Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow

This is topic Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000826

Posted by Robert L. Fischer (Member # 2424) on 09-16-2004, 11:44 AM:

I struggle to find a real point to this movie, other than being an homage to classic film noir. It does share a similar thematic realm with this year's I, Robot, but the feel of the movie is less serous and more campy. The bluescreen technique is noticable, but the visuals are still stunning, and the dark, yellow-washed cinematography gives the movie the atmosphere it needs. There are a few funny one-liners, and the special effects are entertaining, but I was hoping for something more intellectually engaging -- perhaps in the vain of Gattaca, also co-starring Jude Law. All in all, it's not a bad movie for a little entertainment, but I would've loved to see the same cast and cinematography matched to a more challenging script.

6/10

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 09-16-2004, 12:15 PM:

The trailer got me hooked just for the visuals. Then one of the reviews on Rotten Tomatoes described it thus: "Imagine a Chris Van Allsburg book animated by Hayao Miyazaki." That's enough for me. Will see it on my first paycheck this term.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 09-16-2004, 01:13 PM:

I, too, am excited about this. I'm looking forward to seeing it this weekend. I love the art-deco-esque visual style depicted in the poster and trailer.

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 09-16-2004, 03:00 PM:

I enjoyed this one, after having looked forward to it since I saw the first trailer. Sure, the story and script were lacking at times, but the visuals, action, and overall style of the picture were just incredible. Be on the lookout for many Star Wars references too, as the director is a big fan of Lucas. I can't wait to see it again.

AJG

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 09-16-2004, 11:46 PM:

I got the soundtrack. Does anyone else think it sounds like what you'd get if you stuck the soundtracks for Superman, Star Wars, & Indiana Jones in a blender?

I have been dying to see this since the first teaser. I will be waking up way early tommorow morning to come in and screen it. (Breakwater doesn't deliver to us until about 3am on friday morning.)

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-17-2004, 01:44 AM:

This movie SCREAMS George Lucas! It's jam packed with CGI, the music sounds exactly like all of his scores mixed together, the sound mix is very much Lucasfilmish and it's got the same kind of dumb cutesy jokes and not-terribly-humorous dialogue that you would expect from the Ewoks and Jar Jar. The janitorial crew at the Stag will indeed have to work overtime cleaning after George sees this movie.

Unfortunately I cannot give it much praise. In fact, this movie just plain sucks. There is no real point to it. Let's take a cool looking 1930s setting, make it look like it was animated, then kill any chance of what could have been a great movie by throwing in a bunch of futuristic robots and nonsense into the script just to make sure it resembles cat vomit.

What an incredible waste of time. I was genuinely BORED! [puke]

Posted by Don Anderson (Member # 397) on 09-17-2004, 02:51 AM:

Brad, I take it that you didn't take your meds today???? I thought that the film was a visual masterpiece. Screw the comparison to I ROBOT. More like the old Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers serials. Sure, there were some corny one liners, but all and all it was action packed and entertaining. I got a kick out of the Wizard of Oz playing on the screen in the theatre. I liked the film, the rest of my staff enjoyed it too. So, it entertained a graphics,photography,film history,mechanical engineer, and art students/and or grads.

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 09-17-2004, 08:27 PM:

Zeppelins, Empire State Building and Radio City Music Hall. Three of my favorite things, and all in the first 10 minutes. That made me happy.

This film takes off running and rarely slows down. It is a visual feast. I enjoyed it very much.

I wish Polly was played by someone a bit more alluring than Gwyneth...I just don't find her attractive. Zeta-Jones would have been a better choice in my opinion. Angelina is just fine...very VERY fine.

Lots of OZ references here. And that beautiful version of OVER THE RAINBOW over the end credits stopped the people exiting in their tracks. That was some nice singing!!

This film also passes the "wife" test. She enjoyed it very much, also.

It would be great if Paramount would put one of the Superman cartoons in front of this film. Much of the first part of the film is reminiscent of this short. They were produced under the Paramount label, but current ownership could be different.

Shame on you Columbus OH Arena Grand, for showing a Scope THX trailer flat (that popped in and out of digital) and having a mis-framed trailer. Also, the brief breakdown during the trailers was not appreciated.

[ 09-18-2004, 11:32 AM: Message edited by: Mark Lensenmayer ]

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 09-17-2004, 09:00 PM:

Loved it. The story isn't especially original (lots of references to Oz, Metropolis, Star Wars, Raiders, and tons of other films), but the visuals really make this film. I never thought I'd say this, but the HD cinematography actually "works" for this show by giving a slightly soft edge to the image, which is appropriate for the subject matter and setting. This is one of the most creative and original films that I have seen in a long time. Hopefully it will do well at the boxoffice.

Edit (err...addendum): Saw it again tonight and it holds up well to a second viewing. Those in the Boston area might want to know that cinema #2 at the Loews Boston Common theatre has what appears to be an EK print (or whatever the equivalent is for a non-film-originated movie; it has handmade cues and looks marginally better than the print playing in cinema #13 at the AMC Fenway theatre). Of course, Loews also had the Idiot Cell Phone Lady who decided to sit next to me and actually answered her ringing phone in the middle of the feature. I almost killed her.

