. BUT THEN YOU REMEMBER REEVES' http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000206/awards - : HE's an 8-TIME "NON-WINNER," and YOU REALIZE: THAT WHOLE STOIC/STONE-FACED THING ISN'T ACTING, IT's an INABILITY to ACT... 

THEN YOU LOOK at the http://www.dtessmovie.com/ - and REALIZE, IN THIS VERSION, THE EARTH DOESN'T STAND STILL -- IT BLOWS UP REAL GOOD. 

AND THEN YOU LOOK at the http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0970416/fullcredits#cast - and NOTICE THAT, FEATURING FADED FORMER OSCAR DARLINGS, IT LOOKS SUSPICIOUSLY LIKE a GROUP CONVENED by http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000740/ - in a BURNING BUILDING (OR an UPSIDE DOWN OCEAN-LINER) ALL the BETTER to DIE ONE-by-ONE...

AND AT THAT POINT, IF YOU'RE a TRUE MOVIE-LOVER, YOU SHOULD DECIDE to RENT the 1951 ORIGINAL from NETFLIX, and TELL THIS GOD-AWFUL REMAKE to GET the GORT OUTTA HERE...

BUT DON'T LET US BE the ONLY SPOKESPEOPLE for the HUMAN SPECIES -- TAKE YOUR TURN BELOW...  

REEVES: "No, really, it's okay! You don't have to bend 

over backwards to be bad so I'll look less awful myself..."  




-------------
Ye Olde Head RAZZberry



Replies:
Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: August 04 2008 at 9:52am

It's not bad enough that major studios can't come up with any original ideas; now they have to reach back and trash their own classics. Thank goodness nobody in Hollywood ever bought Secretariat. They'd have turned him into a pony ride.

The original The Day the Earth Stood Still had its flaws, including a somewhat morally ambigious message from the alien visitors (If you don't clean up your violent ways, we are going to wipe you off the planet????) But it was one of the first movies to really ask hard questions about the new moral issues associated with the dawn of the nuclear age. Some things are best left to own their unique place in cinematic history unfettered.

I saw the trailer for this a couple weeks ago when I saw The Dark Knight. At first I had no idea it was the remake. When I found out what it was, I was appalled.



-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: August 04 2008 at 11:56am

I have a challenge for Hollywood: I will give my entire life's savings that I have now and (whatever I make for the rest of my life) to any studio that can go an entire year making only original movies. No adaptations, no sequels, no remakes, no rip-offs.

My guess is that my money is more than safe.



-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: August 04 2008 at 2:42pm

The actual quote was, "It is no concern of ours how you run your own planet, but if you threaten to extend your violence, this Earth of yours will be reduced to a burned-out cinder."  As drawn out and cumbersome as the original movie was, this one single line made the whole movie worth it.  It's a great line.

I can't imagine Keanu Reeves pulling it off.

As for your bet, Michaels, I'm guessing you don't have enough money to make the studios even notice, and it's a sad shame, too.

 



Posted By: thomsonmg2000
Date Posted: August 05 2008 at 12:18pm
When I first saw the trailer, I wondered "really? with Keanu Reeves in a remake of a classic?"

Another reason to get worried: the director's, Scott Derrickson, previous works are rather iffy (Hellraiser 5, The Exorcism of Emily Rose)


-------------
Seltzerberg is back?

OH MY GOOOOOOOOOOD!!!!!!!

http://www.disastermovie.org
http://www.vampiressuck.org/


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: August 05 2008 at 3:11pm

Here is Keanu's version of this film's most important line:  

"Whoa! Dudes, like, no big deal how you, like, run your planet and stuff. But Dudes, if you, like, still make with all the violence and stuff, this Earth of yours is, like, totally going to get all burnt up and stuff...Whoa!"  

As for my bet/offer, remakes like this are proof Hollywood is willing to make money no matter what it takes...and no matter how small of a return they get... 



-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: August 06 2008 at 1:51pm

Thanks...I really wasn't attempting to offer a quotation, just to provide the flavor of the implied threat. It is a bit of a logical eyebrow raiser.



