« Use the Force, Luke | Main | My Wife is a Terrorist »

22 September 2004 — Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow (8)

Last night, Dave and I saw Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow. I'd been looking forward to the film despite the lame previews (which, it turns out, only reveal scenes from the first half hour of the film) and the piss-poor novelization.

Sky Captain was neither as bad as I'd feared nor as good as I'd hoped. It was fair-to-middling: worth watching if the circumstances arise, but not worth going out of the way to see.

Nearly the entire film was created using bluescreen, a process in which actors perform in a studio, before a blank screen, and the background is added later through digital processes. The problem is that in this movie, it showed. (I cringed at a scene in which Paltrow and Law are looking at an animal in a cage. This scene was obviously filmed with bluescreen. Law is looking at one point, and Paltrow is looking at another point several inches a way. For ten or fifteen seconds. Painful.)

Also, with the exception of a small part from Angelina Jolie, the acting was poor. Gywneth Paltrow, Jude law, and the other five people in the film seemed to be performing in a void. (It doesn't help that I'm not a Jude Law fan. And Gwyneth Paltrow, whom I usually like, here seems out of her element.) Without other actors to react to, and without a physical environment to interact with, the performances seemed hollow.

Also, the digital animation bugged me. We all know how much I hate digital scenes in Peter Jackson's Helms Deep and in Attack of the Clones. There are times I don't like them here, either. Digital animation often looks fake. More often, filmmakers try to make things look far too busy. "Why have a thousand orcs when we can have ten thousand?" Because it looks awful, is overwhelming!

Don't get me wrong. I quite enjoyed parts of the film. There were moments when I could just sit back and bask in the world that writer/director Kerry Conran has attempted to create. I liked the ray gun effects. I liked Franky's flying fortress airstrips. I liked Totenkopf's island and the creatures there (even if we never get an explanation as to the presence of dinosaurs). It's just that these enjoyable moments were eventually overshadowed by the moments that bugged me.

The things that bugged me most were all the little errors. I'm okay if a movie has one or two errors, but any more than that and I'm jolted out of the picture, I lose whatever suspended disbelief I've been able to obtain. This film is riddled with errors. What kind of errors? You name it.

Here are just a few examples, the bits that pop easily to my head:

  • Franky: "Look! An island there that's not on any of our charts." Moments later our heroes are plotting a plan of attack using a chart that features detailed information on the water depth, etc. around the island. WTF? I thought it wasn't on any of your charts!
  • As our heroes assault the island from beneath the sea, Joe's submersible plane gets a rock stuck in its rudder so that the steering will not answer. Franky comes to his rescue. "Thanks, Franky," he says and he goes on his way, suddenly able to steer thanks to the fact that the rock-in-the-rudder has mysteriously vanished. Again: WTF?
  • Our heroes are trapped aboard a rocket ship. Something's going to happen when the ship reaches one hundred kilometers in altitude. For some reason, it takes several minutes to reach this altitude. So what? This ship would never reach escape velocity, never break free of the Earth's gravitational field. But perhaps that's for the best. Because otherwise, how would our heroes be able to walk around the ship during blast off? (I calculate the ship was maybe traveling 2,000 km/hour; escape velocity is twenty times that.)
  • Dates, dates, dates. Early in the film we're treated to flying headlines for newspapers dated 17 March 1939 and 19 March 1939. (There are other papers earlier, but I didn't look for the dates.) Later, Sky Captain asks, "What's the date, Polly?" and she replies, "March second." What? They're time travelers? It's a little thing, I know, but enough of these and I lose my ability to suspend disbelief. (Along a similar line, we see two films playing during the story: The Wizard of Oz and Wuthering Heights. The former was released 17 August 1939 and the latter on 13 April 1939. They're both anachronisms in this case. So is the reference to SHAZAM. Captain Marvel didn't make his debut until January 1940.) It also bugged me that the characters kept referring to "World War One", as if the second world war had already occurred. Sorry, Mr. Conran: World War One was still The Great War at this point.
Much has been made about the inspiration Conran drew from the old serials. The problem is, I don't see it. (Remember that I approach this with some knowledge on the subject. I loved serials as a kid, and watched them whenever possible. I own about a dozen on DVD now, and watch them with glee. I participate in a serials mailing list. I read serials web sites and buy serials books. I'm no expert, but I am well-versed.)

Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow does not draw on serials in the same way that Raiders of the Lost Ark and Star Wars do. In those films, one can almost imagine the chapter breaks, can see the sometimes blatant references to specific serials. (Especially in Raiders, which has some obvious homages.) These two films also strike a fine note, one that captures the spirit of the serials.

Sky Captain does not.

This review has, as usual, made much of the bad and little of the good. Perhaps that's because the good in this film is never great, and the bad is what tears the story down for me. Without all these complaints, I might actually be able to recommend the film, which is something I cannot do. I'd give the film a C.

On this day at foldedspace.org

2005Chapulines   José recently received a shipment from his mother in Oaxaca. She sent him traditional Mexican food that he can't find in Oregon, not even in Woodburn. Yesterday he brought grasshoppers.

2003A Sense of Community   In which I obtain solace from book group and from old friends.

2002Reed College 7, FC Saints 1   Another Sunday, another soccer match, another injury.

Comments
On 22 September 2004 (06:34 AM), Dana said:
...can see the sometimes blatant references to specific serials.

References I caught:

  • Godzilla
  • Nick Fury
  • King Kong
  • Titanic
  • The Day the Earth Stood Still
  • Fliescher Superman Cartoon: The Mechanical Monsters
  • When Worlds Collide
  • Things to Come
  • The Shadow
  • Sinbad
  • War of the Worlds
  • Star Wars
  • Metropolis

Most of these are not, as you say, Pulp Serials. They are 50s era SF movies. There were lots of Pulp artwork inspired visuals, though -- Frankies bubble helmet, frex.

(Jude "Sky Captain" Law is adorable, and so is Giovanni "Dex" Ribisi, so :P)


On 22 September 2004 (08:11 AM), Steve said:

I'm pretty sure the dinosaurs in "Sky Captain" were there only because of the intentional homage to Skull Island ("King Kong"). The log bridge across the chasm and the head-on shots of Jude Law and Gwyneth Paltrow running through the jungle also are pulled right out of King Kong. I half expected to see a giant ape...


On 22 September 2004 (08:59 AM), Dave said:

I came away from the movie with somewhat different feelings than JD, perhaps in part because I had no expectations going into it. I thought that for the most part the CGI was pretty good. Good enough that in most cases I could forget that it was filmed with a bluescreen background and everything else filled in. JD points out the obvious mis-cues, but for the most part I thought they did an admirable job. JD dislikes CGI for the sake of disliking CGI, I think, because it was nowhere near as intrusive as in Attack of the Clones where thousands of obviously cut and paste robots were all marching in a line. Ditto Helm's Deep. Those kind of mass scenes just didn't exist here. I'm willing to bet that if Karen had come to the movie, if we didn't explain to her that much of the film was CGI, she would not have known that so much of the film was CGI. Instead, there were times when things looked vaguely cartoonish, which didn't bother me given the nature of the film and it's premise. It does, however, show how far they have yet to go. On the other hand, the majority of the failings are with the actors, not the technology.

I had two gripes with the film. First, the incontinuities that JD pointed out. The rock in the rudder was a big one. These aren't things that are exceptionally big issues, but they're obvious plot advancement points that just suddenly disappear when they're no longer needed, regardless of whether the problem they created has been dealt with or not. I can even suspend my disbelief regarding gigantic SHIELD-like helicarriers circa 1939 (it is after all a fictional story), but the small "problems" are things that should have been ironed out somehow.

The second disappointment in the film was the actors. Yes, Angelina Jolie did a nice job, but really all she had to do was put on 10 minutes of "hi, I'm a rogue here to save your bacon you lucky chap, don't you wish I'd turn around in these tight jodpurs?". She's not carrying the film. No, instead we're left with Jude Law and Gywneth Paltrow. I have generally mixed feelings about Ms. Paltrow because she appeals to the side of me that finds the willowy blond with an air of slight aloofness and distainful-but-if-you-only-got-to-know- me-better-I'd-be-yours-for-the-rest-of-your-life sorority girl look attractive. That said, I'm sure that in this particular picture she's a witch. Why? Because she's made out of wood! Wood with really really red lipstick.

