|
The film has a good look to it, but, though some of the dialogue between Polly and Sky Captain is playful, the script is absolute boring retardation. Also, though the action sequences have great scope, there's no immediacy or excitement to the proceedings; it is painfully obvious that Gwyneth Paltrow is just diving into a mat in front of green screen instead of dodging a flying car, or that Jude Law is just running away from some colored lighting instead of from a giant fireball. Because even the exposition shots are so overcomposed, when the action sequences start, they have nowhere to go and fall flat. The underwater scene was particularly slow and boring, and the ending Rocketship ark? Totenkopf is part of the island? makes about as much sense as the plot of a Japanese horror movie. PROS: Has the looks of a comic book. CONS: Has the story of a comic book. 2.5
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2004 02:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 02:38 |
|
|
I thought the movie was great, especially considering the waves of generic action flics hollywood has been outputting over the last few years. The dialogue was appropriately campy, and the one liners did not make me cringe like most action movies do nowadays. I really liked the way we were fed tid-bits of Polly and Joe's past, and I even cared about their relationship. Overall, the acting was fantastic, and Gwyneth's character was charming throughout. My only regret was not seeing enough of Angelina Jolie. Unlike most people who have commented on the film here, and in other forums, I was disappointed with the CG. I could easily tell that it was occuring, even though I wasn't scrutinizing it (I've seen better looking water in some PC games for god's sake), and the inconsistent lighting on the actors' faces only made it worse. The movie was too blurry and the sepia tone was too intense for my tastes. However, the architectures and overall "look" of the film really reminded me of the 30s or 40s (or what I've seen in old movies and documentaries), so I guess it succeeded on that level. Too many films try to take themselves seriously, while at the same time, present the viewer with completely unrealistic situations. From the onset, I realized that Sky Captain was complete fantasy, and thus, I could easily accept the implausability of the action. Those who can do the same should have a blast watching this film. Overall Score: 4/5 + 1/10 for making me like gwyneth for once, so 4.5/5. Pros: great action, great pace, great characters, great ride. Cons: too little screen time for Jolie, bad CG, too blurry/soft. hillaryous clinton fucked around with this message at 21:55 on Sep 26, 2004 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2004 03:55
|
|
|
Loved it. The brightness was kind of annoying, you did miss some detail because everything was happening so damned fast. They totally captured the comic book feel combined with the film noir shading, and the desaturation of classic early color movies(which were hand colored, frame by frame). For those reporting they could tell when it was CGI...oh, really? Because the entire movie is CGI, with just a few props(anything larger than handheld was later drawn over, just present to give the actors spatial direction. Kid friendly, too...nobody getting squished, only one real onscreen death(and that was cartoony, not too scary. Certainly less disturbing than the face melting of Raiders). Conservative Christian Coalition Profanity Report: 'drat' and 'Nipples', which for some reason was so low on the screen I could hardly read it(lazy projectionist). This is the first movie to come out in a long, long time I can say I totally loved. I rather liked Paltrow's facial expressions, and the cheesy dialog. It just fit together perfectly. I loved the ending, no dragging it out, just a simple two words and fade to black. Great dumb blonde moment(my wife would kill me): During the credits, 'and Sir Laurence Olivier'. She looked at me and said "wow! He must be really old!" And I looked at her and said "He's dead". "Oh" "What?!?!" 5/5
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2004 06:09
|
|
|
Now if I were to base this movie entirely on the visuals alone, I would happily give this movie a 4 for trying; however, everything else brings this movie way down. Some of the things that I can think of off the top of my head include: poor on screen chemistry between the two main characters, little to no character development, as well as a poor and contrived plot. I also felt the movie seemed like it tried to hard to include everything at the expense of the story line. At times it even seemed to contradict itself. For example, the Conran can't seem to decide whether Paltrow's character is going to be clumsy damsel in distress or the tough, resourceful journalist. While I know one can have both in certain instances, her character seemed to be one or the other depending on what was more convenient for the immediate scene. The film also seemed terribly disjointed. I felt the creators had a really good sense of what they wanted to do with the pivotal points throughout the film while leaving all other scenes in between felt like a distant after thought. All of these things made the film entirely unenjoyable. .5
