the problem with remaking amazingly good films like the original version of this film is that you’re screwed no matter what you do. if you remake it as closely as possible (as van sant did with psycho) then you’re just wasting energy redoing what has already been done better than you can do. if you alter it drastically (as this one does) then you’re going to get questions about why you screwed with a perfect formula. so the obvious answer is to just stop remaking films that have been done well. you don’t play monday morning quarterback after phil simms goes 21/25 in the superbowl and wins the game. so, how about you asshole writers out there start remaking films that had good ideas, but didn’t execute them well? just a thought.
reeves is no rennie, that’s for sure. he’s cast well enough for some of the (big) changes they made to the character, but he’s still no rennie.
there are several big changes that they made over the original: the ending doesn’t leave with the same ambiguous ending that the original does. sure, our fate is still unknown, but the original film’s ending is almost a question to the audience: what will our future be? in this version the ending is more like a statement: you’re getting a second chance. doesn’t have the same effect, not by a long shot. another big change comes in klatu’s character. in the original he’s much less menacing and far more inquisitive. in this version he’s more destructive and on a mission. it completely changes the dynamic between him and the kid (smith) and the woman (connelly). in this version the kid’s character is written like a spoiled asshole. in the original he’s written like a typical kid who is just curious about this new father-figure in his life. this version had a lot more special effects and explosions than the original and actually says a lot about filmmaking then vs. now.Watched on TV