The day the earth stood still

I saw a lot of people posting about this movie in other threads (I agree with all!!), and I thought that I would make its own thread to warn people who haven't seen it, DON'T!!

Since Vicky has Kiefer's pic as her avatar, I wanted Keanu as mine, but he's not listed! :(:(. Anyway, I saw the movie because of him and I have to say, it's awful and he just doesn't add anything.

The plot is not that bad. It's about aliens that come to earth to destroy mankind before mankind destroys earth. In the 50s humans were despicable because of nuclear war and weapons, now we deserve to die because we don't care for the environment and other species.
But, the movie doesn't really entertain, the actors are not convincing, the special effects are nothing to die for, the "philosophical" turn is not properly developed, and the ending, well, weak. I kept thinking "aliens should kill us soon so I can make me a mate" :rolleyes:.

I was going to go see it the other day, and it's a good thing I checked Rotten Tomatoes' rating first: it's 9% out of 100% which is BEYOND bad!!!

I ended up seeing "Four Christmases" which I think was equally bad, but at least I got to see Tim McGraw (my favorite country singer) playing the brother! :-)

I don't know why producers keep investing in this poor, unimaginative type of science fiction movies. The script was kind of dull for me...

Well, I'm going to play the "devil's advocate" (another very bad movie with Keanu Reeves) this time and say: I was going with the lowest expectations I could have, moved by mere gentlemanliness towards the girl who was coming with me (yes... it was her pick... I thought girls and science fiction didn't get along, but...). Maybe it was that low an expectation what made me not suffer it that much. The movie is poorly directed. We all know that Keanu Reeves (in spite of being such a nice guy) can't act, but not being able to get a convincing performance out of Jennifer Connelly proves the director can't direct. You don't feel anything at any point (and until like... two days after). However, since I find many of the things in this world boring and I feel it is more annoying to complain than to develop a self-defense mechanism, I have learned to catalyze my boredom by trying to understand what lies beneath things. In this case, it was not very difficult.
After a couple of scenes of "not feeling much", it’s easy to take the cerebral road and dedicate to read between the lines: Klaatu is obviously a christic image, sent to earth by a benevolent race (god?) to punish mankind and save the good planet from the “bad humans”. To start with, that sounds very much like those people who think that the government and the people are two separate things, as if politicians grew out of trees. The same applies here: mankind is something independent from the planet, and the planet needs to be cured. Where did mankind come from? The stars? Or even worse: from a divine sphere? But if the aliens decide to impose goodness to the universe by getting rid of the "evil humans", wouldn’t they be contradicting God? (And that’s where you can read our Christian perspective: why does God have to be good? Although, if he's evil, how can an inferior species (like the alien) contradict the decisions of an almighty being?)
Anyways, there are a lot of biblical references in the movies, and I think you can realize the "ark" thing, for example, half an hour before the writers (who didn't trust the audience too much, it seems) make the character of Kathy Bates say out loud that Klaatu is building an ark. It is not difficult either to see in the reference of the kid ("He left", instead of "it" when referring to Klaatu) the conversion of an alien (a god… for some Americans they seem to be the same) into human. But what made me proud was being able to spot the place where they would meet with Jennifer Connelly’s character: the grave of his dead father, an obvious reference to the dead God who imposed a morality by force instead of consensus (as the movie suggests). The kid (black, to show tolerance) is left alone on this earth with a woman to whom he is not related at all, getting along not because of a question of authority, but thanks to consensus. It is something very much in consonance with Derrida’s “coming of the other”.

But there is a dead father figure and a search for a morality imposed by the threat of the wrath of aliens, that is, a transposition of morality from a divine plane to an extra-terrestrial one... doesn't that sound a little like scientology?

Wow Gabriel, what a lot of words!!
Aliens or angels, the movie is boooooring...(unlike the Devil's advocate, that one is good! If it's not money, it's fame...)

Anyway, you got me thinking.
Why would aliens care if they contradict God?
And doesn't the notion of free-will eliminate the possibility of contradicting God? Doesn't God let us do whatever we want, us being aliens or humans?

Vero,

Well, first of all, I want to think we are speaking about a non-human god, a universal one, so the morality of God and his creation would apply to the totality of existence. Hence, if they destroy something God created, wouldn't they be destroying God's work and, therefore, would be contradicting him?
This could be solved with the concept of free-will. But Borges used a very old argument to object a similar idea. (He applied it to Judas' case) If God is good and his creation has a good purpose, how could an evil inferior being do something that opposes God's will, and almighty will? If we agree God created the world with the possibility of letting the lost sheep get lost in nothingness, would that imply he is a nihilist? Or not as good as we think, because he lets one of his sons just vanish?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gabriel

Vero,

Well, first of all, I want to think we are speaking about a non-human god, a universal one, so the morality of God and his creation would apply to the totality of existence. Hence, if they destroy something God created, wouldn't they be destroying God's work and, therefore, would be contradicting him?
This could be solved with the concept of free-will. But Borges used a very old argument to object a similar idea. (He applied it to Judas' case) If God is good and his creation has a good purpose, how could an evil inferior being do something that opposes God's will, and almighty will? If we agree God created the world with the possibility of letting the lost sheep get lost in nothingness, would that imply he is a nihilist? Or not as good as we think, because he lets one of his sons just vanish?

---

I lost you at "Vero"

But I do agree that Borges is great and God is good (sometimes!)

:-D

I'm probably off topic...but I haven't seen the movie, and I probably won't anytime soon... but I'm wondering where you got the idea that girls and science fiction don't get along? I think we get along just fine!! I personally enjoy them! ;0)

I totally agree with fernandar, we get along whenever the plot is persuasive :p

Saludiños,

Bel :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fernandar

I'm probably off topic...but I haven't seen the movie, and I probably won't anytime soon... but I'm wondering where you got the idea that girls and science fiction don't get along? I think we get along just fine!! I personally enjoy them! ;0)

---

Absolutly!!! i love science fiction, but this movie :( ... is bad. I certainly agree with Nadia D when she says that producers should stop investing in this poor, unimaginative type of science fiction movies.

Regards,

I watched this one on a bus coming home from holidays; maybe I wasn't in the right mood for it, but it didn't leave too big an impression on me.

Good or bad, I'll watch any movie that has Jennifer Connelly in it... :D

Cheers!

Ariel