Is Keanu's New Eco-Disaster Flick Afraid To Mention 'Global Warming'?
Keanu Reeves’s new movie, The Day The Earth Stood Still, bows tomorrow — and early reviews, while unfavorable in general to the plot, are criticizing the flick’s wishy washy message. Unlike the original 1951 version, which carried a strong anti-nuclear stance, this updated remake is attempting to be an environmental movie without actually admitting as such. Here’s one reviewer’s take from Cinemablend:
“We don’t get the answer to any of those questions, or even the simple notion of what it is we’re doing, exactly, that’s destroying the earth. Though the obvious answer is “rampant consumerism and environmental ignorance,” the prominent product placement from McDonald’s, LG, Microsoft and others apparently ruled that answer out. The original 1951 film carried a timely anti-nuclear message, but this film wouldn’t dare offend anyone by even mentioning the phrase “global warming.” When Helen argues at the end that humans can change, and are worth sparing, there’s no notion of what it is we’d change if given the chance. Maybe Klaatu knows better after all.”
Those product placements are rather hilarious/sad considering the message. Still, the preaching is toned down — which to another reviewer makes the film bearable:
“The tossed-off quality of this central moral (stave off annihilation by treating the planet right, knuckleheads!) at least minimizes the preaching, perhaps the only way in which this new Day trumps its creakily sermonizing predecessor.”
But isn’t the point of remaking a movie such as this to bring a strong message to the table? An updated message? Apparently Fox sees dollar signs and explosions as a better alternative, something Cinemablend noted creates a flick that “is only about half the film it could have been, had anyone making it had balls to match their budget.”