MovieChat Forums > The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951) Discussion > By no means worthy of it's reputation

By no means worthy of it's reputation

posted 14 years ago by pooshhmao
76 replies | jump to latest

Hi,

I recently picked up the double disc box for a few €€'s, I've always had an interest in seeing it (if only to see where 'Klaatu Berada Nikto' came from).
I have no problem with the slow pace of 50's movies, neither do the primitive effects bother me all that much, but this was sci-fi pulp and in my humble opinion by no means worthy of it's reputation.

First off, it's one big HUGE plot-crater. There's just so much to nitpick here - and a LOT of suspension of disbelief is required to see it through to the end.

I understand that people who saw this as a kid have nostalgic feelings for it, but I didn't.

Very overrated.

[–] tedchaynes 12 years ago

It's always important when watching, and especially... reviewing an older film to take into perspective the time frame it was made.. not to mention the tech avail at the time, and how original the story was. Comments have already been made about the world at the time, and the special effects, so let me just add this... there was very little of sci-fi in the movies at the time of this release, and what there was was mostly "Earth VS Fying Saucers" type of stuff... (amazingly, this is the film that REALLY sparked the beginning of that long B-movie streak). But my point is, the philosophy behind the message of the story was so ahead of it's time, that it even took awhile for other writers to catch up. I'm thinking now of Gene Roddenberry and Star Trek.. a little more than a decade later.
Now, of course, if you look around, it's easy to see the influence of the film and it's story, because so many similar movies and shows have been written like it. But this was the first that really took sci-fi seriously, and didn't insult the viewer.
Nowadays, I see so many younger viewers judging these classics by the standards of what they're used to today, which is not only useless and stupid, but also robs the review and the reviewer of any credibility whatsoever. Not saying that's entirely what YOU are doing, but your "By no means worthy of it's reputation" thread title (of course, everybody's entitled to their opinion)... does make it look that way. As most people will tell you, it certainly DOES deserve it's reputation, and much much more. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a classic, now would it? It will also live for many many more decades longer than most of the stuff you could even begin to think of, that comes out today.... and that is NOT opinion... it's a fact!... just sayin'.

The more complex the mind.. the greater the need for the simplicity of play"

[–] WhoToTrust 12 years ago

by leader-7 - One of the best films ever. Forget the genre. Listen to the message.

Agreed. IMO, part of the problem with the genre today is that it more often than not glorifies the exact opposite message of TDTESS. Military/special ops/secret-government-agencies/etc are all-too-often turned to as the FIRST and seemingly ONLY resort for dealing with all problems in the movies of today while diplomacy, common sense, personal responsibility, and/or mature dialogue seems to be given less and less consideration.

My own personal theory regarding the matter is that the big business natures of the national military industrial complex (for lack of a better, less hippie-sounding term ) and the Hollywood blockbuster movie-mill have combined forces simply to produce more up-to-date and flashy armed forces recruiting films (ie: Iron Man, GI Joe, etc) compared to the Ronald Reagan type recruiting films of earlier eras.

But that tactic isn't limited to film-making either, since it also seems a somewhat transparent tactic for the various military branches to show up at local high-schools with things like tricked-out Hummers designed to impress young adult males and get them thinking that they too could potentially end up at the controls of various high-tech gadgetry (and don't even get me started on the predominance of first-person-shooter X-Box/etc military combat games that seem to get pumped out in greater numbers year after year).

In that light, considering the source and not going on the total offensive when listening to replies to suggestions (or reviews to movies from other eras by those who may lack a certain degree of relevant perspective) seems to be another lesson offered by this particular classic. No reason we should ALL behave like juveniles anyway.

[–] richimorton 12 years ago

Shaddap !

That which does not Kill me makes me Stranger

[–] WhoToTrust 12 years ago

by richimorton - Shaddap !

Gee, thanks for adding such an obviously mature and well-thought-out comment to the discussion.

[–] richimorton 12 years ago

mature and well-thought-out comment to the discussion ? The OP ? Shaddap !

That which does not Kill me makes me Stranger

[–] WhoToTrust 12 years ago

My mistake. You've fallen victim to one of my internet message board pet peeves though, not quoting the person you're responding to making it impossible to tell who you are specifically responding to. You just happened to have posted your comment directly after mine in this case.

[–] richimorton 12 years ago

Shaddap lol

That which does not Kill me makes me Stranger

[–] WhoToTrust 12 years ago

http://data.whicdn.com/images/8254362/tumblr_lijf2hFCUp1qb0y2oo1_500_l arge.jpg

[–] richimorton 12 years ago

You're funny - i hope you're a girl lol

That which does not Kill me makes me Stranger

[–] WhoToTrust 12 years ago

What's really funny is that I was hoping the same thing about you.

[–] richimorton 12 years ago

Eeeeeeewwww !

That which does not Kill me makes me Stranger

[–] WhoToTrust 12 years ago

Guess that answers that question.

[–] spc1959 12 years ago

You have to view this film in the context of when it was made in the 1950s
The world was still fighting a major war, communism was the number one enemy of the west and people lived their daily lives in fear of dying in a nuclear attack with Armageddon about to happen every second Tuesday!
This film came out of that world of fear and invasion by godless commies! A snapshot of a dark oppressive time in our history where this film shines as a beacon of sanity in a crazy powder keg world ready to explode!
That's why this film remain an example of great story telling against a apranoid 1950s background regardless of it's flaws!

[–] kbarada 12 years ago

I agree spc1959. Good analysis and comments. This board can be moribund for long periods; it's good to see that there are some folks that still appreciate this film and its message.

With all the talk of at least 2 more nations developing nuclear war capabilities, TDTESS may find new relevance.

[–] manage-932-700755 12 years ago

I think the stars of the movie- Michael Rennie, Patricia Neal, Hugh Marlowe, Sam Jaffe and the kid who played Neal's son were excellent, especially Rennie. It's unusual. Sure you can nitpick if you are looking to criticize. Or perhaps it's a case of agree to disagree. I'm not a science fiction fan, but I've always been drawn to the film. I grew up in the middle and late 50s and so can relate somewhat to the period of the film, although it was slightly before me.

[–] SpiltPersonality 11 years ago

I think that because it's from a simpler time it is hard to take seriously from a new 'first time' viewing.

To me, these kind of movies are simple statements. It doesn't matter about little things like the public being kept away from the space ship by a ribbon tape or Klaatu being held in a simple prison. That's fluff that doesn't really matter.

The story is about an alien coming to earth saying 'if you venture into space with your current warlike tendencies you'll be squashed like a bug... your choice'.

Sure, given a bigger bugdet and CGI they COULD do the story better, but since they tried that with the remake and failed, I think I'd prefer the nostalgic feelings and fill in the gaps with my mind.

SpiltPersonality

[–] westal_sage 10 years ago

If you weren't clearly an idiot, I would attempt to explain the difference between the words "it's" and "its".

[–] DrakeStraw 10 years ago

... the difference between the words "it's" and "its."

At least don't repeat the error in the subject of your reply without some fixing!

_______________________
LinkLikeThis
[link=SeeMarkupEnabled]

[–] muckydog2 10 years ago

Pff...Makes you wonder why some people seem happy to advertise to the world their limited ability and zero imagination.
The modern version was made by that sort.

[–] sasha99 9 years ago

The grammatical error in your thread title undermines and distracts from your point.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]