-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: August 06 2008 at 5:44pm
Just think, if that happened in real life, you'd probably have been summoned with the rest of the scientists.  Personally, I found the assumption that scientists are somehow bastions of objectivity, devoid of politics, the perfect messengers to recieve Klaatu's message, to be amusing.  Or, to put it another way, I was saying to myself, "We're doomed. . . ."  You tell me. . . .


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: August 07 2008 at 10:35pm

I can testify without qualification that the world's body of scientists are neither bastions of objectivity (we are after all, only human) nor devoid of politics (a field we almost universally find distasteful, but have to spend a great deal of time pandering to for funding reasons).

On the other hand, taken as a whole, it is a body of people far more worthy of receiving a message from aliens than either the world's political, business or religious leaders. The aliens might well have to hold their nose (or equivalent organ) while making the choice, but it won't be a close vote.



-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: August 08 2008 at 2:11am

You do have a valid point, . . .

. . . but we're still doomed. . . .

 



Posted By: Movie Man
Date Posted: August 08 2008 at 5:05am
Whoa, cool. I might see this one.

Never saw the original, but might take it up to compare how this film stacks.


Posted By: BrassKnuckle
Date Posted: August 10 2008 at 6:32pm
I think the only real crime is not casting Bruce Campbell as Klaatu. I mean if you're gonna make something suck, you might as well make it an entertaining, cult-worthy suck.




-------------
Jurassic Park was the most expensive B-rated Movie ever made - Me


Posted By: movieman
Date Posted: August 21 2008 at 11:44am
What about Street Kings? That was pretty bad, I doubt this could be
worse than that one.


Posted By: Nasty Man
Date Posted: December 07 2008 at 2:06am

This movie is the perfect example of what Billy Wilder said in one of my all time favroite Hollywood quotes: "Why do they keep re-making the ones we got right, that they can't improve on? Why don't they re-make the ones we screwed up?!?" 

(Okay, I was paraphrasing Wilder there, but you get the idea!)



-------------
Everything SUX!


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: December 07 2008 at 4:26am

Originally posted by Nasty Man

This movie is the perfect example of what Billy Wilder said in one of my all time favorite Hollywood quotes: "Why do they keep re-making the ones we got right, that they can't improve on? Why don't they re-make the ones we screwed up?!?"  (Okay, I was paraphrasing Wilder there, but you get the idea!)

Because the real reasoning behind Hollywood remaking classics is to remake the MONEY that the original made. Sure, Hollywood could do the noble thing like remaking Razzie winning movies so they are actually good, but what would the point of that be? Those movies didn't make money in the first place. Nope, Hollywood is not out to be noble, it's out to make big bucks. 



Posted By: MiguelAntilsu
Date Posted: December 07 2008 at 4:48am
The anticipation is probably high enough to brush these arguments aside.  This film IS nominated for a few Sattelite Awards by the way.  There are people that would Nominate this for Worst Remake or Sequel, but it has small chances with Disaster Movie and Meet the Spartans in the mix.  If there was a category for Worst Remake of a Classic, this would win out.  If there was a category for Worst Science-Fiction Film, it may have to contend with Star Wars: The Clone Wars.  Hopefully, "Mr. IknowKungFu" Keanu Reeves doesn't use that teenage character he had in The Matrix in this film or he would lock up that fifth spot for Worst Actor (and Christensen would get left out).


Posted By: movieman
Date Posted: December 07 2008 at 5:21am

Here's something to show the immense anticipation leading up to this one. No doubt it will be a hit (no matter what we say):

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/polls/?page=viewpoll&id=932%20&p=.htm - http://www.boxofficemojo.com/polls/?page=viewpoll&id=932 %20&p=.htm    



-------------


Posted By: MiguelAntilsu
Date Posted: December 07 2008 at 7:41am
Now that's something we haven't seen in quite a while.


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: December 07 2008 at 4:05pm
No doubt the studio suits are laughing all the way to the bank. They know "TDTESS" has a loyal fan following that will see this movie no matter what. Problem is, will word of mouth destory the movie the very next day after it opens in theaters?


Posted By: moat
Date Posted: December 08 2008 at 11:34am
Those are some really perceptive points made in the opening post. The earth does appear to be turned into a canvas for scifi explosions, and the original film was far from the special effects showpiece this new version appears to be. The ensemble cast only further lends itself to formula film-making.