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2004 21:24
|
|
|
I don't understand how anyone can hate this movie. It has ray guns for gently caress's sake. RAY GUNS. How can anyone not love a movie with RAY GUNS? Not to mention giant robots, dogfights, underwater airplanes, and dinosaurs. Dinosaurs! This movie is like a Greatest Hits package of everything that makes the 1940s adventure stories so special all wrapped up in some of the coolest art design I've seen in ages. The actual vocabulary of the film is note-perfect as well, with wipes, visual radio waves, and shots that look ripped straight from the cover of a pulp magazine. In a lot of ways this is the sort of thing that Lucas is trying to do with the Star Wars prequels (including the reliance on blue screen) but Sky Captain pulls it off far better than Lucas has so far. Yeah, the plot, characters, acting, whatever, is competent, but not that impressive. It doesn't need to be. Is anyone who goes to this movie actually looking for that stuff anyway? 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2004 05:22
|
|
|
It was very Indiana Jones-ish. I enjoyed every minute of it, except Angelina Jolie's giant duck lips. A lot of people panned it for exactly the reasons I loved it. It looked campy and fake. A fantastic throwback that was exciting and engaging. The story was no more believable than any James Bond or Indiana Jones flick, but thats what made them loveable. 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2004 15:48
|
|
|
I tried to view the movie like it was a film made in the 30s about the future. At least, I think that's how it was intended to be watched. They got the look right, including the look of the actors; they got the cheesy acting right and the comic-book style robots; but there was always something missing, it seemed. At one point, Polly said "World War I" when it would've been so much better if she had said "The Great War". It was little things like that that just took me out of it. It does, however get points for creativity. Overall, a pretty typical action film with a gimmick that worked only half of the time. 3.5/5
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2004 06:10
|
|
|
I saw it Friday night... The first twenty minutes are a little more cheesy than the rest of the movie, but it's bearable, A good mindless fun movie, not the best movie around, but certaintly worth a viewing or a rental when it comes out. Edit-Anyone else catch the Jurrasic park:LW refrence in the movie? 4.0
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2004 16:14
|
|
|
I personally loved the movie. The artistic art deco style of the movie really reminded me of movies like "The Shadow". I enjoyed the submersable planes and flying airships, it really was a fantastic world that they created. But if you're not into the 30's and 40's art deco style it'd probably distract you some. All in all I've seen it been described as 'Campy'. I'm reluctant to agree but I think it's probably one of the most accurate descriptions. I personally thought that the main character of Joe or Sky Captain was a real man for once in the movies. He didn't take crap and fall for the stupid blonde, he told her she was dumb and laughed at her for her stupid antics, he did what he had to do and didn't let her try to pull anything on him. Aside from that it's one of those movies that you'd have to really be looking foreward to, to properly enjoy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2004 17:47
|
|
|
I thought I would really love this movie, and that all the negative stuff I had heard wouldn't matter. I was wrong. The visual style is very good, I love the look and soft colors. The premise seems cool: a mad scientist trying to destroy the world with a robot army, and an ace fighter pilot and his army fighting them in true 40s sci-fi style! If that was actually what happened in the movie, I would have loved it. It failed to deliver any of this, which I had inferred from the trailer. There is no mad scientist, he has been dead for years, and the only villians are remote control robots. He was not really evil, just kind of crazy, with that stupid space ship plot. I could not tell is was sir laurence oliver, even after I had heard it was him, cause it was some lovely warping image and a courpse. The 'ace' pilot destroyed about 3 robot during the whole movie. The rest of the time he flew around dodging them. WTF? There was NO dogfighting action other than this dodging business. His airbase got totaled without opposing the robots at all, and Angilena's pilots fly off to fight robots just as the movie ends. The movie is just watching Sky Captain and gweneth fly to different places that make no sense and should not exist in this movie. With no plot, no action, and crappy acting from one of the main characters, this movie is a 1.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2004 04:45
