Klaatu barada nikto

I spent part of the morning reading the new year issue of New Scientist - and, honestly, it's rather depressing. Following the lack of success of the Kyoto protocol, the threat of global warming is now more than merely a threat, and the talks in Poznan are not optimistic. Except for the politicians, of course, who fervently believe that dangerous climate change can be avoided if we stop the average global temperatures rising by 2°C - and that this can be achieved by halving CO₂ emissions by 2050. However, it would be more accurate to say that we need an 80% cut by 2050 - and that still only gives us a 70% chance of avoiding the 2°C rise.

Long story short, after our long and strenuous efforts to kill it, the Earth is beginning to die. Well done.

So, following that kind of morning, it made a curious sort of sense to watch The Day the Earth Stood Still this afternoon. A requel of the infamous 1951 sci-fi film, The Day the Earth Stood Still seems more poignant today than it probably did back then, what with the focus being shifted from nuclear war to environmental damage. Or perhaps not. Think of the phrase "Jesus wept", from the Biblical event of Jesus weeping tears of blood. This is said to be because he could see the future, and see what humanity would do. Children - and adults - have accepted this without question. Before World War I. After World War I. Before the Holocaust and afterwards. As David Sosnowski pointed out in Vamped, isn't it funny how we keep moving the bar on that?

Of course, the original dealt with the space race, and humanity's first ventures into space. It criticised our violent natures, and basically said that we couldn't be trusted to play nice with other races. This film says something similar, only it's more personal. We cannot be trusted to get along with other races on this planet, not on others.

The film focuses on astro-biologist, Dr Helen Benson, played by Jennifer Connelly, her young stepson Jacob (Jaden Smith), and the strange invader, Klaatu (Keanu Reeves), who claims to be a "Friend to the Earth".

...now what could that mean? I wonder.

The film's gripping and absorbing, and yes, suitable for twelve-year-olds. The special effects are fantastic - they're not too flashy or showy, which, after the many years of lasers we've suffered, is a good thing. They're such good quality that, without concentrating, you're unlikely to pay attention to the fact that they are special effects. Good use is made of light - after all, since the audience is sitting in a darkened cinema, blinding them with light is a very dramatic way to bring them into a film where the characters are suffering from the same affliction.

A lot of critics have given this film bad reviews, and I honestly suspect that they were watching a completely different film altogether. The main criticism levied is against the plot, which some say is slow-moving, or against Keanu Reeve's infamous stone-face. Perhaps these critics have seen the original 1951 film, and already had some idea of where the plot was going? Coming to the film fresh, I really enjoyed it. And I also think that Keanu's deadpan was very effective.