In other words, the original has been turned into a disaster film.

Or so the trailer indicates. I can forgive Keanu Reeves being cast, but if the movie turns out to be an Irwin Allenesque product as is suggested by the previews, it's beyond redemption.

Oh well.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: December 08 2008 at 2:08pm
This film looks good. I'll definately be seeing it this weekend.


Posted By: RoadDogXVIII
Date Posted: December 08 2008 at 5:14pm
Originally posted by moviewizguy

This film looks good. I'll definately be seeing it this weekend.


I might have to agree. Given, I haven't seen the original classic, but the trailer - for this one - indicates that this could be really good. Keanu Reeves and Jennifer Connelly have some good scenes, the special effects are good and, opening up against the lukewarm Nothing Like the Holidays, it should easily make some bucks.

Of course, the only red flag is that reviews didn't come in.


-------------
You think you know, but you have no idea.


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: December 09 2008 at 3:19am

Well, video games are full of great looking CGI effects. If the main thing in a movie that appeals to you are the CGI effects, you might as well rent a video game and play it over the weekend instead. At least that form of media gets away with having weak plots and characters, because no one plays them for those aspects, they just want something that is fun and looks cool. 

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: And don't forget (quoting SCTV's Estes Brothers' Farm Film Report) something that "blows up real good!" 



-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: RoadDogXVIII
Date Posted: December 09 2008 at 8:45am
I just saw the running time: 1 hour, 32 minutes. Officially won't see it. And I was looking forward to it.

You're right, Michaels. Special effects don't make a movie appealling.


-------------
You think you know, but you have no idea.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: December 09 2008 at 12:17pm

Well, I'm obviously entertained by movies with CGI, and I'm not afraid to admit it. I just love CGI, and I really don't agree with people who say CGI sucks. I only think CGI sucks if it looks mediocre, like it's being used on television shows.



-------------


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: December 09 2008 at 11:33pm

CGI can look great, but I'm not paying $10 just to see that. I can wait, and pay for $3.99 rental price to see it on DVD. 



-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: Swamp Thing
Date Posted: December 11 2008 at 10:08am
Originally posted by saturnwatcher

The original The Day the Earth Stood Still had its flaws, including a somewhat morally ambigious message from the alien visitors (If you don't clean up your violent ways, we are going to wipe you off the planet????)

The surprise at the end of the original- which few seem to understand- was that a race of robot policemen was given absolute power over the humans in Klaatu's solar system, and they did not tolerate aggression. The people of Earth were risking obliteration if they threatened to extend their violence into the robot's realm. There was nothing at all said like, "Stop fighting among yourselves"- as previously mentioned, Klaatu actually stated, "It is no concern of ours how you run your own planet"!!!!





Posted By: MiguelAntilsu
Date Posted: December 11 2008 at 3:27pm

I have come across a minor drawback in this Razzie campaign.  This film is nominated for two Satellite Awards (one for visual effects and the other for sound).  If this movie wins either one of these Satellite Awards this weekend, then this could put the campaign into a small predicament.  Oddly enough, it's running against the same films.



Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: December 11 2008 at 5:06pm

Seeing as how we are in the "serious awards" season, the Gloden Globes will no doubt steal any thunder from any minor award show at this time. Even if the movie does win a Satellite award, it will not be on par with the serious awards. I mean, when was the last time you saw the tagline "The Satellite Award Winning ..."? Such credit is given only to Golden Globe, Emmy, Oscar, or major Film Festival award winners. Heck, even Starz ran ads for "I Know How Killed Me" as the "winner of eight Razzies." And a Saturn win would only reward the visual effects or sound, and not any other aspects of the movie.



-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: jasonjones3
Date Posted: December 12 2008 at 3:31am

I too wanted to see the new one until I learned they changed the plot to be about global warming. How corny and contrived can you get? Oh well, they managed to ruin War Of The Worlds so I shouldn't be surprised...

I guess a creature that traveled light years across the universe can't just give us technology to save the earth, he has to use it to kill humans. This is logicaly flawed...