|
|
|
Sky Abortion and The World of So Yesterday this movie sucks beyond belief The only thing entertaining is the constant reference to "dex" (dexatrin) 0.5/5
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2004 08:29
|
|
|
This movie was severely hampered for being co-written by a seven year old. [screenwriter]...despite his valient efforts Sky Captain is hit and his plane hurtles towards the ocean when... [/screenwriter][7-year old]...THE PLANE BECOMES A SUBMARINE AND FIXES ITSELF. YEAH! BUT NO KISSING
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2004 20:17
|
|
|
Oh boy, where to start with this movie. Well of course we are already in the middle the giant masterplan of destroying the planet earth, and Dr. Totenkopf or 'dead head' (babelfish) is sending giant robots all over the place. So in best cartoony manner we call upon SKYCAPTN who offcourse comes to save the day. This movie takes you over and below sea and into space and all that is even done without a single set ! Thats right, because Angelina Jolie had to be in this movie there were no money left to spend on sets and costumes, so the costumes they dug up from the 50's and everything else was made on a computer, even the cars ! Now this is supposed to be an adventure/sciencefiction/krimi but the mechanics used in this movie was not even seemingly possible and the laws of physics was broken and raped so many times (robot airplanes with WINGS!?) that Newton is turning in his grave. One thing I must give credit to was the actors, their inability to make you belive in them and the shallowness of their characters made me laugh all through the movie. Gwyneth delivers the dumb blond character even though she tries not to, and the SKYCAPN himself is really a sissy who relies on Dex's (SKYCAPNs genious mecaninc) inventions to even make it through the movie. Some of the meaningless characters who are not introduced or explained through the movie are; SKYCAPNs mongolian friend who we unfortunatley see half naked (ugh) Angelina Jolie offcourse (1 eye ?!) and several german scientists whose main purpose is to get electricuted or die in some other fashion. I could keep on going but think I'll stop. There is no words to describe this movie as it represents a horrible mix of Hollywood cliches, bad acting, eye hurting effects rendered by a calculator and a story about a man called TOTENKOPF who has to destroy the world in order to save it ?! 0 out of 5.5 is given
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2004 15:19
|
|
|
Amazing eye-candy but doesn't stick with you at all. It pretty much played up to my expectations: interesting experiment, but soulless and empty. With the right story, this kind of film could be great. Most of the time the CGI is blended so well (the extremely soft focus helps) that you don't even think about -- although when it doesn't work, it immediately pulls you out of the experience. Rating: 3
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2005 20:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 02:38 |
|
|
5.0 Let me just say that this is my favorite film from 2004 (and I saw The Passion, Fahrenheit 9/11, Spider-Man 2, Collateral, Kill Bill Volume Two, The Incredibles, and Ray). I've always been a fan of the classic serials, especially the first Flash Gordon (1936) and Spy Smasher (1941). Sure, the plots are paper-thin. The dialogue is silly. But they're just meant to be fun. Just smile at these serials and you'll love them. This is why I love Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow. It's just a fun movie. It felt like a Republic serial made in 2004 with the latest technology. Not a homage, but actually what it imitates (I feel that Raiders of the Lost Ark and Star Wars are more like homages, than actually being what they imitate). First, the look of the film is splendid. I love how everything is so stylized to the point of it looking like a comic book (as it has been said before). The CGI is excellent... I hope George Lucas looked at this film to see how CGI and live-action can blend together better. Instead of making everything so hyperreal, everything is diffused and tinted. I never thought I was watching CGI, unlike Attack of the Clones (which I actually liked). For those who absolutely hate this movie, watch a few serials and read some comic books. Afterwards, watch it again and try to fall in love with it.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2005 07:57
|
|