Sky Captain and The World of Tomorrow

Status
Not open for further replies.

Cashcleaner

Spaceman
I have. It's nay bad. Really good cinematography, but it does get a little slow. I mean, painfully slow. I mean, even the action scenes go on so that you wish outloud they would end.

I love the cool Air Carriers the Brits have though. Reminds me of a cool wargame called Aeronef with giant flying battleships and airbases.
 

Anxiety

Rear Admiral
I didn't think it was that bad, not necessarily something I'd see again, but I do not wish I hadn't seen it.
 

d3r3k

Spaceman
from what i've seen in commercials, it reminds me of the xbox game crimson skies: the high road to revenge. i played it and found it most enjoyable, i find it superior to the pc version.
 

Jason_Ryock

Vice Admiral
The movie is an acquired taste. It takes you back to the time when Heroes were Heroes and villians were villians - save the world and get the girl in the end.

To that end the Movie accomplishes it's goal very well. The dashing handsome clearcut hero is the prime example of good, and he gets the girl who provides witless entertainment throughout the film. All the film effects used in the moving only heighten this sense. It makes for a more comedic film though.

Also, though the film is called "Sky Captain" there are only two aerial battles worth speaking of (Just a note, just because they are flying in an airplane doesn't make it an aerial battle, okay? Aerial battle means in the air...if you've seen the movie you know what I mean).

The plot is fairly intriguing, as well as a bit of dark social commentary. The movie has been compared to Batman, Crimson Skies, and Flash Gordon, and seems to combine the elements of all three.

The best movie to compare it to is the Rocketeer. Its just so similar, and the whole pilot angle comes in as well. Bottom line: if you didn't like the Rocketeer you won't like Sky Captain.

While it's true that in places the movie drags a bit (this is especially true the third or fourth time through the film) for the most part the plot proceeds at a brisk pace. It's still boring, but if you snooze for five minutes you'd better ask someone what continent the characters are on now.

The special effects aren't bad, but occasinally you'll find yourself pointing at something saying, that doesn't look anything near real! If you ask me, this only adds to the comic book effect of the film, but that's just my personal opinion.

If you like literature and studying literature at all you'll love this movie. It's full of cliches, irony and symbolism, if you know what to look for. I liked it, obviously, since I've already seen it four times (Twice on opening day). I wouldn't make a cult following out of it, but it's a pretty good movie.
 

PeteyG

I can have an avatar now
Gwyneth Paltrow's news reporter character snooping around in some obviously bluescreened parts gave me a bizarre vision of a strange Laura Bow FMV adventure game.

I'm a sucker for this kind of movie. Even if it sucks, I'll love it.
 

Edfilho

Cry some more!
I think I'll like it. A move can't be bad if it has:
a) WW2 planes;
b) Giant Robots;
c) Airships;
d) Green screen kitsch SFX.
 

Dragon1

Rear Admiral
Cool concept, but really dull. I don't know if it was the scoring or just a bad plot, but the movie was hard for me to get through without dozing off. Until Jude Law slugs Gweneth in the kisser. Personally, I would have thrown that feakin' camera over a cliff very early in the film.
 

Bandit LOAF

Long Live the Confederation!
A P-40Underwater.

(I loved the movie - like an old pulp adventure story being forcefully shoved into your brain.)
 

Death

gh0d (Administrator)
Having seen Sky Captain this afternoon (and RE:Apocalypse), I think I can safely say that, overall, it rocks. Pulp-y goodness from just about every element of 30s and 40s SF comic books, all crammed into one movie. It's not Oscar material, maybe (except for the SFX, even if WC3 predates it by a decade), but definitely worth the price of a movie ticket, IMO.
 

Edfilho

Cry some more!
Hey, people, even if WC3 DID use full CG backgrounds ten years before, it was hardly Movie Theater quality stuff... The only reason we didn't hate it is because of the necessary low res of the movies. I think WC3 was great for a 93 computer game, sure but never before they had the technology to do the trick so well.
 

RogueBanshee

Rear Admiral
There was only one probelm I had with the story and that was a tactical issue

Sky Captain's base needs a alert 5 unit, a much longer sensor range, or both.

(For anyone who doesn't know a Alert 5 unit is a group of fighters kept on standby with pilots ready to launch in 5 minutes or less. If Sky Captain's base had one then their sensor range was less then 45 nautical miles.)
 

Jason_Ryock

Vice Admiral
If ya wanna bash the movie...

Facts:
1) The movie refrences, specifically, "World War I"
2) The P-40 Warhawk didn't come into service until 1941
3) The Movie supposedly takes place in 1938....

Questions:
1) How, in 1938, did they know there was going to be a Second World War?
2) How, in 1938, was there an entire wing of P-40 fighters in under the command of a mercenary unit if the plane didn't come into service until 1941?
3) How do all of these events happen in 1938, when the movie clearly makes a reference to the date 1918 as being "over 20 years ago"?

Clearly someone goofballed in the script writing. I'm told the novel version is better, but having not read it I'm not really sure.

Just some interesting facts to look at about the movie.
 

Nomad Terror

Rear Admiral
1.) The same reason there were giant robots running around everywhere
2.) The same reason there was a Hindenberg III docking at the Empire State Building
3.) From the viewpoint of December, 1938, January, 1918, was over 20 years ago (20 years and 11 months...).

This was a science fiction flick not meant to be taken seriously. We have to assume that from 1910 or so everything we know about history took a different path.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top