-------------


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: December 12 2008 at 5:04pm
Originally posted by Swamp Thing

The surprise at the end of the original- which few seem to understand- was that a race of robot policemen was given absolute power over the humans in Klaatu's solar system, and they did not tolerate aggression. The people of Earth were risking obliteration if they threatened to extend their violence into the robot's realm. There was nothing at all said like, "Stop fighting among yourselves"- as previously mentioned, Klaatu actually stated, "It is no concern of ours how you run your own planet"!!!!



Me thinks you are giving the masses too little credit there, Swamp Thing. Nonetheless, you miss my point by miles. Yes, most of us were quite aware that the Robot policemen were in charge and were intolerant of violence, yet their solution to preventing its spread was to commit an even greater and more general act of violence when lesser measures would likely have sufficed (a lesson still unlearned even in our age, as witnessed by the overseas adventurism of our current President and his coherts.)

And you are correct, jasonjones3. Perhaps the only redeeming virtue of the modern version is that they managed to stumble over the same logical flaw. BTW, welcome to the board, both of you.



-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: December 12 2008 at 5:16pm
Originally posted by MiguelAntilsu

I have come across a minor drawback in this Razzie campaign.  This film is nominated for two Satellite Awards (one for visual effects and the other for sound).  If this movie wins either one of these Satellite Awards this weekend, then this could put the campaign into a small predicament.  Oddly enough, it's running against the same films.

The Satellite Awards are probably the least respected among the plethora of plaudits handed out this time of year. The sponsoring organization is the International Press Academy, and they have come up with some curious choices in the past, to put it mildly.

It is worthy of note that one of their more prestigious honors is named after Nikola Tesla, a scientist whose occasional brilliance was deeply overshadowed by the fact that he was also a first class crackpot.

Incidentally, the IPA is an organization open to anyone who is a fulltime journalist. In other words, you are eligible to join (and vote for the Satellite Awards) if you make your living writing obituaries for some struggling rag in Hoboken. As close as I have been able to determine, actually seeing any of the films nominated by the organization is not prequisite to casting a vote. So a considerable number of the votes cast annually are probably recorded by people whose cinematic expertise probably doesn't extend much beyond Bugs Bunny cartoons. Two technical awards from this organization isn't a ringing endorsement of, well, anything.

For the record, I wasn't aware that there was any active "campaign" for this movie within the membership...merely a discussion, and one that doesn't seem to be provoking a whole lot of interest. As ever, overstatement is your forte, Miguel.



-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: December 13 2008 at 7:36am

WTF?! That makes NO sense! "The humans are killing their planet with their greenhouse gases. Shall we give them the technology to repair the hole in the O-Zone?" "No, let's just kill them all instead. It doesn't matter as long as the planet is still there". "Wait, why do we care what happens on that planet?" "I don't know, ask the studio heads."

Originally posted by jasonjones3

I too wanted to see the new one until I learned they changed the plot to be about global warming. How corny and contrived can you get? Oh well, they managed to ruin War Of The Worlds so I shouldn't be surprised...

I guess a creature that traveled light years across the universe can't just give us technology to save the earth, he has to use it to kill humans. This is logicaly flawed...

 



-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: movieman
Date Posted: December 13 2008 at 8:47am
I just saw it last night; indeed it cannot compare with the original, nothing remarkable at all here, and as for Keanu Reeves, as far as being an emotionless alien, he delivers on all of what (little) is required of him,  and when you look at Max Payne and Babylon AD, this was nowhere near as painful to sit through as those movies.


Posted By: MiguelAntilsu
Date Posted: December 13 2008 at 12:00pm

In a case like this, Klaatu basically tested the humans so that he can assess whether they can prevent the environmental damage that they have inflicted upon their planet.  What I want to know is where you got the impression that they were going to make the film like a sequel to "An Inconvenient Truth".  Global warming is not humans damaging the earth, it's the earth damaging itself.  I will investigate this movie tomorrow and see if these global warming rumors are true.



Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: December 13 2008 at 3:34pm
A representative of an alien race that went through drastic evolution to survive its own climate change, Klaatu, comes to Earth. Is it here to save the humans from an impending attack on the Earth? Is he here to destroy the humans or the Earth? Or is he here for some other bizarre reason?

