PDA

View Full Version : NFBT: GazReview: “Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow”


Gaz
09-21-2004, 12:02 PM
The gimmick is that this movie was filmed on a bluescreen/greenscreen sound stage. Except for the actors and the props in their hands, everything else is computer generated. Usually, I do not like a lot of CGI, because it is still distinctly different from photography. Close, but no cigar. SK&tWoT solves this problem by filming the actors in slightly faded sepia tones. There is no discernable difference between the “real” people and the CGI. It is an impressive technological achievement.

Unfortunately, for all the CGI spectacle, the movie is simply not all that enjoyable.

It is a loving homage to the Saturday afternoon serials. The film is set in the 1940’s. The world is being menaced by a mad scientist genius called Totenkopf, who sends his fantastic robots to wreak havoc all over the world. Only Sky Captain [in his airplane/submarine] can save the world. Along for the ride is his plucky ex-girlfriend and ace reporter. From New York to Nepal, they fight the forces of evil.

It should have been a hoot, but the whole thing just comes off a bit hollow. I guess I really don’t know why I did not like it. It does, after all, sound like something I would really like. There are exciting moments and some funny bits. A running gag about the ace reporter’s camera provides a cute ending to the story.

So why didn’t I like it? The film was distant somehow. Like someone telling you about a movie, scene by scene. There was no connection with the people in the movie. The sensation was much like another eye candy spectacular “The Phantom Menace.” The advantage “SK&tWoT” has over “TPM” is that you know right of the bat that you are not supposed to take “Sky Captain” seriously.

The catch here is that this is definitely a BIG SCREEN movie. The backgrounds and textures are fascinating. BIG robots, BIG explosions, BIG rocket ships, BIG everything. If you intend to see it, go to the theater. But go to a matinee.

I’m giving this one 2 Hoots. Full credit for technological achievement and a fun idea that falls a bit flat.

xoxo~
Gaz
Thought he would really like this one.

Raiderhader
09-21-2004, 12:08 PM
I found it rather boring. I should have gone to see Mr. 3000 instead.

redhed
09-21-2004, 12:13 PM
2 out of how many hoots?

Gaz
09-21-2004, 12:20 PM
The Gaz Hoot scale is 1 to 5 Hoots.

It is used to measure films that have no other redeeming value. Films like “Resident Evil” and “The Transporter.” It is a measure of fun.

Fun is inexplicably lacking in “Sky Captain.”

xoxo~
Gaz
Befuddled.

HC_Chief
09-21-2004, 12:22 PM
Wow... thanks for the review!

Think I'll save my $

redhed
09-21-2004, 12:32 PM
Thanks, I was afraid of that.
I shoulda known when my friend couldn't make it through the whole thing without nodding off. And he's and Angelina Jolie fan... *!*

Raiderhader
09-21-2004, 12:33 PM
Thanks, I was afraid of that.
I shoulda known when my friend couldn't make it through the whole thing without nodding off. And he's and Angelina Jolie fan... *!*


She does not have that big of a role.

Frazod
09-21-2004, 05:48 PM
I'd give it three hoots, but it certainly didn't live up to its billing (Ebert must have just got laid or something before giving it four stars).

It was a neat timewaster, but little more. A better, more adult-oriented plot would have been nice. It's an earth-bound Flash Gordon flying a P-40 Batmobile.

And Gwyneth Paltrow does absolutely NOTHING for me. They could have at least cast some decent eye candy in the lead female role. :grr:

Douche Baggins
09-21-2004, 06:06 PM
I thought she was stunning. Leading ladies that don't look like sluts are refreshing.

Deberg_1990
09-21-2004, 06:33 PM
IM sick of these CGI crapfest's...all special effects and no heart! These modeern day directors need to go back and watch Raiders of the Lost Ark. Die Hard, and Aliens to see how action/sci-fi/fantasy films can be perfecty edited, directed and scripted.........They rely far too much on their computers to do the work for them now days.

KcMizzou
09-21-2004, 07:17 PM
Die Hard I just picked that up on DVD... 10 bucks. Haven't seen it in years...

Deberg_1990
09-21-2004, 07:25 PM
I just picked that up on DVD... 10 bucks. Haven't seen it in years...

Great film..probably the most influential action film of the past 16 years or so....maybe the best pure action film of all time.

Frazod
09-21-2004, 07:27 PM
Great film..probably the most influential action film of the past 16 years or so....maybe the best pure action film of all time.

I can think of no better action picture than the original Die Hard. IIRC, I saw it four times in the theater.

KcMizzou
09-21-2004, 07:27 PM
Great film..probably the most influential action film of the past 16 years or so....maybe the best pure action film of all time.
It's certainly one of my favorites.

But then, I also bought "Killer Clowns from Outer Space"

Deberg_1990
09-21-2004, 07:28 PM
I can think of no better action picture than the original Die Hard. IIRC, I saw it four times in the theater.

Agreed..i think i saw it 3 or 4 times in the theater as well..at the time it simply blew me away.

Jenson71
09-21-2004, 07:30 PM
If you consider The French Connection an action film, that's the best right there.

Hel'n
09-21-2004, 08:06 PM
I found it rather boring. I should have gone to see Mr. 3000 instead.

I love fantasy/scifi, but this film just didn't grab the audience... It was too contrived... Photographically wonderful, but too contrived... No enthusiasm seemed to come from the actors either...

Deberg_1990
09-21-2004, 09:16 PM
If you consider The French Connection an action film, that's the best right there.



