| Overall Grade: |
A- |
|
| Story: |
A+ |
|
|
| Acting: |
B- |
|
|
| Direction: |
B+ |
|
|
| Visuals: |
A |
|
|
A Top-Down Overview (without major spoilers)
by Adam (movies profile)
Dec 12, 2008
192
of
261 people found this review helpful
Firstly, the negatives! The film, I felt, lacked a more clear resolution as to the future of humanity under the eye of the alien races. Somewhat not enough attention was given to developing of the greater picture, especially given the global message which the film carries. The film is not really character driven, but action driven. Consequently, the socio-political plot, which can serve as reinforcement in such scenarios, are weak if not missing.
Another forefront problem, no less significant, is Jaden Smith who, putting is bluntly, needs to work on his acting.
Secondly, the positives, topping of the list of which, is the brilliant storyline. This film is adapted from a 1951 classic, and a good portion of credit here has got to go to the original; although, the rewrite is definitely attention-worthy. The topic is very timely, and possibly even more representative of the dangers, which the human civilization has cooked up for itself. The director does a very good job of creating a sense of imminent danger, all the more because the film exposes not only the physical threat to the human existence but the underlying egocentrism and self-adulation, in which the Western civilization is saturated.
Furthermore, from the purely sci-fi perspective, the ultra-advanced technology of the aliens is well imagined and in match with the sort of advancements one would have to possess to freely travel about the galaxy. The film creates a powerful, intense image of the technological chasm which exists between earth and the extra-terrestrials. In this sense, the film is true science-fiction.
Having read some of the negative reviews of the film, the central message which the film carries was only reinforced in my mind (yes, I actually feel that the film has an even more valid underlying message after I read some of the ignorance posted regarding its alleged plot shortcomings). Consequently, I feel obliged to comment about the critics of the film as well.
Note, no, this film is neither a replica nor an attempt at replicating its 1951 predecessor. If you were hoping to see the same film with the same directing, same lines, same actors, and same popcorn, so you can relive your childhood memories, then I recommend dusting the old copy off your shelf and popping it in your video player. Alternately, if that fails, you may resort to hypnosis. This sort of close-mindedness that fossilizes on an original work and refuses anything new to be invented or said on the topic is exactly why our 21st century planet is operating based on ideas that were laid down by people in the Bronze Age…and the results are self-evident!
And while on the topic of critics, I wish to comment about Roger Ebert’s review for the Chicago Sun Times (see link via Yahoo’s Critics Reviews). Ebert spews out a boring, dull, rambling C-class article accusing the film of being just that. If you believe that Ebert’s article is nothing but a sleep-inducing assembly of words, then give The Day the Earth Stood Still a fair chance. Go see it! |
My Public Profile 
