Semi-obligatory "Sky Captain" Thread

Cafe Society
61

Johnny Angel’s Review of Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow

Given the evident potential of this movie, based on its trailers and its brief teaser clips, I am amazed to discover that Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow delivers more than it promises. Since the makers wisely chose to give you only a taste of what’s to come, I won’t spoil it either. Let me just say that writer/director Kerry Conran never met a cover of Astounding Science Fiction he didn’t like. It is indulgent to the point of being pornographic in its lavish exploitation of pulp artwork and the sense of wonder it can provoke. A number of directors have mined pulp fiction and Saturday matinee serials for inspiration, producing such classics as Raiders of the Lost Ark and newer films like The Mummy, but there’s never been a film so deeply steeped in that old school sci-fi magic.

I’m all for a good parody, one based on a genuine love for its subject, warts and all, as I certainly hope Team America will be. But Sky Captain is not a parody, and it’s not a sly wink at how much more sophisticated we are now than those silly people back in the old days. Sky Captain is thoroughly sincere. The generations who had these visions of ovoid rockets and robots that shot energy beams from their glowing eye sockets didn’t have the technology to convincingly bring them to life. Yes, of course, expectations were different back then. Buster Crabbe delivered plenty of willing suspension of disbelief in his own performances as Buck Rogers or Flash Gordon in spite of what seem today like terribly cheesy costumes and effects. But what I mean is that until fairly recently, film-makers could never put in motion the kinds of provocative images that routinely appeared on the covers of cheap sci-fi rags.

This is not a twenty-first century movie set in 1939, it’s a 1939 movie made with 21st century technology. There are modern touches, sure. You didn’t get female pilots back then who were every bit as good as their male counterparts (although I think you’ll find Buck Rogers remarkably progressive right from its inception in 1929). Also, certain details in Sky Captain invoke Captain Scarlett more than Flash Gordon. What’s more, there is a bit of what looks suspiciously like product placement, and I hardly think the number 1138 just popped into somebody’s head. Otherwise, the film is consistently and compellingly old-fashioned in its sensibility. It’s the film that the dreamers of the pulp era would have made if they could have made it. Remember how thrilled X-Men fans were that after 30 years they finally made an X-Men movie, and got it right? Well, somewhere out there is a fanboy who has been waiting 70 years for somebody to get it right, and with Sky Captain, somebody finally has.

62

Apparantly she was supposed to be channeling (and doing it very well according to Harry at AICN) Barbara Stanwyck but I don’t know anything about Stanwyck’s acting to compare the two. He said his grandmother picked up on it right away. What say you?

63

Just saw Sky Captain and it absoutely* kicks ass*. Best movie I’ve seen since Star Wars. Incredibly imaginative and inventive imagery, and a plot that just rolls right along. If you just go along for the ride, you’re going to have one hell of a ride.

64

I liked the visual ‘feel’ of the movie and, of course, it’s very difficult to beat a movie that has both giant robots and mysterious mad scientists. :slight_smile:

I did feel a little dissappointed by the weak plot, though. I also guess one of the catches is that I expected it to be more of a parody and the acting to live up to the 1930s-ness of the story.

Dr. Rieux: I didn’t see any swastikas mentioned in the film, but I did notice the word “fascist” in one of the articles in the newspapers displayed on the screen. (Maybe no Hilter but still a Mussolini?)

65

I think to really get this movie you have to be saturated in the serialized adventure genre of the 1930s.

(The bulk of my archived entertainment is pre-1950, and Sky Captain was a real treat for me.)

The production design (including the beautful palette) is almost entirely borrowed from the Fleischer Bros’ Superman cartoons. Those rampaging remote-controlled Art Deco robots? Superman took 'em on first.

The whole movie is a pastiche of scenes from classics. Like Lucas, they borrowed tons from The Wizard of Oz, which pretty much defines the pop aesthetic of 1939. Apart from the explicit references, many shots are directly translated into the story. (Flying monkeys issuing from the castle, etc.) Throw in numerous references to other iconic films like King Kong, The Lost World and you’ve got the obvious stuff. Under that you’ve got hundreds of little details lifted from more obscure sources, like the long-running (and mostly long-forgotten) radio series I Love A Mystery! and the not-quite-so-forgotten The Shadow.I’m dimly aware that there’s probably a lot of comic-book stuff in there, too, but that’s outside my sphere of nerddom.

