my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film Handlers' Movie Reviews   » Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow (Page 2)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Author Topic: Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow Wayne Keyser Master Film Handler Posts: 272 From: Arlington, Virginia, USA Registered: May 2004 posted 09-19-2004 10:48 PM                     This (like LOST SKELETON OF CADAVRA) is a movie I'm gonna want to own (if my family can plague me with crap DVDs like THE BISHOP'S WIFE and [God in heaven!] THE WHOLE NINE YARDS, I can have aSCHLOCK and MAU MAU SEX SEX and a couple more 'just for me') Why? Because, giant robots and all, these were the comic books I bought as a kid in the 1950s, before "illustrated novels' and before dreadful Sat Morning Hanna-Barbera shows took kid entertainment to hell. Want a good analogy to SKY CAPTAIN? Think of the Fleischer SUPERMAN cartoons.  |  IP: Logged Manny Knowles "What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???" Posts: 4247 From: Bloomington, IN, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 09-20-2004 12:05 AM                     No basis in reality -- or plausibility, for that matter -- so why bother setting in it in a real place AND during a time IN THE PAST? Suspension of disbelief is one thing but we know perfectly well that this stuff did not happen. Not even a chance. There's just no getting around that fact. So I'm forced to stop and ask "with all the other place/time choices available, why did the storyteller(s) choose New York City around 1939? Was something in particular going on in New York at that time which somehow informs this story?" The answer is "no." The most likely explanation is that they wanted to capture a certain look/feel of the 1930s serials, but that begs a few questions: 1. Which aspects of this particular look/feel make it the best choice for this story? 2. Does the success/failure of this story depend upon evoking this look/feel? 3. Why are so many digital effects required to duplicate a 60 year-old aesthetic? [As a side note, I think this movie (and many others nowadays) should come with the following statement at the head of R-1: "This movie has been modified from its original format. It has been converted to film."] In this case, the heavy-duty "stylization" worked against the movie. Nothing looked real, the situation was totally implausible, the characters were two-dimensional and cartoonish. There was no way "in" to this movie. All I could do was observe. And then, finally, we come to the climax, wherein we learn all about the evil scientist and his plan. I find it especially interesting that this same plot would be far more plausible (but still not entirely believable) if set in the present day. Who knows? Set amid our current ecological crises, this throwaway movie might suddenly have some relevance. Alas, set in 1939, it comes across as pure bullshit that no thinking person could possibly buy into.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 09-20-2004 01:43 AM                     Amen to that! This movie sucked ass.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 09-20-2004 09:32 AM                     I haven't seen the movie yet, but it clearly seems inspired by all those wacky 1930's art deco style visions of what the future could have been. To be fair, we could probably look at contemporary films like "Minority Report" 50 years from now and find their visions of future style to be equally as wacky. But statements in production design alone do not make a movie. I remember how popular the first "Batman" movie was back in 1989. I didn't like it then and fully understand why it has been largely forgotten. Even if Warner Bros. can put together a fancy 2-disc DVD of that one, I doubt if it will move a lot of copies. There was a lot more furor about getting "Superman" onto DVD. "Bladerunner" is the only older film that pretty much only exists (at least for me) as an influential statement in production that people want revisited for a better DVD. I still plan on seeing Sky Captain just to check out the visual style of it. But I am going in with pretty low expectations when it comes to crucial things like character, plot and plausibility. The test of time could be as cruel to this one as with Rocketeer.  |  IP: Logged Manny Knowles "What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???" Posts: 4247 From: Bloomington, IN, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 09-20-2004 11:07 AM                     MINORITY REPORT is fine because that's somebody's vision of a story in the future. SKY CAPTAIN would be okay in that respect if it was actually made in 1939 or earlier. My point being that the "predictions" need not be accurate. However, it doesn't work backward -- not when you're dealing with events of this scale. A movie like RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK works because it justifies its coincidence with World War II and makes a convincing attempt to integrate those events as a "top secret" mission. There is plausibility. Getting back to SKY CAPTAIN...an army of giant flying robots NEVER terrorized Manhattan. That's an event that is too big to have missed. And because these things so obviously never happened, the rest of it becomes a hard-sell, especially when the characters' actions seem dictated by generic convention instead of human psychology.  |  IP: Logged Jason M Miller Master Film Handler Posts: 284 From: Kalamazoo, Michigan, USA Registered: Jul 2004 posted 09-20-2004 11:22 AM                     I thought the movie was great.  |  IP: Logged Mitchell Dvoskin Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1869 From: West Milford, NJ, USA Registered: Jan 2001 posted 09-20-2004 12:11 PM                     This is a movie I should have liked and didn't since I like SciFi, comic book films, and Art Deco. Plot wise, you take the Superman cartoon "Mechanical Monsters", shake in a little of the Alec Baldwin "The Shadow", mix with a little "Moonraker", and you have Sky Captain. The coolest thing in the film was the Radio City sequence, but they even got that wrong. In 1939, Radio City was a RKO Theatre, it would not have been playing Wizard Of Oz. That would have gone to the many Loews Theatres in NYC. Style wise, I did not care for the dreary washed out photographic look. If 1930's decor was anything, it was colorful. I think the films biggest problem is that all the major characters were mis-cast, and all were unlikeable. This film could have been a contender, but I think in a few years those who loved this film will look back and revise their opinions. /Mitchell  |  IP: Logged Eric Hooper Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 532 From: Fort Worth, TX, USA Registered: May 2003 posted 09-20-2004 03:02 PM                     Um, hello? It's a MOVIE!!! And it was EXCELLENT, EXCELLENT, EXCELLENT!!! Best time I've had at the movies all year. Great fun for the whole family. Anybody who thinks different needs to loosen up and get over themselves. 