I haven't seen the original from the 1950s, so I can't say how it compares. I knew nothing of the story beforehand, because I avoided all previews. This is easy to accomplish since I never turn on my TV, nor have the ability to receive signals. I have found movies to be more enjoyable if I walk in cold, with no knowledge of what's going to happen. Most of the reviews are negative (which I read after watching the movie), but those were probably written by people that saturate themselves with visual media, so mostly anything will be unimpressive, as they do little else other than watch TV screens.

I learned two things while in the theater:

1. Never go to St. Louis Mills (relatively new shopping mall in my area) again. This is the second time that raucous teenagers carried on amongst themselves as if hardcore porn was displayed on the screen. I don't know what they were talking about, but it was enough to get every other person to walk out and seek security. One guy got up and told them to be quiet and they told him to shut up. I'm glad that man didn't have a gun - it could have damaged my hearing.

2. I need to see the original.

Although there were significant disturbances during the movie, which included puerile patrons and technological troubles (the speaker system occasionally turned off), I still enjoyed it.

I saw this yesterday at the Mall of America.  It was showing at the VIP theater there, which doesn't allow anyone under 21.  It costs a little more to go to that theater, but it was well worth it to avoid the raucous teenagers you were exposed to.

As for the movie itself, I really didn't enjoy it.  I felt like the whole story could have been done in 30-45 minutes, and the ending didn't make a lot of sense.]They kept asking him what they needed to do to change, and he wouldn't tell them.  He said there would be a price to their race, but as far as I can tell, it was a price that was not paid.  He just called off the attack, but didn't tell them how they needed to change.  Anyway, I really haven't liked very many movies in the past couple years, so it's not much of a surprise.  The only movie in recent memory that I enjoyed was Role Models.

According to Wikipedia, the price paid was..... "all of Earth's technology becoming useless." 

I've yet to see the film, but I am interested to see WETA's special effects work in this one.  How were they, at least?

I saw this last night... I'm surprised that Al Gore wasn't the executive producer.

Funny!
Maybe Gore will be in charge of the sequel, "An Inconvenient Day for the Earth to Stand Still".

I've only seen the original, and it is a classic. Here's a review I read about the remake:

"If you’re looking for chuckles this holiday season, bypass the miserably unfunny “Four Christmases” and go where the real comedy is — “The Day the Earth Stood Still,” a clumsy, moronic remake of Robert Wise’s brilliant 1951 classic about an alien invader trying to save the human race from its own self-destructive impulses...The new “Day” can’t be bothered to include the thought-provoking dialogue of the original, choosing instead to bury the audience with special effects that are visually impressive but no substitute for an actual script. And what words do remain are so exquisitely awful that they provide some of the season’s biggest laughs..."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28166691/

cheers,

-avatar!

Jodo, you're a sci-first fan and haven't seen the original?! I hope the remake won't have destroyed all point in watching it. You should see it at some point though. Regardless of the quality of the remake, it would likely be a good idea to get some distance before watching the original.

Oh, it's an environmental/anti-technology stint?

The trailers make me want to see it, but the whole premise behind the movie? Sounds meh. It's possible to be environmentally conscious without giving up the conveniences of modern living.

This sounds along the lines of the remake of War of the Worlds some 2-3 years ago. Granted, that was awesome, and there wasn't really any condemning presence behind it...rather, it was that humanity needed to work together to expel the alien threat. The destruction that the film portrayed, and the breakdown of human civility, was EPIC. Good times. Okay, War of the Worlds is better than what this sounds like.

I think the only thing that makes me want to see it is Keanu Reeves. He's Keanu Reeves. I mean, he's awesome (damn, I keep getting those two words mixed up...!)

I watched the remake because I wanted to see some cool visuals, and that is what I got. I read so much science fiction that this one has been pushed aside for years. I never even knew who wrote the short story until a few minutes ago - Harry Bates. The story is called Farewell to the Master. In fact, I've never even heard of him, despite all the sci-fi I've read.

  New movies, like Transformers are not made to awe people with creative storytelling, but to awe people with visuals. I know this, but it's taken a long time to accept. Science fiction movies are rarely thought provoking these days, unlike those of the past, such as Forbidden Planet. One of the ultimate story driven movies is Solaris, the original Russian version, of course.

  I watched the remake of War of the Worlds (with Tom Cruise) before watching the original, and that had no deleterious effects on my enjoyment of the original version. (I still need to read the real original by H.G. Wells, though.) As a further example, I liked all 3 versions of The Time Machine. The novel from 1895 is better than both movies, and the 1960s movie is better than the remake. There is still a lot of material by Wells that I haven't read, although those are his most popular.

  Rather than trying to change reality, it is often easier to accept it. If a movie is based on a short story or a novel, then read the original material - that's the story. If a movie was made a long time ago, which I shall arbitrarily assign prior to 1980 as a long time ago, then it is likely to be better than any extant remakes, which are usually made after 1980. This is true in many instances, most notably (in my opinion) with The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. If a movie is known to be a remake and was released after 1990 or so, when computers started to replace actors, then it is to be watched for visuals. For example, the remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still has amazing special effects and would be cool in any event, story or not. I was very intrigued by the story, though, due to my lack of familiarity with it. It was my first exposure. It may seem inane after to exposure to the original and the real original by Harry Bates, but the movie will always be cool because of the visuals.

I've seen the original once or twice, but was pretty young at the time, so it didn't quite make sense way back then.

2nd viewing was a few years ago, and while some parts seemed really "dated/quaint" it's still an interesting flick, so yeah people should check it out.   

While I don't expect the sequel to have much in common, I'm interested in it and will regard it as a "new movie" rather than a remake.

"Klaatu. .. Verada. .. Necktie...Nectar...Nickel...It's an "N" word, it's definitely an "N" word"!

The extended five-minute trailer was enough to turn me off on this one.  I don't mind Keanu (and certainly don't mind Jennifer Connelly!) but when the preview is that dull and full of cliche in both the dialog and the visuals, I shudder to think of sitting through the full feature.

Will probably check it out when it hits video though

I watched the 1951 version of The Day the Earth Stood Still and the viewing caused me to revise my thinking.

The 1951 version is the interpretation of Robert Wise, who did not write the story but based it on a story written in 1940 by Harry Bates.
The 2008 version is the interpretation of Scott Derrickson, who did not write the story but based it on the 1940 story and the 1951 interpretation.

Thus, the 1951 version is not an original, but an interpretation of original material. The 2008 version is not a remake but a different interpretation.

I have yet to read the original version, so my opinion might change. Both the 1951 and 2008 interpretations differed from one another, although neither story was inane. The main difference between the interpretations deals with the German notion of Zeitgeist. It would hardly make any sense if Derrickson had used the storyline from the 1951 interpretation because we are no longer in a Cold War with the Soviet Union. Rather, Derrickson used a contemporary issue (global warming) to explain the arrival of the alien. I would recommend watching both interpretations, one after the other, if possible. It makes comparisons easier, as not everything you watch in a movie goes into long term storage.

Klaatu..Berada..Nikto  (watched it last night)

Right, you watched "it", but you didn't watch what I quoted above

cheers,

-avatar!