I have no mixed feelings about Jude Law, however. Yes, he's a pretty piece of male eye-candy, but he never manages to get the overall panache that the role needed to carry it off. JD's comparison to Raiders is somewhat apt. I still remember Harrison Ford's vaguely exasperated setting of his jaw, pushing his hat back onto his head as the epitome of pulp action hero character. Jude Law has a certain amount of shiny glibness, but it screams, "I'm shallow, really, really shallow."

On the positive side of things, it was an mildly entertaining story and the look of the film was interesting enough to keep my attention most of the time. The little homages to other films was amusing as well, though I didn't catch as many as other, more film-wise people would've caught. I really enjoyed the concept of the return to "high adventure" in an obvious fantasy/sci-fi setting that wasn't a completely dark tale (ala Alien) but also wasn't as bad as Attack of the Clones. Not as much swashbuckling as Princess Bride (nor the reparte between the actors), but the same general aspirations, I think. On the whole I'd rate it higher than JD, but primarily because it was willing to try something new and, although it didn't succeed wildly, it was a success.


On 22 September 2004 (10:21 PM), Nikchick said:

Yes, if you're going to allow your mind to ponder, even for a moment, how it is that Our Heroes suffer no effects of G-force (as one random example), this movie is as Swiss Cheese.

You can't take this kind of movie that way and enjoy it. It's a world where little plastic ray guns work better if you give 'em a shake, rocket ships are built with space inside for sword-wielding angel statues, and you can save the world if you just have enough bubble gum.


On 23 September 2004 (10:45 AM), J.D. said:

Well, whaddya know?

Apple has a page about the making of Sky Captain. In a sidebar to the right, they provide a four-frame explanation of how the effects were created.

So what?

The shot they use as in example is the exact shot I have a problem with. Polly and Joe aren't looking at the same spot. Polly's looking at a spot to the left (as we look at the picture) of where Joe's looking. It's glaringly obvious on screen, kind of like the scene added to Star Wars where Han "interacts" with Jabba.


On 23 September 2004 (02:31 PM), Nick said:

I came away from the movie with somewhat different feelings than JD, perhaps in part because I had no expectations going into it.

Hmm, sound familiar J.D.?


On 29 September 2004 (11:25 AM), Xin said:

"Our heroes are trapped aboard a rocket ship. Something's going to happen when the ship reaches one hundred kilometers in altitude. For some reason, it takes several minutes to reach this altitude. So what? This ship would never reach escape velocity, never break free of the Earth's gravitational field. But perhaps that's for the best. Because otherwise, how would our heroes be able to walk around the ship during blast off? (I calculate the ship was maybe traveling 2,000 km/hour; escape velocity is twenty times that.)"

It is consistant with the movie, though. Clearly, the robots had some kind of anti-grav tech. Given that the mass of the ship would be reduced to some extent, escape velocity is not relevant. You are judging by todays real world rockets. With anti-gravity, there is no escape velocity. You just escape, even at .5 MPH. Besides, there was no need for the rocket to escape Earth gravity, just get up high enough to survive the super weapon.

Xin


On 08 October 2004 (02:14 AM), Raven said:

Another film reference: THX 1138 (in the number "1138" on Dr. Jennings's door).

Since SCatWoT was filmed at the George Lucas Stage, this particular reference should come as no surprise.

I had wondered why the Great War would be called "World War One", and the presumed that the movie was set in the future as imagined from 1939, when a "World War TWO" (and perhaps THREE, or even FOUR, against enemies unspecified) would have led to technological advances such as the British Royal Navy's flying airstrips — as these surely would not have been represented as contemporary technology, but suited the Gernsbackian futures of flying cars et al.

That 1939's The Wizard of Oz was showing at Radio City Music Hall was no disproof.   This could simply have been a classic film being re-shown, as some theatres still do today.

Unfortunately, your comments above refer to headlines giving the date as 1939 — a detail I'd missed — which renders my "retro-futuristic" hypothesis unworkable.   (Drat!)


Post a comment
Name


Email Address
(required, not shown)


URL


Comments




Remember info?