BS: Why remake this film?

Subject: BS: Why remake this film?
From: Wesley S
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 12:27 PM

Sad to say - the are some movies that Hollywood just can't leave alone. For instence this one:

The Day The Earth Stood Still

With Klaatu played by Keanu Reeves? Oh please!! If ever a movie did need a remake it's this one. Why can't they leave well enough alone. What's next? Citizen Kane?

Subject: RE: BS: Why remake this film?
From: Peace
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 12:32 PM

Not all remakes are an improvement. "War of the Worlds" (the remake) was a disaster, imo. Terrible film, and no, the special effects didn't make up for what was lost in translation from the old to the new.

Subject: RE: BS: Why remake this film?
From: Terry McDonald
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 12:33 PM

didn't?

Subject: RE: BS: Why remake this film?
From: PoppaGator
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 12:37 PM

I hope they at least don't try a shot-for-shot duplication, like some fool did for Psycho a few years ago...

Actually, I can see some good in this. The original film had a positive message, and many of today's younger folks simply will not sit through a black-and-white film, and certainly not a science-fiction film without computer-generated special effects.

A thoughtful remake would bring this story to untold numbers of moviegoers who might otherwise never be aware of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Why remake this film?
From: Muswell Hillbilly
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 12:53 PM

Well, I Am Legend was made mediocre in the remake (the 1954 novel by Richard Matheson is still your best bet) , it appears the same is being done with The Day The Earth Stood Still.

Subject: RE: BS: Why remake this film?
From: Chris Green
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 01:07 PM

KEANU REEVES? Couldn't they have got an actor?! Jesus, I thought things couldn't get any worse after they remade Get Carter with Sylvester Stallone and the Wicker Man with Nicolas Cage!

Subject: RE: BS: Why remake this film?
From: artbrooks
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 01:20 PM

Well, Klaatu is the robot, isn't he?

Subject: RE: BS: Why remake this film?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 01:23 PM

Peace, I think the remake of "War of the Worlds" had some good points and some bad points. Overall, I'd sort of give it about a '5' or possibly a weak '6' out of 10. Dissappointing, in other words, but it had its moments here and there.

I could say the same of the original "War of the Worlds" with Gene Barry in the 50's. As a genuine recreation of the brilliant H.G. Wells story, however...it sucked!

What is the use of Martian machines that are totally frikkin' invulnerable to all forms of modern Earthy weaponry because they have a force field around them? It provides no real suspense, no sense of heroism on the part of the human defenders, no possibility of any awe or wonder...just an endless trail of destruction with no relief whatsoever.

Contrast that with the incredibly moving scenes in Wells' book where the British artillery men manage to destroy one Martian machine in the assault on a town before they are wiped out....or the heartbreaking last stand of the armoured ram "Thunder Child" at the coast which takes down two Martian machines in its last suicidal charge, as it sacrifices itself bravely on behalf of the thousands of people escaping in merchant ships.

That, by God, is high drama...and think of what a scene it would make in a properly made movie.

The "War of the Worlds" has never been done properly as a movie. It needs to be set in the original setting...the 1890's in England...and then you would have a confrontation with real dramatic possibilities. There's no way you can transplant that story into a modern world where we have jet planes and nuclear weapons and make it anything like as moving and magnificent and tragic as Wells' original story was.

We just aren't idealistic enough anymore as a civilization...and our weapons have passed all sense of human proportion, leaving us dwarfed now in their terrible shadows. Our weapons are as evil as the Martians that Wells depicted in his book. There is no nobility left in modern war. There was some nobility still in the 1890s. Think of the stand that a few British troops made at Rorke's Drift, for example, against many thousands of Zulus. That's drama, by God...and the heroism shown on both sides in that battle was just magnificent.

That's what I want to see in a movie, not smart bombs, missiles, nukes, and the other high tech horrors of modern war.

Subject: RE: BS: Why remake this film?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 01:34 PM

Films are like songs, just as an old songs can take on a new life in through the singer, a film can be remade to show some unique visions. Was there any need for Joe Cocker to re-do "With A Little Help From My Friends" when the Beatles original was so iconic?   Cocker made it his own, and the original still survives.