[ 09-18-2004, 09:39 PM: Message edited by: Scott Norwood ]

Posted by Greg Davis (Member # 2687) on 09-17-2004, 09:17 PM:

Everything "Rockateer" wasn't.

Posted by Matthew Bailey (Member # 601) on 09-17-2004, 10:03 PM:

I believe that some of the preview has a bit of similarity to Last Exile.

Posted by Ron Yost (Member # 1850) on 09-17-2004, 11:22 PM:

I absolutely agree with Scott! This film is magnificent! Simply wonderful!! The gorgeous art-deco 'moderne' design is just stunning. I'm not exagerating. It's a living comic book, as I've read in one review. There has been nothing like this before.

It took me a few scenes to 'get into' the whole approach the film was going to take, as it's so different from anything I've seen before. Once one gets 'adjusted' to it, tho, it moves right along at a nice pace, tho it's not an 'all action, all the time' film at all.

The script is just perfect, too. I didn't find it 'cutesy' [Big Grin]

, it's appropriately emotional when it needs to be and there are a some great comic rejoinders between the two leads. Marvelous!! The script is good right down to the last words .. which are really good and close-off the experience perfectly, but I won't spoil anyone's fun.

All the actors did a very nice job, too .. and Jude Law is really good. Never going 'over the top', as would have been easy to do with this material. Gwenyth Paltrow isn't one of my fave actors, but she did a good job .. tho her thin whining voice got on my nerves a few times. Angelina Jolie is perfect! Tho she doesn't appear as often as I would have liked. All the other actors are fine, also.

Here's a bit of a review of this film I found online .. kinda' sums up my feelings, though it's far better written than I'm capable of:

"George Lucas talks of creating whole movies with computer images, while turning out emotionless and mechanical films. Conran has actually done what Lucas aspires to, and what he's created is a living, breathing work of art."

I'm going to see it again tomorrow. Hopefully with a larger audience .. there were only 5 other people in the auditorium today at the first matinee.

Ron Yost

[ 09-18-2004, 12:50 AM: Message edited by: Ron Yost ]

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 09-19-2004, 07:34 PM:

This movie has only one chance to really clean up at the box office, and that is through word of mouth. It will take people telling others how great it was and they should go see it.

I myself was thrown back a bit from the beginning, even knowing so much about it before I went in to see it.

The movie is so 1930's sci fi that I just loved it. Mind you, i spent the better part of my childhood years watching these kinds of movies from that time period and beyond, so it was very youthful to me. It brought back so many memories.

Did anyone catch the lucas reference where one of the scientists offices was suite 1138? Taken of course from the great THX-1138 and the many other references that lucas himself has used in his other movies... nice touch.

I loved every bit of it, from the giant robots that look like they were crafted from a 1930's special effects shop to the floating aircraft carriers with the giant british flags blazing thier fronts. The giant rocket that has the campish flame coming out the tail and so on.. it was a treat.

Brad, sorry you hated it. You need to start ducking when you walk through doorways, you keep hitting your head on the frame and screwing with your brain.

I plan on seeing this again. I hope it gets that word o mouth.

Ciao

dave

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-19-2004, 08:03 PM:

I don't like the visuals at all. Everybody seems to be glowing. Also it seems as if they are all standing on a set in front of a painted cardboard backdrop, or maybe even a photographic cardboard backdrop. That would be good for a dream sequence or something, but an entire movie? No way.

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 09-19-2004, 10:29 PM:

Well, the whole thing was shot in front of a blue screen. Only the actors and their props were "real." Everything else was CG. Introvision done to the max! [Big Grin]

Posted by Wayne Keyser (Member # 2420) on 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.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 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.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-20-2004, 01:43 AM:

Amen to that! This movie sucked ass.
[Big Grin]

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 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.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 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.

Posted by Jason M Miller (Member # 2597) on 09-20-2004, 11:22 AM:

I thought the movie was great.

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 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

Posted by Eric Hooper (Member # 1730) on 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!!!

Posted by Adam Wilbert (Member # 1184) on 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.

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 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.

Posted by Wayne Keyser (Member # 2420) on 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.

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 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.

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 09-20-2004, 11:08 PM:

[sleep]

The visuals were alright but the story was still boring.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 09-20-2004, 11:12 PM:

...and that's being generous!

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 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. [Eek!]

I also like to avoid using commas. [evil]

That entire line of crap aside, bear in mind I hold no grudge here, I just want to be understood... [Razz]

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. [Frown]

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. [puke]

But lay off the insulting of anyone who might of enjoyed the movie. [Mad]

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. [Roll Eyes]

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!!! [evil]

Ciao

Dave

Posted by Jeremy Fuentes (Member # 2135) on 09-26-2004, 12:44 PM:

People who didnt like Anchorman are stupid. [Wink]

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-26-2004, 02:40 PM:

At least Spy Captain was better than Anchorman, just not by much. [Razz]

Posted by Jeremy Fuentes (Member # 2135) on 09-26-2004, 05:41 PM:

I seriously doubt that. [Razz]