Sky Captain: capsule review plus ranting.

[archerships]

Sky Captain, and the World of Tomorrow:

pros: 30 story giant flying robots. Harryhausenesque monsters. Hero scientists. Angelina Jolie in aviator pants. Gorgeous sets straight out of 30's pulp fiction. Jude Law as Sky Captain.

cons: Plot holes you could fly a 30 story robot through. Dramatic tension drained by multiple deux ex machina rescues. Ludicrous premises.



Why don't movie directors take their worlds seriously?

For example, how was Totenkopf able to build an army of gigantic flying robots on a huge island complex (over a period of decades), import two of every animal in the world, and yet keep it a secret?

When the robots attack New York, the city's police radio for Sky Captain. Sky Captain answers the call, and flies in to heroically attack the robots -- alone.

Sky Captain just happens to already be airborne? Okay, grant that. He is Sky Captain after all.

But is he the only pilot in the New York area? Where are the air force, army, navy planes that would be stationed nearby?

I never got the sense that there was anything at risk. Even though the robots destroy much of New York, and firebomb Sky Captain's research complex, you don't see anybody injured or dead. In the face of enormous descruction, none of the characters exhibit much fear or sadness.

And no matter how ridiculously hazardous the situation, you know Joe (Sky Captain), and Polly Perkins will survive.

Will Polly Perkins be crushed underfoot by a giant marching robot? No, Joe just happens to clothesline that particular robot at precisely the right moment.

Will Joe and Polly, trapped in a room filled with dynamite, be blown to smithereens? No, their hapless guide opens the door at precisely the right moment. (And why was all that dynamite there to begin with? Why didn't the villains just shoot them? Why waste all that dynamite? )

I know, I know, it's just a pulp movie. But I'm always frustrated when so much effort is put into making a film look beautiful, and so little is put into making it logically coherent.

Comments

[cerulgalactus.livejournal.com]

The way I look at it is, all the points you raised as cons are hallmarks of the pulp era, thus (until I actually see the film with my own eyes) I take the view that they are homages, and not anything more.

[ex0teric.livejournal.com]

I'm glad you said that, so I didn't have to spend the time trying to word it properly.

[crasch.livejournal.com]

Yeah, it's fun eye candy. But with a little extra effort in the script department, it could've paid homage, and been a dramatically powerful movie.

[crasch.livejournal.com]

But it could've paid homage and been logically coherent. It could've been roast beef and cotton candy, instead of just the candy.

[perich.livejournal.com]

No, it couldn't have. (Scroll down to the bottom, the last full 'graph before I talk about HALO)

[crasch.livejournal.com]

I don't see why people dismiss failures in the film as an "homage" to genre films.

As I recall, the special effects of the pulp era consisted of sparkler powered rockets and men in monkey suits. Had this film's special effects been as poorly done, would you consider it an homage? Or would you be pissed that the F/X were so poor? If not, why do you tolerate sparkler-powered plots?

I also disagree that compelling "world in danger" film can't be made with modern science. Consider the Andromeda Strain. Or Twelve Monkeys. Or the Terminator. Or Dr. Strangelove.

I have no problem with directors twisting the boundaries of reality beyond recognition. However, once twisted, I expect the director to respect those boundaries. Giant flying robots? Fine. Giant flying robots who periodically raid major industrial areas over a period of decades without the public being aware of it? Not fine. There's nothing in the movie's setup that would explain why everyone would become blind nincompoops.

I can also tolerate a few deux ex machina moments. But if every escape is due to fantastically blind luck, at a certain point, I cease to care. What's at risk?

Don't get me wrong. I liked the film. I just would've liked it better had the director had more respect for the world that he created.

[perich.livejournal.com]

I just would've liked it better had the director had more respect for the world that he created.

Which do you find easier to believe - that the director was spectacularly retarded, or that he made the choices he made for a reason?

The pulps were like that. The entirety of the Doc Savage and Shadow canons are available online; you can read them on the Web for free. That's how it worked. Sometimes it was even worse.

However ... I respect your displeasure for a genre choice qua genre choice. "The fact that it's canon doesn't mean it's not repulsive," as I might put it. I had similar issues with Kill Bill Vol. 1: I know the Crazy 88 swordfight was an homage to a certain genre of Japanese action films, yet I still found it monumentally bad.

[crasch.livejournal.com]

I don't think that the director is retarded. But I think writing logically coherent scripts is hard. How _do_ you explain how Totemkopf evaded detection for decades?

Rather than make the effort, though, he asked himself "Is anyone gonna notice? And if they do notice, are they going to care?" and decided, probably correctly, that no, few people would notice or care. (After all, how else do you explain the success of Independence Day?)

That the pulps had even worse plots cuts no dice with me--they should've had good plots too. Moreover, that the pulps had bad plots, doesn't mean that SCWOT had to have one as well.

For example, Raiders of the Lost Ark was also inspired by pulp serials, yet seems more logically coherent and emotionally satisfying to me. (Although, I confess, that I haven't seen it since high school, when I watched movies with much less critical eyes.)

[mindwalker.livejournal.com]

But is he the only pilot in the New York area? Where are the air force, army, navy planes that would be stationed nearby?

That's one of the things I liked about the movie - hardly any trace of a national government anywhere, except for the UK flag on that huge floating ship.