Johnny Depp brought something unique to Willie Wonka and it did not hurt the memory of Gene Wilder's performance in the role.

It is rather unfair,as well as impossible, to judge what Keanu Reeves will do in a film that hasn't even been made yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Why remake this film?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 01:37 PM

Good point. I loved the Davy Crockett character in that recent "Alamo" movie. That was the best Davy Crockett depiction I ever expect to see anyone do.

Subject: RE: BS: Why remake this film?
From: Wesley S
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 01:42 PM

I will attept to reserve judgement until I see more of the actual movie but my initial reaction was negative.

Subject: RE: BS: Why remake this film?
From: jacqui.c
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 02:37 PM

Same here Wesley - the original was my introduction to a life long love of Sci-Fi and I do wonder if, today, it would be possible for a film maker to concentrate on the message contained within the film and not on the possibilities for special effects and high drama.

It will be interesting to see what comes out.

LH - I would love to see a faithful production of War of the Worlds. None of those produced so far come anywhere near the book. I agree with you about the Davy Crockett character as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Why remake this film?
From: fat B****rd
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 03:05 PM

I don't generally like remade films at all. Get Carter being a good case in point. Billy Bob Thornton as Davy Crockett was IMHO excellent. The John Wayne Alamo was fine in it's day but, in the case of the Thornton version, it's a rare example of the remake outclassing the original. Anyome remember The Last Command with Sterling Hayden as Jim Bowie?
As for Psycho! Why? I hate to sound corny but, usually, if it aint broke etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Why remake this film?
From: SINSULL
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 03:16 PM

Are these remakes a sad reflection on the caliber of writers available today or simply the result of greed for some easy money?

I keep waiting for them to start remaking Leave It To Beaver and Bewitched. As if television viewing isn't bad enough.

Subject: RE: BS: Why remake this film?
From: Muswell Hillbilly
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 03:21 PM

There is another book by Richard Matheson that was filmed, to great effect, in 1957, I refer to The Incredible Shrinking Man. I dread the day when some Hollywood hack turns his/her eyes on this one.

Subject: RE: BS: Why remake this film?
From: Wesley S
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 03:21 PM

By the way - the trailer can be seen here:

The Movie Box

Subject: RE: BS: Why remake this film?
From: Becca72
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 03:25 PM

Sins, they already "remade" Bewitched as a movie starring Will Ferrell and Nicole Kidman a handful of years ago...and no, I did not see it.

Subject: RE: BS: Why remake this film?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 05:11 PM

"Are these remakes a sad reflection on the caliber of writers available today or simply the result of greed for some easy money?"

Perhaps we should never see another production of Shakespeare?

It is not a sad relection on the writers - if anything,the better remakes are probably more difficult for the writer than the original.   The writer is trying to find something new in order to "sell" the film to a new audience.   I think "Ocean's 11" took a mediocre film and turned it into a wonderful franchise.

Subject: RE: BS: Why remake this film?
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 05:26 PM

I think that Reeves could play the Klaatu as well or better than Michael Rennie. The Archtype of serious omnipotent being doesn't call for much range. Look at the "Terminator."

Why shouldn't they remake it. They've done "bodysnatchers" twice. And War of the Worlds. By the way Little Hawk, War of the Worlds was remade in the 1990's with virtually every plot point intact, with Nukes and F-18's and heroes just like the original Wells story. It was called ID4 Independence Day. That makes this thread quite timely.

Subject: RE: BS: Why remake this film?
From: GUEST,Lord Batman's Kitchener
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 05:42 PM

The fairly recent 'remake' of War of the Worlds was actually closer to that of the infamous Orson Welles radio broadcast,performed as a Halloween special on October 30, 1938 than the H.G. Wells novel, which has yet to be successfully filmed.

