Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow

[MechDeus]

In the first half, it stays in New York City with that retro "The Rocketeer" or "King Kong" vibe.

I keep meaning to pick up a cheap copy of the Rocketeer DVD, I haven't seen it since it came out in theaters and I was a wee lad but I remember at least vaguely enjoying it.

Maybe it was that glowy/retro filter they applied.

Kind of like LotR where the whole movie looks sorta fake because of the filters, so the special effects blend in that much better?

[SearchManX]

I keep meaning to pick up a cheap copy of the Rocketeer DVD, I haven't seen it since it came out in theaters and I was a wee lad but I remember at least vaguely enjoying it.

I picked up the dvd from FYE about a month ago. (It was about $10) It was still as enjoyable to watch as the first time I saw it (in theaters). Of course, the flying sequences are pretty fake now that I'm older but you gotta love Jennifer Connelly.

Kind of like LotR where the whole movie looks sorta fake because of the filters, so the special effects blend in that much better?

Yeah, that's right, I was able to forgive the elephant (or ellyfoont or whatever the hell they're called) sequence, I guess because of that.

[seen]

Maybe I just have a high standard for movies which today's blockbusters just can't reach. However, I can't see how anyone could compare this boring CG fest to any Indiana Jones movies. It just didn't look real to me... There are a million locations where a film could be shot for a lot less than $70 mil, and it would look tons more realisting even with crappy dialogue. I know they were going for a certain look and a certain audience, but I gotta say that I had more enjoyment from Iron Giant than this.

If you were too young to see Star Wars, T2, Predator (2), or any of the Alien movies on the big screen, then I think there might be some lowered standards out there.

Very high on my list of quarrels with this movie is that there was little attention paid to the mechanical parts of robots and instead more paid to the buidings, which were not well animated. The robots did not look real, even with the actors interacting with them did not look real. The robot in "The day the earth stood still" looked much more realistic and menacing even though he was 1/100th the size of those in this movie.

Indiana Jones was a real adventure which humorously introduced you to the people from other countries during the era of the second world war when Hitler ruled half of Europe and Africa. Shot on location for the most part. Exotic locations or believable characters are what make a movie.

[perkyskirt]

In the scene where animals are being loaded on the rocket I thought "OH MY GOD THEY ARE USING ANIMALS FOR ROCKET FUEL!!" and then I realized it was the dumb Noahs Ark thing. I laughed a lot about that.

Overall I found the movie to be fairly dull. The "old look" got irritating fast. I was hoping for some sort of Wizard of Oz coloration later on (since they had the movie in the theater), but no such luck. The girl being a bitch the whole time was kind of fun though. C+

[Dolemite]

I've seen a lot of good movies, a lot of bad movies, a lot of "eh" movies, etc. But it's been a long time since I've seen a movie that I just didn't give one tenth of one shit about either way. Sky Captain was such a movie, sadly. I could have walked out at any time and not cared at all, but it wasn't because there was anything particularly bad about the movie...it just didn't engage me on any level whatsoever. No real story, bland, uninteresting characters, blatant Iron Giant clones (man, that design gets ripped off a lot- Ratchet and Clank, anyone?), no bad guy to speak of...and the CG. I hope this movie doesn't start a trend, because I'm the first one to decry an overuse of CG in a movie but the fact that not one background was real just rubbed me the complete wrong way. Plus, the effect they used on the actors made it look like watching one of those 3-D movies, but without the glasses...the characters looked like 1930's rejects from Tron.

Plus, no Angelina Jolie until the movie is almost over? And it's only a glorified cameo?

The ONLY thing about the movie that got any reaction at all out of me was the cute bit with Polly's camera being almost out of film, which made for an amusing ending. Oh, and when the dying scientist said "Respect" we started making Ali G jokes. Other than that, this movie didn't matter at all.

[Mzo]

Plus, no Angelina Jolie until the movie is almost over? And it's only a glorified cameo?

What? Are you serious?

Dealbreaker.

[Dolemite]

In the scene where animals are being loaded on the rocket I thought "OH MY GOD THEY ARE USING ANIMALS FOR ROCKET FUEL!!" and then I realized it was the dumb Noahs Ark thing. I laughed a lot about that.

LOL

I knew it was Noah's Ark right away...thank god you didn't- that post made me crack the fuck up. Thank you.

What? Are you serious?

Dealbreaker.

Totally serious. About 2/3 (or more) of the way though my friend (after waking up from a 15 minute nap wherein he missed nothing) leaned over and asked, "Where is Angelina Jolie? Isn't she supposed to be in this?" She's seriously only in the movie for about maybe 10 minutes.

Bullshit marketing sucks. Like being told that you're going to be playing as Solid Snake the whole game and then introducing you to that homo Raiden.

Maybe I just have a high standard for movies which today's blockbusters just can't reach. However, I can't see how anyone could compare this boring CG fest to any Indiana Jones movies.

Yup. There's no comparison to the Indy movies.

This reminds me...the other day I caught Minority Report on HBO...it was a part when Tom Cruise was in this car, and he climbed out onto the roof. The road wend straight down the side of a building and he started jumping from car rooftop to car rooftop...it would have been exciting if it was done with a stuntman on-location, but watching Cruise and knowing it was all done in front of a green screen gave it all the drama and involvement of watching a videogame. That is, none.

Exotic locations or believable characters are what make a movie.

Agreed.

[Drewbacca]

Maybe I just have a high standard for movies which today's blockbusters just can't reach. However, I can't see how anyone could compare this boring CG fest to any Indiana Jones movies. It just didn't look real to me... There are a million locations where a film could be shot for a lot less than $70 mil, and it would look tons more realisting even with crappy dialogue. I know they were going for a certain look and a certain audience, but I gotta say that I had more enjoyment from Iron Giant than this.

Saying it would look more realistic makes me question if you truly understood the appeal or amazement of this movie. It seems to have gone over your head. This film is supposed to be about larger than life circumstances with larger than life characters. So far I'm getting you wanted something different from the movie.

Indiana Jones was a real adventure which humorously introduced you to the people from other countries during the era of the second world war when Hitler ruled half of Europe and Africa. Shot on location for the most part. Exotic locations or believable characters are what make a movie.

People aren't saying it's the Indiana Jones of the 21st, they're saying it has the same feeling. Steven Spielberg is a better director than Kerry Conran, so the movie will not have the same resound. Indiana Jones is very dramatic, and it's awesome. What this movie is said to do is take that same application of drama from Indiana Jones and change it with cinematic appeal.

I feel bad you couldn't get into it, but that's cool.

[Dolemite]

I don't think it had the same feeling as the Indiana Jones movies at all. Jones was all gritty and physical while Sky Captain was anything but. Also, Jones would steal a horse or just lash himself to a sub, he didn't have a plane that turned INTO a sub like fucking Batman. This movie had way more in common with, say, The Rocketeer or The Phantom than with Indy.

I understand what they were going for creatively with the all-CG backgrounds and effects and all- I appreciate the artistic element they attempted with the movie (if not how it turned out), but it just didn't appeal to me. The movie was just lifeless in every respect.

[SearchManX]

To me, what gave this movie that "Indy" feeling was the fact that they were trekking the globe looking for this mysterious Totenkoff. The Nepal journey, the exploration in the cave, the dynamite room, all gave off that sense of adventure. Whether or not you cared for the characters was something that may or may not be the movie's fault. It worked for some people and not others. Maybe it has to do with suspending your beliefs rather than focus on "hey that was fake, that was fake, that was fake too..."