*** Official SKY CAPTAIN AND THE WORLD OF TOMORROW Discussion Thread (2 Viewers)

[Chris Harvey]

THE SHADOW is better??! Yeesh.

(Probably seeing it tonight or tomorrow, though I've never been nearly as excited about this as everyone else seems to be.)

 

[Kevin Grey]

Just got back. Really enjoyed it overall.

While I see where all of the Raiders comparisons are coming from, Star Wars felt like a much bigger influence to me.

Visual look was outstanding. I kept hearing that the previews were only from the first third of the movie and now I see why. I was really unprepared for all of the new locations and visuals in the second half of the film. Part of the genius of the marketing is that a lot of the stuff from the finale was so high tech it would seem very out of place without the context of the film and the progressively advanced technology encountered as the film goes on.

I'm really, really surprised at the excellence of the integration of the actors and backgrounds. I thought it was very seamless and they felt more "connected" to the environment than those clips of Sin City on the net.

There were so many cool ideas in the film. This is one of those movies where there are so many fascinating thigns on the periphery that you want more movies, books, comics, and games just to flesh it all out.

Edward Shearmur's score was one of the best I've heard this year. Very rollicking and really hit that 30's mood perfectly.

There were a few thigs that detracted from the film for me a bit. Chief among them was the characters never really hit home with me with the exception of Angelina Jolie's Frankie. Paltrow, in particular, was a bit flat I thought. I don't know if the problem was in the script, directing, or the lack of environments but I didn't think there was a whole lot of chemistry between Joe and Polly and a lot of their banter that was supposed to be humerous fell a bit flat.

Overall a great time at the movies and I would love to see this movie do well enough to warrant a sequel.

 

[Patrick Sun]

I don't like Paltrow all that much as an actress, so I will confess that she still doesn't do much for me in this movie, and that weakened it for me.

 

[Stephen_L]

Really enjoyed the picture especially the visuals but I also felt some of the acting was flat. Especially Paltrow, who I usually love, seemed passive and listless for a go-getter reporter on the scoop of a lifetime. I kept thinking of Karen Allen, all spit and sparks in Raiders, drinking Sherpas under the table. The film needed some of that energy from Paltrow and didn't get it. I also agree that there wasn't solid chemistry between Polly and Joe. But I thought Angelina Jolie (who I don't usually care for) had real flair and authority as Frankie. I couldn't take my eyes off her whenever she was on screen and she DID have chemistry with Law. All that being said, the visual inventiveness of the story kept me smiling for the whole picture. I give it a solid B.

 

[LanieParker]

Just got home from seeing this movie and all I can say is....SNOOZE FEST!

The way it was filmed was pretty unique and interesting, but I think that is all I can say good about this film. The acting was atrocious by all involved and it even ended on a horrible sour note.... Somewhere Over the Rainbow sung completely out of tune by some god awful singer!

I was completely disappointed in this film. PLease do not make a sequel to this crap. I was bored throughout the whole movie. It was very anti-climatic.

 

[Joe Hsu]

Just got back and I loved it. So much to say about the movie, I don't know if I'd ever remember it all or put it into words correctly!

One thing I'm curious about...being a "younger" movie buff, for those of you who have seen the movie, can you list off some references/tie-ins? For instance:

The doctor's lab had an address of 1138; Totenkauf's (sp?) hideout looked like Jabba's hut; I thought the swamp scene was on Dagoba, just one over...; the final scene versus the robot lady with the wannabe lightsaber on the catwalk; music very reminiscent of Superman, et al.


I'm sure I've forgotten a few already, but I'm very interested in knowing what I outright missed...I know someone said that they saw Godzilla in the Tokyo newspaper, which I didn't see...do tell!

 

[Kevin Grey]

Joe, no spoiler tags necessary for the discussion.

Some of the refererences- they pass by the Venture during the undersea portion- that's the ship that sails to Skull Island in King Kong.

The brief shot of the monster in the final shot of the swamp definitely seemed to be a homage to Empire Strikes Back what with just seeing the top ridged portion of its body and Joe's plane floating in the water.

Definitely got a Darth Maul vibe from robot lady.