Subject: RE: BS: Why remake this film?
From: GUEST,beachcomber
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 06:39 PM

What about "Treasure Island" that magnificent Adventure tale by R.L.Stevenson ? How many remakes did that film have . I can recall some by picturing the Long John Silver character in my mind's eye. There was Wallace Beery, Robert Newton, Charlton Heston and a TV Series actor who was too small of stature and too goofy looking to inspire any kind of fear in any small boy's heart, much less in that of the intrepid "Young Áwrkins "

Subject: RE: BS: Why remake this film?
From: kendall
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 08:51 PM

The robot's name was "Gort".

Subject: RE: BS: Why remake this film?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 09:24 PM

I think that Independence Day was one of the absolute worst movies I have ever seen in my whole life, Jack. I do not consider it to have much of anything to do with "War of the Worlds".

Subject: RE: BS: Why remake this film?
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 10:02 PM

When I saw Independence Day, when the beam lanced down from the space ship and the White House exploded in a burst of flame and debris, the audience broke into cheers and applause. I wonder what that tells us. . . .

A play by Shakespeare is over when the final curtain falls. A movie exists on durable media and can be played, as is, over and over again. This is not to say that classic movies should not be redone in new versions and interpretations. But beware! For example, even with movies of Shakespeare's plays, compare Lawrence Olivier's dark, brooding 1948 production of Hamlet (appropriately in black-and-white) with Mel Gibson's manic-depressive romp in the same role in 1990 (I think Franco Zeffirelli is a flamin' genius, but he sure blew it that time!).

There are certain movies, and The Day the Earth Stood Still is most certainly one of them, that are classics as is, and any attempts to remake them, notwithstanding sophisticated special effects, produce little more than misshapen shadows on the wall when compared to the original.

The Day the Earth Stood Still is right up there with Casablanca, The Maltese Falcon, both with Humphrey Bogart, The Sea Hawk with Errol Flynn, White Heat with James Cagney, and The Mark of Zorro with Tyrone Power. It's not easy to improve on something that was perfect gem in the first place.

The movie—and television—industries appear to be creatively bankrupt. The apparent inability to come up with good, engaging stories and being reduced to having to recreate classic movies like these shows just how dismally bankrupt they are.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Why remake this film?
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 10:20 PM

I wish them good luck with the new film, but I doubt it will carry the same psychological impact the original did when it was made.

The original film's message was keyed to the nuclear fears of the Cold War era. It addressed a concern that was front-and-center in everyone's consciousness, namely that we seemed to be on the verge of wiping ourselves from the face of the earth.

I daresay nuclear disarmament is not that big an issue for most members of what will be the new version's audience. Maybe they've found some way to work in themes more germane to today's audience. I guess will see when the film comes out, huh?

Subject: RE: BS: Why remake this film?
From: Rapparee
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 10:29 PM

Olivier's "Hamlet"? "Hamlet" wasn't about "a man who couldn't make up his mind"! Hamlet knew danged good and well what he was doing! Sure, he debated suicide, but then many of us have done that. When he fails to kill his Uncle when his Uncle is at prayer ("Now might I do it pat", he says to an unseen Irishman) it's not because he can't make up his mind, but he decides to kill him when he's doing something really sinful so his Uncle's soul will spin down to Hell.

I don't think "Hamlet" or "Macbeth" have either one been well served in the movies -- or anything of Shakespeare, come to think of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Why remake this film?
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 10:31 PM

I shall be waiting with interest to see how they handle this version. It could be something quite special, but I admit to a measure of skepticism, based on many other remakes I've seen.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Why remake this film?
From: Seamus Kennedy
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 11:46 PM

Huh! Next thing you know, someone will attempt to re-make 'King Kong'.
That would suck.

Seamus

Subject: RE: BS: Why remake this film?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 04 Jul 08 - 12:41 AM

Yeah, Seamus, I don't know how anybody could replace Hope Lange in the female lead....

And how 'bout that Get Smart movie?