As far as people getting or “not getting” it goes, you can never underestimate people’s capacity to miss the point. At the screening I went to, there was a fella sitting behind me who complained loudly at every trailer that was shown. The Incredibles, Team America: World Police, Shark Tale, The Spongebob Movie, all of these were loudly maligned as ‘cartoons.’ “Whatever happened to real movies?” was rhetorically asked of anyone within earshot. I expected that the guy wouldn’t sit through Sky Captain if he felt this way, but apparently having real-time actors composited into the fantastic scenes met his litmus test for “reality.” He had a great time.

Back to classics angle, when I asked the girl I saw Sky Captain with if she caught the reference with the minaturized animals under glass, she offered “William Gibson’s nanotechnology stuff.” Uh, okay.

You can imagine my frustration in trying to convey my feelings about the most conspicuous flaw in the movie: Gwyneth Paltrow horribly miscast as the vulnerable heroine. She’s physically and energetically wrong for the role on so many levels. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Try explaining why to someone with a knowledge of American pop culture that doesn’t go back any further than 1980. “But she’s a perfect match for Jude Law!” :rolleyes: Yeah, and whipped cream is a perfect match for strawberries, but not in a daiquiri.

The role wanted someone much broader of face, figure, and expression. Oh well, it was easy enough to overlook.

What a great movie!

66

There were several times in the movie that I thought the exact same thing. I did like Paltrow in the role, but I kept thinking that she looked very anachronistic, while Jude Law looks just like the kind of guy that would have been in a 30’s serial.

I thought it might have helped if she’d put on a little weight for the role, but I dunno.

67

Okay, how many of you folks saw the robot eyebeams or Dex’s zapgun and thought, “Cool! A 1920s-style Death Ray!”?

So did I. :wink:

I liked this movie a lot. It was a classic movie in every sense, just with modern CGI animation. (Which is what Johnny Angel said.) I think the sepia tone was a trifle overdone, though I understand that it was necessary to establishing mood. The movie would have looked just wrong had it been filmed in modern true color. The plot was about as thick as I would expect of the 1930s serials.

What is the reference with the miniaturized animals?

68

I just seen the movie tonight ,and I find that this is one of those movies that I am just gonna have to watch again , just to pick out the little things that appear in the movie ,that I only caught flashes of.

As the protagonist Jude Law works well, but Gweynth left alot to be desired ,as has been already mentioned she works well with Law , but I think I would rather have had some one like Kelly McGillis as the heroine.

If anything bothered me about the movie , it was that for a pretty good period piece , no one was smoking or drinking. Except for Law drinking a shot glass of milk of magnesia , when I would have expected him to be slugging back some johnny walker red.

Declan

69

I did, and I haven’t seen the movie yet.

Bride of Frankenstein?

70

Well, saw it this afternoon, in a crowded North Houston multiplex, so it doesn’t seem likely to sink without a trace. Certainly not without flaws, but an instant classic nonetheless, IMO.

I suspect that that Kerry Conran, the director, will be no one-trick pony; the man clearly has an eye for the arresting image. The first ten minutes or so has to be one of the greatest visual sequences in the history of movies, sensibly leading the audience into the wild story by starting with what is a clearly stylized but recognizable '30’s New York, introducing elements that seem off-kilter but are still plausible (The Hindenburg III docking sequence), then clobbering the audience out of nowhere with the giant flying robots.

Although the actual story line pretty much retreaded every action film ever made, I didn’t have too much of a problem with that, as the action moved along quite smartly, and there always seemed to be another never-before-seen wonder right around the corner to distract us from the slender story. There were, however, three main aspects of the film that I didn’t particularly care for: Mr. Conran, at this early point in his career, is not much of a director of actors; as is so common with CGI-rendered action, realistic objects (such as the Sky Captain’s P-40) exhibited patently unrealistic movement and behavior; and as others have mentioned, there were some remarkably clumsy continuity errors.

But holy moley, what a gorgeous-looking spectacle. I’ll let the above criticisms slide in this case. The film’s going into my collection the very second it comes out on DVD.

Conran and his artists must have shelves groaning with literature and film from the era the film is set in. I’ll let others decide the exact references for themselves, but in addition to the influences (Star Wars, Superman, etc.) already mentioned, I caught direct lifts from:

The 1951 filmed version of War of the Worlds

The Godzilla films

Only Angels Have Wings

The 1933 King Kong

The Day the Earth Stood Still

Forbidden Planet

Lost Horizon

12 O’Clock High

As someone noted, Marvel Comics of the '60s (particularly Nick Fury, Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D)

Maxfield Parrish (popular kitsch illustrator of the era, noted for his vaguely eastern skies and landscapes)

Chesley Bonestall ('50s illustrator of famous NASA-commisioned series on space exploration).

