*** Official SKY CAPTAIN AND THE WORLD OF TOMORROW Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[Chris Atkins]

quote: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.

My wife thought TPM and AOTC were light years better than Sky Captain.



I love Sky Captain in its own cool way, though.

 

[Don Solosan]

quote:It all comes together at the end in some lame "Titan AE" plot - but, it's too lame and too late by that point.

And why does launching a rocket to build a new Earth require the destruction of the old one??

 

[Chris Harvey]

I'm still shaky about how he planned to destroy the earth via the rocket anyway. And while I don't think it's worth it to nitpick (since the filmmakers obviously didn't care), how exactly did the Mystery Woman get on board the rocket at the end?

As an aside, I felt the use of Laurence Oliver was a total travesty.



Phil, I'll give Conran credit for some neat visual ideas, definitely -- but neat visual ideas don't make a story, and no matter the general concept, you've still got to follow through. And while I buy his love for his visuals, I don't buy his love for the characters -- otherwise why are they hackneyed cliches limply directed?



IMHO, Conran's talents are better served as an executive producer: bring in a writer and director to work in his world, and then maybe we've got something special.



Instead. what we got was a fun 20-min short without any content that warranted a full-length feature.

 

[Dustin Elmore]

Okay, I've been a long time reader of HTF, but never felt the need to post before now. This thread is quickly dissenting into 'Captain bashing and I think its a travesty. This was a stunning piece of work that I will see again and again and should be remembered with the likes of the original Star Wars. Jude Law is the only actor in it that I care for at all, but every performance in this was pitch perfect. The inclusion of Laurence Oliver (surprised nobody mentioned this tribute)was great and as it isn't advertised what so ever (nor do most audience members even realize who it is) it's stupid to claim it was done to make a quick buck, as some have. The whole time I watched this I just kept thinking how very long its been since a film like this has come along. Traditional is what I would use to describe it, a film of a certain quality not seen since Raiders of the Lost Ark. Honestly, it boggles the mind how anyone wouldn't enjoy this movie.



P.S. Wow, you guys have spell check!

 

[Kristian]

I know this is going to be a very unpopular opinion, but while I enjoyed Sky Captain, I'll take the Star Wars prequels over it any day.

quote:for those of you who have seen the movie, can you list off some references/tie-ins?

The airstation where Joe lands and is reunited with Frankie was "Platform 327". The numbers "327" have been used a few times in the Star Wars movies.

And I'm not sure if it was an intentional reference, but the scene where Joe is hanging on to the bridge and Bai Ling (did her character have a name?) looks on while twirling her staff reminded me a lot of a similar scene from The Phantom Menace.

BTW, was anyone else creeped out when they showed Totemkopf's corpse? Maybe I wouldn't have been so creeped out if they hadn't used Laurence Olivier's likeness for the character.

 

[Kevin Grey]

quote:And while I buy his love for his visuals, I don't buy his love for the characters -- otherwise why are they hackneyed cliches limply directed?

Oh, I buy his love for the characters even if I don't think it was totally successful in being translated onto the screen. The cliches were a clearly intentional throwback to the old serials and I had no problem with that. The directing is likely the issue at hand and I'd probably chalk that up to an inexperienced director trying to guide some major actors who were likely having difficulty acting without the aid of normal sets and locations.

 

[brentl]

Loved it when you said something like "hey, this is a just a movie" early in the film.



"some of the acting was flat. Especially Paltrow," agreed, but couldn't figure out what was bothering me until now.



Jolie was fantastic, and Jude law seemed to relize what type of flick this was.



B

 

[David Forbes]

Another reference was the sound of the energy beams used by the giant robots to dig down into NYC -- the same sound as the Martian war machine death rays in the "War of the Worlds" movie from the 1950s.



I can sympathize with a lot of the criticism, but I still enjoyed it. Frankie Cooke was an awesome character and the film could have used a lot more of her....

 

[Chris Harvey]

After thinking about it a bit more, I think part of the problems I had aren't so much the dialogue (though it's fairly iffy), but the deliveries and the performances. Giovanni Ribisi was the only one who looked truly comfortable within his character, IMHO -- I bought him instantly... whereas Jude Law and Gwyneth Paltrow felt forced, cliched, and uncomfortable.



What you needed was someone like Chris Lee or Peter Cushing or Harrison Ford who could take the dialogue and give it a bit of a twist or spin and make it sound fresher. Just look at Star Wars and some of the lines Han Solo has -- but Ford makes 'em work; and of course Lee and Cushing are (and were) old pros at this sort of thing.

 

[Justin_H]

Something else to look for is the name of the theatre where "Wuthering Heights" is playing is called Densmore. Which is the name of the street in Van Nuys where WOT Inc was set up. WOT Inc was the production office and visual effects company that first started work on the movie.

 

[Richard Kim]

Just saw Sky Captain today. The action set pieces were pretty entertaining and well made. I did understand the intentions of the filmmakers trying to emulate the 1930s serials, I just thought the execution was lacking. It was hard for me to sympathize with the lead characters. I also wasn't blown away with the special effects (not that they were bad, mind you). I guess the soft focus look was one of the reasons.

As anyone who's read my posts on the HTF can guess, I prefer the SW prequels to Sky Captain.

As for the use of Sir Laurence Oliver, according to the end credits, the filmmakers got permission of Oliver's estate to use his likeness.

 

[Steeve Bergeron]

I disagree with that. I thought the chemistry between them was very good. I really liked their constant bickering throughout the movie.