On the other hand, Chicago was a remake of an earlier, non-musical film that starred Ginger Rogers. I liked the Ginger Rogers movie, but I think the Zellweger/Zeta-Jones remake was wonderful.
Then again, the Broadway musical remake of The Producers was a great success, but the movie of the musical of the movie was a bomb.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Why remake this film?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Jul 08 - 01:06 AM

People cheered in the theatres here too when the White House got atomized in Independence Day. ;-) It seems to touch some kind of common nerve...

Mind you, this is Canada, and our (British) troops actually DID burn the White House down in the War of 1812, so there's already been a precedent set here in that respect.

Subject: RE: BS: Why remake this film?
From: Peace
Date: 04 Jul 08 - 02:57 AM

Well, it was more the British troops wanting to get rid of public buildings in Washington. Baltimore was more important as a place to destroy. With the White House went the Senate building and barracks. T'was nothing personal--just business.

Subject: RE: BS: Why remake this film?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 04 Jul 08 - 04:05 AM

I like cgi special effects (there, I've said it!). My problem with modern movies is that the plots rarely make any sense and have a, "let's not bother about consistency - let's just make it up as we go along" quality. In a sane and rational world you would think that the plotting would be easy (after all there are plenty of examples of successful plotting to emulate) and the cgi would be difficult - but not in Hollywood!

Subject: RE: BS: Why remake this film?
From: Micca
Date: 04 Jul 08 - 04:30 AM

Probably the best film of "Macbeth" is Akira Kurosawa's "Throne of Blood", in atmospheric B&W and really captures the spirit of the Shaakespeare. Speaking of remakes, what about the remake of "Yojimbo" (also Kurosawa) as "A Fist full of Dollars" right down to complete patches of dialogue,

Subject: RE: BS: Why remake this film?
From: Amergin
Date: 04 Jul 08 - 04:54 AM

Don't forget the remake of Kurosawa's Seven Samurai....made into the Magnificent Seven....

Subject: RE: BS: Why remake this film?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 04 Jul 08 - 05:11 AM

Filmic translations are a different beast to remakes; as has been noted such classics as Fistful of Dollars & Magnificent Seven turned first class Japanese Samurai films into first class Westerns. Recently a similar trick was played with an American version of The Ring, which in my opinion, was every bit as good as the original, though both the Japanese and American sequels failed to convince.

In The Day the Earth Stood Still, it is the pompous alien humanoid who is Klaatu; the robot's called Gort. Does anyone actually know what Klaatu Barada Nikto actually meant?

Subject: RE: BS: Why remake this film?
From: Becca72
Date: 04 Jul 08 - 05:52 AM

I actually liked Get Smart. It was much funnier than the TV show. But then, I'm too young to have watched it on TV when it originally aired...

Subject: RE: BS: Why remake this film?
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Jul 08 - 01:53 PM

< thread drift on >

"This is the story of a man who couldn't make up his mind."

That voice-over at the beginning of Olivier's Hamlet makes no sense in relation to the story (and the movie) that follows. In fact, even though that's Olivier doing the voice-over, he doesn't play it that way.

I had a great English Lit. professor who taught Shakespeare. She also took issue with this line (not written by Shakespeare) and wondered what it was doing there. She did say that this was a common interpretation of Hamlet, but she disagreed with it strenuously. She said that when actors try to play it as if Hamlet was really indecisive, it weakens some of the major story elements.

True, Hamlet passed up a couple of opportunities to kill Claudius when he could have, which may make him seem to be waffling, but there is a darned good reason for that. The prof (and for the life of me, I can't remember her name!) said that the real key to Hamlet's hesitancy is found in Act I, scene 1, when the ghost appears. When Hamlet asks, "Are you a spirit of health, or a goblin damned?" this is not just a casual question. There was a common belief at the time that the Devil, or some other evil spirit might appear to someone and try to lead them to commit some unspeakable act (such as killing a king) that would damn their souls to Hell. Hamlet needed to verify that this was, indeed, the ghost of his father and not some "goblin damned." So he acted like he had lost his reason as a cover while he played detective, attempting to determine the facts for himself rather than just taking the ghost's word for it.