Judging from the trailers, commercials, posters, an other publicity advertisements, one can assume this remake of an original classic is updated with more action sequences, filled with special effects throughout the film. 20th Century Fox do seem to push the movie off as a heavy sci-fi, action flick. That's a bad thing because there aren't many action scenes. There are like three scenes total, and they don't even run that long. This could possibly disappoint some audience members, although I'm not trying to say people are seeing this film for the action. It's like "I Am Legend." There's more dialog than action, which many won't expect. No, I haven't seen the original so I cannot compare. However, I can say right now I downright enjoyed the movie from beginning to end because of the fact, and I'm not afraid to admit it, that it's an environmental movie.

Does this fact seem to shock you? Were you really surprised that this movie was about global warming and us humans destroying the planet? If you just found out this is another "environmental movie" just like 50% of the movies released this year (exaggeration in effect), like "Wall-E," "The Happening," and "Quantum of Solace," and you don't like that it's another "preachy" movie that's "trying to convince us to change for the better good," well, don't see it. It's simple as that. I guess I love environmental movies because I love the message these films seem to try to get off. The message in this remake is, in my opinion, pitch-perfect and executed in a way that, I don't know, might convince some people to "go green." I might seem to sound like a crazy environmentalist right now but I'm not trying to.

Getting away from the message, the film supports itself really well and grasped my attention from the beginning to the end because it's all so very interesting, although it may borrow heavily from other sci-fi films. I just find it different from the norm, as a whole, from other sci-fi films. There's barely any action scenes in here, like I said earlier, that you're surprised the movie is more about the characters with dialog than mindless action itself. Keanu Reeves plays well as the emotion-less alien being, although some might joke it's "the perfect role for him." Jennifer Connelly also does a very good job in here. She's a very underrated actress. Everyone else, even Jaden Smith, also give us a good performance.

Overall, the movie is not an action film although everything shown may show otherwise. The special effects was very good. I'm not complaining at all that this is another environmental movie. I can see 500 more films of the same message and still not complain. If you sound like a person like me, which I highly doubt anyone would be this crazy about saving the Earth, you should give this movie a chance. If you're, however, the complete opposite and think recent films released these past years were too preachy and dumb, don't watch it. 8/10


Posted By: MiguelAntilsu
Date Posted: December 13 2008 at 3:51pm
They didn't say "action" in the description.


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: December 14 2008 at 1:59am
Usually, I would rip apart moviewizguy for defending a movie that's up consideration just for the sake of defending it, but I'm in a good mood this morning. That, and no doubt this movie can't be as bad as a movie with no redeeming factors to it at all, like say "Disaster Movie". Clearly the SFX will win movie goers over, as they usually do, at least during the first opening week and then the movie goers move on to the next SFX driven movie. This role is ideal for Keanu Reeves and his emotionless, monotone voice is put to perfect use. Yes, Jennifer Connelly is underrated, she gets little respect for being so beautiful. Still, the whole global warming thing is stupid. Why do the aliens care what happens to earth? Why couldn't the movie stick to the anti-war message of the original? Let's just see it like it is, a "joyride" (a common phrase used by critics to describe a SFX driven movie) with some good intentions, but in the end is pail to the original. Yes, it'll be somewhere on the Razzie Ballot, but not as often as "Disaster Movie".


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: December 14 2008 at 4:38am

Those of us who grew up under the spectre of mass nuclear annihilation by the enormous stockpiles of the super-powers had little trouble understanding the underlying message of the original. I'm not sure that would play anymore. The insanity of massive nuclear exchange became evident with the Global Warming studies and the U.S.S.R. disappeared from the planet.

 Evidently, the makers of this film felt that some trigger would be necessary that speaks to the concerns of the modern young film goers. I'm not defending their manipulation of the plot, but in a sense, they are probably right.



-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: December 14 2008 at 4:51am

Originally posted by Michaels

Usually, I would rip apart moviewizguy for defending a movie that's up consideration just for the sake of defending it, but I'm in a good mood this morning. That, and no doubt this movie can't be as bad as a movie with no redeeming factors to it at all, like say "Disaster Movie". Clearly the SFX will win movie goers over, as they usually do, at least during the first opening week and then the movie goers move on to the next SFX driven movie. This role is ideal for Keanu Reeves and his emotionless, monotone voice is put to perfect use. Yes, Jennifer Connelly is underrated, she gets little respect for being so beautiful. Still, the whole global warming thing is stupid. Why do the aliens care what happens to earth? Why couldn't the movie stick to the anti-war message of the original? Let's just see it like it is, a "joyride" (a common phrase used by critics to describe a SFX driven movie) with some good intentions, but in the end is pail to the original. Yes, it'll be somewhere on the Razzie Ballot, but not as often as "Disaster Movie".

