Yet the film was far from being boring. It was, in fact, highly entertaining, much more than I would have thought. But was it a good film? - no, not really. The script was George-Lucas-prequel-trilogy-bad, and unintentionally hilarious as a result. The phrase 'fun romp' comes to mind. Popcorn flick, though sad to say I didn't have any popcorn. It's the kind of film that gets people to say things like, "It sucked, but I loved it." It probably won't make any top ten film list, but it's rewatchable.

I had seen the original 1951 Robert Wise film prior to watching the remake, thought it okay and pretty good for its time though nothing special, and see this remake as being connected to that in the same way that the prequel Star Wars films are connected to the original trilogy. There are moments when it seems like just another modern day sci-fi blockbuster, and other times when there is that feeling of harking back and paying homage to the original film in a vague but there sort of way that you can't quite pin down. Some part of the original's spirit does survive in the remake, mostly in the general feel of the film. All the same, though, I think it works better as a standalone piece.

People have complained about the pacing, claiming that it was too slow, and I can't see this; I thought the film had near perfect pacing with nary a dull moment. When it comes to pace, my only criticism is of the overly-abrupt and very anti-climatic ending which is nonetheless not that different from the abrupt and anti-climatic ending of the original film. And that TDTESS had slow pacing. To its credit, that helped greatly in building up the atmosphere and overall suspense, but all the same if people think the remake's pacing was slow, wait 'til they see the original.

For me one of the best aspects of the film was the visuals. Director Scott Derrickson was reputedly very concerned about the look of the film especially with regards to the use of colour, and it definitely shows in the final product. There are a lot of beautiful stills in there. At the same time, unlike films such as 1992's Bram Stoker's Dracula, the visuals do not feel jarringly out of place with the overall quality of the film, but complement it pretty well.

When it comes to the CGI, it did not feel overdone at all; it had actually a fairly minimal use of special effects for a contemporary sci-fi, and none of it felt tacky or fake, melding well with the natural components of the set. Productions notes say that the CGI was often used together with 'real' special effects to enhance rather than replace them, and in the final product it is near impossible to differentiate one from the other. Good job there.

Sidenote: There is an unusually high number of '42s' spread throughout the film, almost to the extent that I think it might have been intentional. Just about every instance when a number is mentioned, there's a 42. It's uncanny.

(Which actually brings me to how there was something very Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy about the whole film, partly the 42s, partly the story, partly the John Cleese, though he doesn't have any direct connections to H2G2 apart from being British and looking in constant need of tea.)

On to the acting. That of Keanu Reeves was only what I can describe as strange and can only analyse in point form. So: Was he believable as a non-human? Yep. Did he successfully manage to rid himself of all natural human expression and mannerism? Yep. Was this like previous performances of his? Not really, though he gave off vague Constantine-vibes towards the end. (THERE WAS NO NEO. SERIOUSLY. WHY DID PEOPLE KEEP SAYING THEY SAW NEO IN KLAATU. THERE IS NO NEO THERE AT ALL. ZARK YOU.) Could you see him acting? Sadly, yes, and kind of surprisingly, because this is something that I've always maintained that one cannot see him do in most of his films. This is one of the exceptions, possibly because of the nature of the role. He did fine with the forced blankness, but not as well with the parts where - ironically - it involved Klaatu attempting to act human, or moving excessively such as in the struggle in the tank near the beginning of the film and his attempt to drink water.

This failing-at-being-realistically-human might therefore actually count as a point towards his performance, and it's possible that that's exactly what the filmmakers were aiming for, but somehow it didn't quite work. Overall his performance felt inconsistent at best. It felt fake, but then again it was meant to feel fake, but that doesn't change the fact that it still does feel fake, and that makes my brain hurt.

There were however parts where he did shine, most noticeably in the scene with John Cleese, which was pretty much flawless in terms of performance on the part of both actors. Probably an important point here was that minimal talking was required - as has been pointed out time and again, Keanu is a much better physical actor than verbal one. (Interestingly, in support of this point, most of the acting awards he has received were from foreign countries where his voice was dubbed.)

Some of the problem with my inconsistent suspension of disbelief might admittedly be down to the multitude of articles and interviews on the film that I had been reading and formatting for inclusion on my website, knowing too much about what went on behind-the-scenes to properly appreciate the film as an impartial audience member. So maybe it was just me.

Or maybe I was too busy being amused by the presence of John Cleese to pay proper attention to anything else. This is possibly the only non-comedic role of Cleese's that I have seen, and to his credit, if one was unaware of his other work, one would have been able to take him seriously; the only funny thing he does in this film is to look an amazing lot like John Cleese. That in itself is intrinsically hilarious. Poor guy can't help it though.

Oscar-winner Jennifer Connelly did fine in what was mostly an unchallenging role, one that could have probably been filled competently by a less talented actress. Not much room for stretching here in terms of acting. Critics have described her updated character of Helen Benson as being Mary Sue -like, but I definitely didn't get that feeling at all, and I have (sadly) much exposure to Mary Sues. She felt real and believable enough - human enough in juxtaposition to Keanu's alien performance, and Helen's much greater involvement in this film as compared to the original also worked fine and didn't feel forcefully politically-correct or anything. (Heck, original!Helen felt more of a Mary Sue IMO in a perfect-50s-housewife kind of way.)

This was the second film for Will Smith's and Jada Pinkett-Smith's offspring Jaden, and likewise he pulled it off well, and didn't at all "ruin" the film as people have claimed. If there was anything annoying about his performance, it was just because his character was written that way, and no fault of his. I think much of the criticism stems from people who insist on comparing his character Jacob to the Bobby of the original film, because they are definitely different entities; the former more impulsive and rebellious, weaned on video games and other wonders of the 21st century, the latter the quintessential wide-eyed innocent American 50s boy. I guess it's therefore mostly a question of expectations; people who insist on comparing every aspect of the remake to the original are definitely not going to be happy.

Gort = awesome. Only now he's called GORT and is an acronym for something I forget, which I actually find kind of amusing because in the original short story he's called Gnut and in the 1951 film he's called Gort and in the remake he's now an acronym. It's like a nod to the short story.

Okay, now the re-imagined story, focus of much criticism before and after the film's release. Sure, they shifted the emphasis from the danger of nuclear weapons to the humans-being-mean-to-planet theme, but it did make sense in the context given. Early online criticism kept asking why a bunch of aliens would be concerned about humans and their polluting, seeing as how it wouldn't affect them, unlike the prospect of humans bringing their war-like mentality to the cosmos as in the original film. But in the remake there was an in-film explanation given, and it makes sense - i.e., there are only a tiny precious handful of planets in the universe capable of supporting life, Earth is one of them, and one of its species i.e. humans were killing it, ergo that was bad and had to be stopped. The message didn't feel particularly forced in any way, and I continue to fail to see the controversy over environmental issues that seems so pervasive in American culture.

The product placement didn't feel forced either. I doubt I would have noticed it if people hadn't mentioned it. A McDonald's is a perfectly reasonable place to go. A Honda is a perfectly reasonable car to have. Their presence in the film does not equate "in-your-face" product placement, as an IMDber whined. What do they want - brandless goods? Recognisable brands add verisimilitude, as Stephen King has learnt. Deal with it.

Film editing! Nice surprise, especially after the choppy nature of some of the trailers. The trailers were probably put together by a different person, because the film's editing was very smooth with great transitions from scene to scene; no jarring unexpected cuts out of nowhere, scenes flowing naturally from one to to the other, and it felt like one complete film rather than a bunch of scenes thrown haphazardly together.

6.5/10