And this was the way Lawrence Olivier actually played it, despite the voice-over.

Don Firth

< now back to our regular broadcast >

Subject: RE: BS: Why remake this film?
From: GUEST,Lord Batman's Kitchener
Date: 04 Jul 08 - 01:58 PM

Insane Beard says, Does anyone actually know what Klaatu Barada Nikto actually meant?

I'm wondering if it really matters.

Subject: RE: BS: Why remake this film?
From: GUEST,beachcomber
Date: 04 Jul 08 - 04:07 PM

Oh Good, I take it we are all in agreement then ?

Subject: RE: BS: Why remake this film?
From: kendall
Date: 04 Jul 08 - 07:19 PM

LH, actually, the British didn't burn the White House down. They set fire to it and it did a lot of damage, but a sudden rainstorm put the fire out.
The reason it is white is because it was a good way to cover the damage done by the fire.

Remakes.
As long as they keep their clam clutchers off HIGH NOON

Subject: RE: BS: Why remake this film?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 12:36 AM

Ah. Well, we tried, eh? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Why remake this film?
From: Neil D
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 03:05 AM

Well try again...and try to get it right this time.

Subject: RE: BS: Why remake this film?
From: Dave Roberts
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 03:18 AM

The Lady Killers.

Didn't oughta have done it.

Subject: RE: BS: Why remake this film?
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 03:58 AM

I really liked the 1990s remake of "Sabrina" which was a remake of the 1950s version which starred Audrey Hepburn. The original felt more like a play(which it had been), and the newer version went to town with the Paris( they actually filmed in Paris!) episode which I felt captured the "changes" the Sabrina character experienced more vividly than the original. And, apart from all that, the 1990s version starred Julia Ormond!

Subject: RE: BS: Why remake this film?
From: Amergin
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 04:21 AM

High Noon has already been done....

Subject: RE: BS: Why remake this film?
From: jacqui.c
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 08:00 AM

High Noon has already been done....

When, where and by whom??????????

Enquiring minds need to know.

Subject: RE: BS: Why remake this film?
From: Jeri
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 08:27 AM

Jacqui, there was a TV movie that I don't recall, probably for good reason. There are plans afoot to remake the film.

Hollywood needs an infusion of creativity, along with a good shot of judgment.

Subject: RE: BS: Why remake this film?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 08:30 AM

I wonder when they will remake "Gigli"?

Subject: RE: BS: Why remake this film?
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 08:37 AM

High Noon: Reasons to remake. 1. Colour 2. Gary Cooper was far too old for the part - or, if you like, Grace Kelly was far too young. 3. Surely, the inclusion of the song must now be seen as rather corny.

Subject: RE: BS: Why remake this film?
From: jacqui.c
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 09:25 AM

Thanks Jeri - I would say that Tom Skerrit might possibly be able to make a fist of Will Kane.

The problem with a remake would be that, in order to work, the sum of all the parts would have to be right, as was the case in the original movie. I can never think of that film with having the song running through my head - it was an integral part of what made the film for me. add to that the understated acting of the main characters and the real lack of any over dramatisation and it really is one of my all time favourite movies, along with The Day The Earth Stood Still.

Subject: RE: BS: Why remake this film?
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 09:25 AM

disater remakes: pink panther all time worst.

Subject: RE: BS: Why remake this film?
From: SINSULL
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 11:53 AM

For years I have been hearing about Atlas Shrugged, the movie but so far nothing. Redford is too old to play Galt - too bad.

Subject: RE: BS: Why remake this film?
From: SINSULL
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 11:56 AM

Found this on line and laughed out loud:
Plot Summary:
A powerful railroad executive, Dagny Taggart, struggles to keep her business alive while society is crumbling around her. Based on the 1957 novel by Ayn Rand. | full synopsis (warning! may contain spoilers)

Don't read the book - it may spoil the book for you. LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Why remake this film?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 02:41 PM

I can think of quite a few relatively recent films which would be greatly improved by being remade without the special effect chase and battle scenes.