Well, I tried to not think that. Actually, I really didn't think of that until someone who complained about the movie said that. Possibly a plot hole (about why aliens would care about Earth). I guess they're good people after all? I mean, they want to live on Earth.



Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: December 14 2008 at 5:05am

Well the plot holes gets bigger once again when you mention maybe the aliens want to live on Earth...but to do so, they have to kill all humans first. Again, that makes no sense. In that case, they wouldn't be a peaceful race, but more like the aliens from "Independence Day." 

And I think after the events of 9/11 (and the war with Iraq) the anti-war sentiment is still alive and well today. I mean, with the exception of the late 90s, America is ALWAYS taking part in some kind of war, in one form or another, and is always worrying who their "enemies" are.



-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: December 14 2008 at 11:29am

"The Invasion" already showed us that. We don't need another alien invasion movie with the same message.



-------------


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: December 14 2008 at 1:24pm

I think H-Wood has made enough alien invasion movies as is. Perhaps they should try more oceanic based sci-fi, like "The Abyss" or "SeaQuest." 

 



-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: movieluver
Date Posted: January 15 2009 at 7:39pm
THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL is no independce day nor war of the
worlds, yet it wasn't a tradgedy. bland and dull it was, with nothing special
about it and a bad Jennifer connelly. all and all, it was entertaining, earning a
7/10 from me

-------------
once a movie lover, always a movie lover


Posted By: tdickensheets
Date Posted: February 24 2009 at 4:00pm

"Band over a couch!!!"

 



-------------
Thomas Dickensheets


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: August 22 2010 at 3:50pm
I gave this 3/10. 

How could Keanu Reeves ruin a role that was meant for him (no facial expressions)? Jennifer Connelly was pretty dull, too.  

The effects are cool, but the script is as lazy as it can be. At what point does KLAATU say the reason he decides humans should live? JACOB fears him, but then he switches completely because he saves him (it sounds like it makes sense, but anyone who has had any life experience like that knows it doesn't make sense)! MICHAEL died and HELEN doesn't care? And who is James Hong's character? And what is the meaning of the beginning?


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: August 23 2010 at 2:55pm
I added it to my "Bad movies with good directing" list.


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 23 2010 at 8:56pm
Originally posted by Vits

I gave this 3/10. 

How could Keanu Reeves ruin a role that was meant for him (no facial expressions)? Jennifer Connelly was pretty dull, too.  

The effects are cool, but the script is as lazy as it can be. At what point does KLAATU say the reason he decides humans should live? JACOB fears him, but then he switches completely because he saves him (it sounds like it makes sense, but anyone who has had any life experience like that knows it doesn't make sense)! MICHAEL died and HELEN doesn't care? And who is James Hong's character? And what is the meaning of the beginning?
And these are all reasons why the movie sucked big time. 3 out of 10 is being very generous, considering this movie was epic fail in terms of characters, acting, and story.

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: September 17 2010 at 4:56pm
I gave 7/10 to the original one.

-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: Grounder the Critic
Date Posted: November 19 2010 at 12:39pm
I love the original from the '50s. I didn't like the 2008 one. I thought it was a screw you to the original. I mean Keanu Reeves did better in Speed, The Matrix, and the Bill and Ted movies.

-------------
Pictures move, do they?


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: May 04 2011 at 6:41pm
I'm re-watching this, waiting for South Park to start. I couldn't help but notice that the locust-thingies ate through some trees. The aliens are supposed to be saving the environment and their "helpers" are destroying it! Also, Jaden Smith should have gotten a Razzie.

-------------
I'm the Goddamn Batman.-All-Star Batman And Robin #2
https://twitter.com/Scott_DAgostino
Upcoming reviews: http://www.razzies.com/forum/topic7513.html



Print Page | Close Window