4 out of 4 stars!!!  |  IP: Logged Adam Wilbert Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 590 From: Bellingham, WA, USA Registered: Mar 2002 posted 09-20-2004 04:59 PM                        So NYC was never terrorized by robots. Its fantasy. Its fiction. That 1138 door number was just the begining fo the star wars references. Besides the use of side-swipes during scene changes, here are a couple others that I noted: When Joe's plane surfaced in the swamp, I almost expected Yoda to show up. The serpent in the background was a nice touch to remind us of degobah. Did anyone else think that the final fight with the assassin on the rocket walkway was strangely reminiscent of Luke's fight with Vader? The set up was nearly shot for shot identical, right down to the way the assassin took off her cloak to the way Joe falls off of and then hangs onto the platform. Also: The elecrocuted scientist face melts and glasses fall off exactly like the nazi at the end of Raiders. I'd like to hear other references that people caught.  |  IP: Logged Brian Michael Weidemann Expert cat molester Posts: 944 From: Costa Mesa, CA United States Registered: Feb 2004 posted 09-20-2004 09:32 PM                        I liked this movie, but probably only because I enjoyed the hybrid style. No one said that robots really attacked in 1939 ... but if they did, that's what it might have looked like. Considering the design, there's a parallel to Disney's Treasure Planet, which I also liked the production design of. The whole environment is a blatant hybrid of past and future, just for the sake of seeing something a little striking and fresh. Whether either movie pulled it off (yes, I know Treasure Planet was animated, but so much of the look of Sky Captain relied on removing a bit of the live-action reality), I can appreciate the attempt. Now sure, this movie could have worked just the same without any of that style; just make it set in 2139 with the same script and ... it would be the same script. At least the production design gave this movie SOMETHING to its credit to set it apart. It had its share of lines. During a lot of it I got bored ... even WITH Gwyneth to look at the whole time. All in all, it was not very memorable. But I can say it was worth seeing the one time, since it did have some moments ... and I'll pop my head in a few more times here or there.  |  IP: Logged Wayne Keyser Master Film Handler Posts: 272 From: Arlington, Virginia, USA Registered: May 2004 posted 09-20-2004 10:32 PM                     Style alone is not enough? Look at Fritz L:ang's METROPOLIS - the story is dreadful, it's greatness lies ENTIRELY in its design and style. Ideally, I'd like some substance with my helping of style, and I have been known to champion films that are all substance and no style - but I can also find time for films that are all style and no substance. As long as we don't confuse such a film for a thoroughly-rounded experience.  |  IP: Logged Adam Martin I'm not even gonna point out the irony. Posts: 3686 From: Dallas, TX Registered: Nov 2000 posted 09-20-2004 11:01 PM                     quote: Wayne Keyser Look at Fritz L:ang's METROPOLIS - the story is dreadful, it's greatness lies ENTIRELY in its design and style. And Manny's point is that Metropolis was made in 1927 and predicted the future with the style of (then) present-day, where Sky Captain was made today and failed (horribly) at emulating a film made in 1939 that predicts the future. As for myself, once the flying robots started showing up I couldn't think of anything but how much better Iron Giant was. Sky Captain should have been an animated film.  |  IP: Logged Dustin Mitchell Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1865 From: Mondovi, WI, USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 09-20-2004 11:08 PM                     The visuals were alright but the story was still boring.  |  IP: Logged Manny Knowles "What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???" Posts: 4247 From: Bloomington, IN, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 09-20-2004 11:12 PM                     ...and that's being generous!  |  IP: Logged Dave Williams Wet nipple scene Posts: 1836 From: Salt Lake City, UT, USA Registered: Jan 2000 posted 09-26-2004 11:50 AM                        Before I begin this post i am going to offer the following disclaimers so that those that hate my freaking guts can point out that i offered the following disclaimers and that therefore i feel like I am better than all of you because they want you to believe that and therefore that is a better disclaimer to the fact that those that want my head on a platter truly do not understand me nor do they ever want to because they live in a fantasy world where no one exists except for thier own ineptitude of guilt of never finding true happiness in thier own life so they try and tear down that happiness for others by referring to disclaimers as claimers of disclaimership. I also like to avoid using commas. That entire line of crap aside, bear in mind I hold no grudge here, I just want to be understood... quote: Manny Knowles Alas, set in 1939, it comes across as pure bullshit that no thinking person could possibly buy into. Hey, go ahead and insult the movie all you want. Apparently movies are only good if they actually happened or if they are meaningful to you and only you and only in your own personal life. But lay off the insulting of anyone who might of enjoyed the movie. I, like many others, truly enjoyed the movie and would debate the finer points with you on any given day, however to insinuate that only stupid people would find it good is rather disingenuous. I have never reffered to someone that hated a movie i liked or likes one I hated as stupid in some way or another. I will joke with them as in this case I joked with brad about hitting his head on the doorway and messing up his synapses, but that was in jest. I mean brad is a huge tall guy and its easy for him to hit his head on the top of the doorway frame. You called those that liked this movie stupid, in a round about kind of way, and it did not seem that it was meant in a funny way. I just want to put across that it is just fine with me and the rest of the world that we can disagree, but believe it or not, there are plenty of thinking people smarter and more learned than either of us that loved this movie and hated this movie and they didn't call anyone stupid for having the exact opposite view as they did. Besides, were all family here. I mean I know my sister is a real bonehead idiot, but I would never tell her that!!! Ciao Dave  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.