Hmmm.....Thats a great film Jensen, but not a pure balls out action flick. Id consider it a drama/police procedural.....with a little action thrown in.

Douche Baggins
09-21-2004, 09:20 PM
I love fantasy/scifi, but this film just didn't grab the audience... It was too contrived... Photographically wonderful, but too contrived... No enthusiasm seemed to come from the actors either...

Bluescreens do that to actors.

Logical
09-21-2004, 10:10 PM
If you consider The French Connection an action film, that's the best right there.Other than a great chase scene I do not consider it an action film. Good movie though, no doubt about that.

Miles
09-21-2004, 10:36 PM
Great film..probably the most influential action film of the past 16 years or so....maybe the best pure action film of all time.

I cant think of a better one. The first 2 terminators were up there but still had a strong scifi element. Raiders of the Lost Ark is another but kind of and adventure flick. Aliens maybe...but still scifi/horror.

Miles
09-21-2004, 10:45 PM
I'd give it three hoots, but it certainly didn't live up to its billing (Ebert must have just got laid or something before giving it four stars).

Well his reviews can definitly be shit...

DIE HARD

2/5 stars

Date of publication: 07/15/1988

For cast, rating and other information, (click here)

By Roger Ebert

The idea has a certain allure to it: A cop is trapped inside a high-rise with a team of desperate terrorists. He is all that stands between them and their hostages. Give the terrorist leader brains and a personality, make one of the hostages the estranged wife of the cop and you've got a movie.

The name of the movie is "Die Hard," and it stars Bruce Willis in another one of those Hollywood action roles where the hero's shirt is ripped off in the first reel so you can see how much time he has been spending at the gym. He's a New York cop who has flown out to Los Angeles for Christmas, and we quickly learn that his marriage was put on hold after his wife (Bonnie Bedelia) left for the Coast to accept a great job offer. She is now a vice president of the multinational Nakatomi Corp., and shortly after Willis makes his surprise entrance at her office party, the terrorists strike.

They, too, are a multinational group, led by a German named Hans Gruber (Alan Rickman) who is well-dressed and has a neatly trimmed beard and talks like an intellectual and thinks he is superior to the riffraff he has to associate with. He has a plan that has been devised with clockwork precision involving the theft of millions of dollars in negotiable bonds, and it is only after Willis starts causing trouble that he is forced to take the Nakatomi employees as hostages.

The terrorists are skilled and well-armed, and there are a lot of them. Willis' strategy involves keeping them off guard with lightning attacks from his hiding place on an upper floor of the building that is still under construction. This plan involves the deployment of a great many stunts and special effects, such as when Willis swings through a plate glass window on the end of a fire rope or when he drops plastics explosives down the elevator shaft.

On a technical level, there's a lot to be said for "Die Hard." It's when we get to some of the unnecessary adornments of the script that the movie shoots itself in the foot. Willis remains in constant radio contact with a police officer on the ground (Reginald Veljohnson) who tries to keep his morale up. But then the filmmakers introduce a gratuitous and unnecessary additional character: the deputy police chief (Paul Gleason), who doubts that the guy on the other end of the radio is really a New York cop at all.

As nearly as I can tell, the deputy chief is in the movie for only one purpose: to be consistently wrong at every step of the way and to provide a phony counterpoint to Willis' progress. The character is so willfully useless, so dumb, so much a product of the Idiot Plot Syndrome, that all by himself he successfully undermines the last half of the movie. Thrillers like this need to be well-oiled machines, with not a single wasted moment. Inappropriate and wrongheaded interruptions reveal the fragile nature of the plot and prevent it from working.

Without the deputy chief and all that he represents, "Die Hard" would have been a more than passable thriller. With him, it's a mess, and that's a shame, because the film does contain superior special effects, impressive stunt work and good performances, especially by Rickman as the terrorist. Here's a suggestion for thrillermakers: You can't go wrong if all of the characters in your movie are at least as intelligent as most of the characters in your audience.

Valiant
09-21-2004, 11:27 PM
I found it rather boring. I should have gone to see Mr. 3000 instead.


3000 was alright, but you knew what was going to happen each instance in the movie...

ChiefJustice
09-22-2004, 03:23 AM
I cant think of a better one. The first 2 terminators were up there but still had a strong scifi element. Raiders of the Lost Ark is another but kind of and adventure flick. Aliens maybe...but still scifi/horror.


Amazon.com places both Lost Ark and Aliens in the action category.
Both were better than Die Hard.

Don't get me wrong...i love the first Die Hard.I just find it hard to
omit films like La Femme Nikita,The Killer,The Professional,Resevoir
Dogs,and Heat.It's all subjective i suppose.


IMO,the first 20 minutes of Saving Private Ryan,was the best and
most profound action sequence of the last 16 years.


BTW....Thanks for the review Gaz!!

I'll save my movie going money for Shaun on the Dead!

tk13
09-22-2004, 03:35 AM
3000 was alright, but you knew what was going to happen each instance in the movie...
I love baseball, but I just don't see how you can make a movie worth a crap about a guy needing to come back from retirement just to get three hits...

Jenson71
09-22-2004, 06:13 AM
Hmmm.....Thats a great film Jensen, but not a pure balls out action flick. Id consider it a drama/police procedural.....with a little action thrown in.

Yeah, me too. Cop-drama. imdb.com calls it a "Action/Thriller/Crime/Drama"

It does have a very quick style from the subway scene on to the end though. That's a great scene. Get off, or get on?

StcChief
09-22-2004, 07:44 AM
Most of the are wait for DVD in 6 months.