 

[Tony_Ramos]

I think the movie emulated the 1930's style and pacing far too faithfully, and that's why it let down. The film is so faithful, that even the soundtrack is mostly isolated to front channels like mono soundtracks of the 1930's. Unfortunately, I saw it in a poor projection room and not in true digital, so the already dark film became hard to watch for the first hour and a half. The colors are actually quite beautiful by the end, however.

Unfortunately, tho, all the criticisms of AOTC apply here, which is fitting since they are based on the same pulp: flat acting, lack of drama, trite story, soulless battles (only slightly less so than AOTC.

And there is really no excuse for the lack of "fun," as Indiana Jones and Star Wars I managed to recreate these genres while updating them and providing unforgettable characters. Jude Law's Sky Captain is incredibly bland by comparison to Ford. It's not entirely his fault, as his character has no dialogue! Kerry Conrad should have let someone else write his script, much like George Lucas. They are idea men, not writers.


I really have a hard time seeing anyone but a movie aficionado having fun at this. The movie is more about the style and nostalgia than ANYTHING else. That's fine for a film class, but not for entertaining audiences.

 

[Steve Felix]

The difference between this and the SW prequels is that the prequels are epics, which is sometimes beneficial and sometimes detrimental. Sky Captain, on the other hand, is lighter than air. I don't want it to be a backhanded compliment that this thing breezes by in what seems like many fewer minutes than its 104. Its greatest emulation of the '20s-'40s is its light sense of fun which is lost in many modern movies that try to one-up each other, misunderstanding what was great about their sources (which indeed include works of Spielberg, Lucas, and Zemeckis).

It ends on an absolutely perfect note which is more informed by a screwball comedy than a drive to be cooler than Spider Man 2. That is the evidence that this is the work of a passionate individual who is more interested in sharing than impressing, unlike a studio.

 

[Tony_Ramos]

Steve:



I certainly appreciate the screwball comedy aspects you mentioned, another 40's genre. The problem is, that just doesn't cut it to many modern film fans, myself included.



While Sky Captain certainly isn't an epic unlike the SW's, the problem is it was marketed as one, which will leave many fans disappointed. I had four walkouts in my sparsely crowded theater in the first 25mins alone, on opening night at a reasonable hour.



Not to mention the fact that I can't have lighthearted fun with characters that I couldn't care less about, fighting against fantasy creatures that aren't even particularly imaginative.

One thing I will say is that I did feel like I was watching a little boy's dream, albeit a very slow-paced, banal, and dark one. Not to mention the questionable camera angles which really didn't allow me to fully experience the world of the film.

 

[Steve Felix]

I really can't imagine walking out on this movie that early. What did they expect they were going to get out of a movie called "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow?" Of course, the only marketing I saw was the first trailer.

I can see your side of this intellectually, except for the "slow paced" part. I was obviously feeling it in a completely different way than you and the other detractors (which include the friend I saw it with), though. I need to see it again and consider it some more to be a better informed apologist.

 

[Ocean Phoenix]

quote:I had four walkouts in my sparsely crowded theater in the first 25mins alone, on opening night at a reasonable hour.

How do you know they weren't just leaving for popcorn or a bathroom break?

 

[Mikel_Cooperman]

quote: I know this is going to be a very unpopular opinion, but while I enjoyed Sky Captain, I'll take the Star Wars prequels over it any day.

You can have them. I would much rather sit through Sky Captain again than sit through those horrible Star Wars Prequels. Sky Captain used the effects to move the story along where as TPM and AOTC used their effects instead of a story.



I enjoyed the movie and cant see why someone would spend $10.00 to see a movie like this and then walk out. Wal Mart Crowd anyone?

 

[Jonathan L]

Saw this Friday morning and absolutely loved it. "Fun" was absolutely the first and best description to come to mind. It looked and sounded absolutely gorgeous. There were a few points that I didn't care for, however.



Not a huge Paltrow fan, and didn't find her performance to be terribly memorable. While all of the characters were intentionally "throwback stereotypes", her performance was a little TOO wooden. I think Jude Law was much better...infused a lot more emotion into the stereotype. Definitely enjoyed his performance. And Jolie...well, I've never been a huge fan (of her acting! otherwise

), however she absolutely blew me away. INCREDIBLE performance, she was perfect. Ribisi was excellent as well, easily as immersed in the character (if not moreso) as Law and Jolie.



Also I have to agree with Quentin and others that the villain, as well as the danger aspect, never seemed properly fleshed out. If could make one change to the film, it would be that.



Re: the inevitable comparisons with the Star Wars prequels, I think a major difference for me is that when watching these three movies, Sky Captain (at least to me) never feels like CGI is being used *for the sake of using it*, which is amazing considering

...but there are many, many times when I'm watching the prequels and it just feels like some character, set piece, etc. is CGI'd for no valid reason, and it detracts from the experience.



And while I'm thinking about it, I have to say that one of the iconic visuals for me was when the first encounter Frankie's carrier, coming through the clouds...it was one of those "just WOW" moments.

All things considered, I can't wait for the DVD, and want a sequel dammit!

 

[LanieParker]

Am I in some strange bizarro world or what????



Angelina blew some of you away???? She was on the screen for all of five minutes. I didn't see anything remotely mind blowing about her performance (and I am a fan). Was it the way she lifted her exposed eyebrow whenever she looked at Paltrow? lol.



I guess everybody has different taste, but I laugh when I hear that people thought Jolie's performance in this movie rocked or blew them away.