But if you do like horror movies and you are not squeamish, this movie has a lot to offer. Tom Six managed to come up with a unique concept while displaying a love and knowledge of horror movie cliches. There was meaning and social commentary tucked throughout, despite what many critics and reviewers say. I get why you wouldn’t like this film if horror isn’t your genre, but I don’t understand the hundreds of comments I read from people claiming to be horror movie lovers who not only could not find anything redeeming in this film, but were totally offended. Of these, far too many made the comparison between this film and Saw, claiming that the two movies are similar but Saw is good and this one is bad.

WTF? I have no idea where this is coming from, and it wasn’t just one or two, there were dozens if not hundreds. I can only resolve the conflict in my mind by concluding that these people aren’t actually horror film lovers, but horror lovers. The Human Centipede was disturbing, but it was a skillful piece of storytelling. The cinematography, the writing, and the pacing all came together to shock and awe in a masterful way. Saw? I just didn’t see what others saw in that movie. It was far more disturbing, grotesque, and tactless.

And here is a link to another, this one may sound familiar. Many humans I know would not be able to figure this one out. I guess that is why it is a fable, we can actually learn something from the birds.

The performances were unbelievable. I wish that this film had gotten more international attention as it is, in my opinion, one of Mr. Ledger’s best. Every other element of the film was excellent as well from the pacing to the writing. 

I recommend it to anyone, for it was such a deep story that anyone could find something to relate to. But I must warn you, it isn’t for the surface dwelling film watcher. It will tear your heart out.

Cherry tomatoes- from sprouts
Early girl tomatoes- from small plants
Serrano chilies- from sprouts
Basil-from sprouts
Onion- from small sprouts
Garlic- from sprouted cloves
Ruby red chard- seeds
Rainbow chard- seeds
Sassy salad- seeds
Cilantro- seeds

And some pictures:

Left half of the garden

Early Girls

Early Girl in the garden

Above and beyond all this, there were two additional cards this film brought to the table that truly set it apart in my eyes. The first is that curious and uncommon devise of the characters directly addressing the audience. The second, found in the formal elements as well as the story itself, is the illumination of the beauty of androgyny. 

When that fourth wall is broken down at just the right moment it can be a truly exhilarating experience. Sometimes it is comical, as in the old merrie melodies cartoons. Brecht used it to invoke creative thought towards his work from the audience. Along these lines, it can be quite frightening as seen in Funny Games (another truly brilliant film by the way). But when Orlando addresses the audience we are pulled into her world (for simplicity’s sake I will use the pronoun her, although for the first half of the film Orlando is a he). We become her secret friend, while at the same time breaking the voyeuristic relationship present in most mainstream cinema. We are not simply watching, looking at her mind and body without her consent, she is showing us. As a feminist and a female filmmaker (a rare breed indeed), I find this relationship very refreshing, beautiful, and profound.

The focus on the beauty of androgyny is omnipresent in the film. It extends further than the character of Orlando. We are living in a society where there is no leg room for gender roles. You are masculine or you are feminine, an in-between state cannot exist, let alone be beautiful. A man cannot show up for work in a dress, a woman cannot be considered heterosexual with a shaved head. And I speak from the perspective of a Californian, to many other states that means crazy liberal. This film however, embraces the exploration and movement between gender, and sex for that matter. 

Three cheers for this film!

It all comes down to expectations.

Admit it, the 1951 version, although said to be a classic, was also not that great. The concept was intriguing and fun but the script and the style weren’t anything to write home about. I suppose those elements provoke a remake but adding Keanu to the mix screams, “don’t get your hopes up!” Now don’t get me wrong, he was perfect in The Matrix and a very compelling pseudo-philosophic stoner as Ted, but I dare someone to stand up and say that his resume is consistently good. But now I see Hollywood’s divine plan for him, he was born to play Klaatu. He displays no silly earthling emotions, delivers lines as if he barely understands the words coming out of his mouth, and holds himself with such an awkward posture that there is no need to suspend your disbelief.

When I heard that the updated version would swap warring for environmental destruction, I knew that it would be corny, and I had already canonized it in the SciFi-SuperDisaster-BySupernaturalMeans-ButActuallyHumansAreTheVillains genre. (There are more of these than you think, perhaps a future blog post will outline them, stay tuned). When it turned out less corny than I imagined, there was only room to be pleasantly surprised.

What it all comes down to is that I thought it was fun to watch, and ultimately, I recommend it.

IMDBcomments: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0970416/#comment

RottenTomatoes: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/day_the_earth_stood_still/

NYT: http://movies.nytimes.com/2008/12/12/movies/12stil.html?scp=2&sq=the%20day%20the%20earth%20stood%20still&st=cse

Ebert’sReview: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081210/REVIEWS/812109993/1001