Subject: RE: BS: Why remake this film?
From: Lord Batman's Kitchener
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 02:48 PM

In the case of 3: 10 to Yuma, without giving too much away, for those who haven't see it, the ending of the remake is a bit different to the original.

Subject: RE: BS: Why remake this film?
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 02:53 PM

>>Redford is too old to play Galt - too bad.<<

Then obviously it falls to Brad Pitt.

Angelina as Dagney?

} :-P

Subject: RE: BS: Why remake this film?
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 03:09 PM

I like the 1939 "definitive" version of "The Four Feathers" . It has been remade three times since then; however, it's come to my attention that at least two silent movie versions were made. I wonder if in 1939, some die-hard movie fans were wondering why they were bothering to make a remake!

Subject: RE: BS: Why remake this film?
From: fat B****rd
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 04:16 PM

I'm still not sure about Manhunter and Red Dragon. Maybe it's best to regard them as TOTALLY different films.

Subject: RE: BS: Why remake this film?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 04:24 PM

The "definitive" version very often isn't the first version.

The moral is that remakes should be only be made of films that didn't quite come off. Plenty of suitable candidates.

Subject: RE: BS: Why remake this film?
From: Lord Batman's Kitchener
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 04:25 PM

I'll say one thing about Manhunter and Red Dragon, in this case I prefer Brian Cox as Hannibal Lecter over Anthony Hopkins.

Subject: RE: BS: Why remake this film?
From: Wesley S
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 03:21 PM

Read it and weap. They plan to remake The Birds

Subject: RE: BS: Why remake this film?
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 04:05 PM

Sometimes making a new version makes sense. Take for instance, "East of Eden". The Kazan film covered only the last third of the Steinbeck novel, and totally changed the character of the father. The TV mini series starring Nick Nolte(?) was able to capture the full scope of the story.

Sometimes movies are remade because thematic elements of the original source were not allowed because of the Code in place at the time. In the reverse of that, the "Maltese Falcon" starring Bogie was made because the original version, Pre-Code, starring Ricardo Cortez, was not allowed to be re-released as some themes were forbidden in the 1940s.

I would like to see "The Man With the Golden Arm" remade truer to the novel, and grittier than the happy, Hollywood ending of the Preminger version...again because of the Code.

Subject: RE: BS: Why remake this film?
From: alanabit
Date: 16 Aug 08 - 03:15 AM

I think what works sometimes is to make a film, which makes references to a previous film, but does not try to remake it. "Bruce Almighty", a passable comedy, makes several references to Capra's "It's A Wonderful Life". However, we were at least spared the potentially pitiful spectacle of Jim Carrey trying to recapture James Stewart's charm and dignity.

Subject: RE: BS: Why remake this film?
From: MAG
Date: 16 Aug 08 - 11:35 AM

One episode of that Miami cop show,set on an island with the bad guys coming in on planes, was an obvious nod to *High Noon.* Also that sci-fi flick version.

*Day the earth stood still* was a childhood epiphany for me; I wish they wouldn't mess with it. I'll wait for the reviews before I decide whether to see it or not.

Subject: RE: BS: Why remake this film?
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 16 Aug 08 - 12:47 PM

We rented "Invasion" not long ago. It is a loose remake of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" which is many ways similar in style and scope of message to "The Day the Earth Stood Still." "Invasion", while copying much of the original plotline and many of the stylistic elements of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" is fundamentally a very different movie. The theme is different, the relationship among the main characters is different (especially the mother/son relationship) and the outcome is very different.

Is "Invasion a classic on the level of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" I would say, certainly not/ But I would say it is a worthwhile film with a worthwhile message.

I just looked at the trailer for Keanu Reeve's "The Day the Earth Stood Still." I'm looking forward to it. Stylistically, it seems as though it will be using the full, modern, Hollywood palate to wring every emotion out of this old story. It seems to have an environmental message. I am looking forward to seeing modern cinematic techniques and sensibilities applied to that classic story and script.

Here is the trailer.

The trailer