Also, the large ship that is almost dropped on them in the underwater battle looked very similar to the Titanic.

 

[BrettB]

I'm not very good at catching the little nods but I caught;

1138 at the lab
Godzilla in the newspaper montage
Venture (didn't know what it was from but assumed it to be a nod)

Not sure about;

When You Wish Upon A Star quote
Was there an Indiana Jones comic amongst the Buck Rogers comics? Perhaps I imagined that one.
My wife thought the scientists lab looked like Frankenstien's lab?

I give it a solid 4/5. I think it could have used more humor. Some scenes seemed just a bit off somehow, not sure if it was the direction or the editing.

The big surprise for me was that the look of the film was somewhat distracting. For instance, some people don't like the look of Minority Report, a movie whose visuals I absolutely love. I really didn't think the visuals would bother me but I found myself constantly thinking about it.

 

[Don Solosan]

quote:I plan on saving it for the LA trip next week (better screens than Indy has by far).

It's showing at the Chinese, the Village in Westwood and over at the Bridge they're showing it in their IMAX theater -- so you have your choice of some good screens.



I just got back from seeing it at the Village. It was slightly out of focus for the first few minutes. I had heard people complain about the look, and I wondered if it was intentionally that soft. Then it sharpened up for the rest of the picture.



As for the movie, it just didn't grab me the way I had hoped. My main complaint would be that Sky Captain doesn't do nearly enough interesting stuff.

 

[Don Solosan]

quote:can you list off some references/tie-ins?

The log across the chasm was straight out of King Kong.



Frankie flying away from the underwater crash looked like The Rocketeer.

 

[Chris Harvey]

Loved the first 3 minutes of it (the Hindenberg docking sequence), but the love rapidly turned to mild amusement (Polly running around like an idiot during the Iron Giant attack), then to annoyance (the slabs of bland exposition combined with the woeful efforts at snappy '30s dialogue), and finally to boredom and a desperate hope it would be over soon.

I liked the art deco look. I liked some of the machines. But any effort at originality ends there. You could program a computer to write a script and it would cough out dialogue with more life. I didn't care about the characters, and as they increasingly appeared superhuman I cared even less.

The rest? How do people who trash Lucas -- for overly focusing on CG, for blank and bland characters, for video game sequences inserted into his movies -- then praise SKY CAPTAIN for doing the same things?

This was nothing more than geek fan fiction put on screen: "let's take all the stuff I liked when I was a kid and combine them together -- it'll be great!"

But you when you mix RAIDERS with IRON GIANT and LOST HORIZON and STAR WARS and EMPIRE STRIKES BACK and the Max Fleischer "Superman" cartoons and the ROCKETEER and CRIMSON SKIES you don't get the sum of their parts -- you get a blendered mess that only made me wish I was watching one of the originals instead.

 

[Nick Senger]

quote:It felt antiseptic to me. I was never totally involved or engaged.

Couldn't agree more. Most of my enjoyment of the film was the "Gee, that's a cool idea" variety, rather than getting absorbed in the film. The movie kept drawing attention to itself as a movie (or at least I couldn't get that out of my head as I watched.)



I admire the attempt at recreating the late 1930's sci-fi feel, the noir moments, the comic-book setting, and the action-hero plot; but it never really clicked for me. It just sort of fell flat.



Maybe knowing that the actors were surrounded by a digital environment ruined it for me--kept me from really worrying about the characters.



But those flying airstrips were really cool!

 

[LanieParker]

Did anyone else here feel that the ending to this movie was beyond dumb?



Polly taking a picture of Sky Captain and then him telling her she had the lense cover on....... God all mighty I wanted to throw something at the screen.



After reading through this thread again, I realize just how much I hated this movie.

 

[Sam Favate]

I enjoyed it; it was visually interesting and pretty exciting, although I disliked the rapid-cut editing. I wanted to linger on what I was seeing a few seconds to take it in, and wasn't able to do that. I'm not a fan of the rapid-edit school of filmmaking (hated Armageddon for that reason - and others). It just feels way too juvenile.

 

[Chris Atkins]

I liked it. My wife didn't care for it too much.



