This film has gotten bad reviews from every source. I have read many of them and though I agree with the details, I must say, I liked it. So how can you like a movie with bad supporting acting, plot holes, poor direction, a rocky narrative, and inconsistent CGI effects?

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