There may be others, but I would need to see the film two or three more times to digest them all.

May finally turn out to be a stylistic dead end, but still a worthy first effort by Mr. Conran and his army of artists and renderers.

71

I enjoyed it. It’s very different from everything else out there. Overall I think it succeeds at doing exactly what it set out to accomplish. Whether it’s your cuppa undoubtedly depends heavily on your tastes, moreso than even the standard Hollywood far. If the idea and the promo images grabbed your interest, you’ll probably be satisfied. If you’re wondering whether the movie will stand up even if you don’t understand most of the allusions, don’t worry, you’ll be fine. I’m sure I missed most of the references and still liked it.

The visuals were a real treat, despite a few glitches in perspective, and deliberate soft focus that was maybe a little too soft. I liked the muted color tones, but can understand that others might strongly disagree.

The plot was a little thin, but that’s more of a source material/genre thing than a failing of the movie, and it was serviceable enough. At no point did I want to slug any of the lead actors, which is nothing short of amazing since there’s not a one of them that’s a draw for me. Fortunately, the dialogue’s a little crisper than one might expect given the source material. The whole thing felt a little overly long for my taste, but there wasn’t any scene in obvious need of trimming, either.

It’s the kind of movie I enjoyed once, but probably won’t feel any burning desire to revisit. It’s well worth seeing in the theater for the stunning visuals, rather than waiting for video.

72

You should check out the Hollywood Stock Exchange!

73

And you should check out post #16!

74

Y’know, I liked it for what it was. I ‘get’ it, just…meh. I’m in love with the whole art deco scene, and the film-noir genre, but this was just, well, cheesy. The effects were obvious, (polly getting out of the taxi, for instance) the transition poor, and as someone mentioned, the soft focus was too soft in many situations.

That said, I enjoyed it. It’s not really what I look for in a movie (though neither was Hero, but I dug it, too) but it definately begged to be seen on the big screen, when it goes to DVD next month, it just won’t look as good :wink: .

75

My kids (aged 5 and 8) have expressed an interest in seeing this movie - it is rated PG, so I could take them, but are they likely to find anything in it excessively disturbing? (as a possible benchmark, the ‘scary’ sequences in Harry Potter and The Philospoher’s Stone are probably just within their threshold) - use spoiler boxes if necessary.

76

Loved it, loved it, loved it. Not too much to add to what’s already been said. Sure the plot was thin and a bit uneven, but the overall effect of the movie made up for it.

And I guess I’m going to be in the minority in thinking that Paltrow did just fine in her role. She was no “vulnerable heroine”, but she wasn’t supposed to be. No, she was the “tough-as-nails girl reporter”, and did just fine, thank you very much. Some have mentioned her “wooden acting”, but it really does play into the part.

And Jude Law was right on perfect. I only wish we’d gotten more Angelina Jolie.

Here’s hoping we’ll see Sky Captain II!

77

You know, I saw that and I could have sworn that I posted a response noting such. I recall typing it even…

78

I expected robots, and death rays, but the dinosaurs came as a complete (but on the whole enjoyable) shock. I wanted a little more time in Shangri-La, which is apparently sister city to Rivendell.

Mangetout, the kids we saw at the theater seemed to enjoy watching the movie, though I’m not sure they really knew what they were watching a lot of the time, as far as the plot’s concerned. I didn’t think there was anything particularly scary about it, either.

79

Probably my favorite movie this year, taking over from Pirates of the Carribbean’s dominance of last year. Spidey 2 might give it a run for it’s money.

Loved the King Kong references - saw the 1138, saw the Godzilla, didn’t see some of the others.

Loved that the actor playing Totenkopf had a film of his, era-appropriate, playing on a downtown NYC theater during the city-smashing sequence.

And it had one of the best ending lines of any film I’ve seen.

80

I “got” it.

But like the guy 5 rows in front of me, I FELL ASLEEP during this movie - it was that boring. In fact, it was the first movie I’ve ever fallen asleep during (at the theater). I loved the atmosphere. I loved the sets. I loved the design of the movie. The effects were fantastic. But it was just flat-out boring. Yes, I understand that the dialogue was supposed to be brief, serial-esque “I’m going to save the day!” type stuff. That’s fine. But I couldn’t get into it, I couldn’t get excited and I couldn’t stay awake.

I give it a C-.