This is an homage movie. It's like taking everything that guys (and some gals) have found to be cool in the past 80 years and making a movie about it. It worked for me.

 

[Phil Florian]

Saw it last night and all with us loved it. The visuals were a hoot and the set piece action scenes were really a joy. For me the plane chase through NYC was a lot of fun. I loved that the plane was tricked out more than the Batmobile...in fact, THIS is how the Batman movies should look. Wonder if Conran is busy next year? I think the virtual sets worked really well. The only time I felt it didn't, oddly enough, was with the cars. They never moved right for me. The rest looked great, though.



Acting was hit or miss and I hope that the first-time director takes some time for the next movie to work on dialogue and better directing skills. Paltrow was definitely the weakest...a placeholder, but not "Mrs. Spielberg Ruined It" of Temple of Doom infamy. Jude Law was great as was Giovani as Dex. I think Jolie was a hoot but underused (I think she should have been involved since after the NYC attack, in my opinion). Maybe in the next installment she will be. Gambon, an actor I like alot, was underused. Their "Sala" character was fine.



The overall production design was wonderful from the Radio City set (too cool) to the Brit airships to Rivendell...I mean Shangri La. But there were too many locations but too little depth for each of them.



I think they had kind of a "Let's get it all in there" attitude because who knows if they would be allowed to do another movie. My hope is for future installments they pick only a handful of environments and take more time to explore them in detail.



So what is next? Giant radioactive monsters? Dinosaurs? Nazi's? (interesting that they were missing) Magic? I hope that, like the Bond and Jones movies, they feel free to...er...ditch the leading ladies. While they never should have gotten rid of Karen Allen, I am glad they dumped Kate Capshaw. But I hope Paltrow takes a pass.





I applaud these filmmakers for making a gorgeous homage to old school action/adventure movies. Here's to better things to come!







Phil

 

[Quentin]

quote:THE SHADOW is better??! Yeesh.

See, Chris...I told ya!

 

[Chris Harvey]

Heh.

One thing I find interesting among the 'net community: it's pretty popular to slam Lucas for relying overly on CG, for creating bland characters and dialogue, and for giving techie whiz-bang FX higher priority than story. But browsing around various boards, I find that many of those who've attacked the prequels for those reasons (and rightfully so, IMHO) are now praising SKY CAPTAIN.... for exactly the same things.

What gives?

SKY CAPTAIN suffers from every problem that other major would-be blockbusters have had in recent years. It's disappointing when you can see the cynicism of the studios leaking through stuff like VAN HELSING and CATWOMAN. It's downright depressing when someone gets their chance to make a labor of love.... and what they wanted to make was exactly the same as studio dreck.

 

[Phil Florian]

Chris, I think it because expectations for Star Wars were monumentally higher than for a first time director. Star Wars fans are holding the prequels up to the unatainable expectations of the originals. There seems to be little love on the screen with the prequels and, though flawed, Sky Captain oozes it. Sky Captain was also more stylized and tried to do something different with the visuals. The murkier almost black and white feel, the shadows and highlighting of key actors, key clues, etc. was very much in the style of the period. The overall production design was beautiful and way fun, from the silly ray gun (that had to be shaken to work...for those of us with old battery powered ray guns in our youth, this was a hoot) to each cool robot.



Lucas could learn something from young, hungry directors.





fil

 

[Quentin]

Expectations may have been higher (they definitely were), but Chris is right - everything that is wrong with the SW prequels is wrong with Sky Captain: wooden acting, bad dialogue, sloppy, boring exposition, no emotional heart.



I would argue that the SW prequels are superior to Sky Captain - they at least have a more compelling character in Obi Wan, and the stakes are well established.



One of the big reasons I never got involved in Sky Captain (other than shallow characters) is that it was never clear until the end what was at stake (other than their friend Dex) and/or what the bad guy wanted. Dude has an army of giant robots...is he trying to take over the world? Dude is mining uranium - is he building a nuclear bomb to destroy the world? There's a mini-elephant in that lab? How does that fit in? It all comes together at the end in some lame "Titan AE" plot - but, it's too lame and too late by that point.