The most polarizing movie EVER


As someone who's always liked this movie, I came to this board to read what other people have posted about it. So what do I find? There are 8 pages of posts, split almost evenly between those who will "love it forever" and those who were extremely offended this film ever reached the screen.

For those who see it as a "flawless cult classic masterpiece", can we just admit that writer/director Conran's reach far exceeded his grasp? Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow is a warm, sentimental, nostalgic homage to 1930s/1940s action-adventure serials. It might have done better in the theatres had not Paramount lost interest in it, because I never heard about this until long after it was released. In spite of its ground-breaking CGI, the movie was finished, released, strip-mined, and then forgotten about.

At the same time, how cynical and angry does one have to be to hate this movie? Sure, if you continuously compare it to movies that were released much later, you will find it wanting and almost primitive. Yet none of those billion-dollar blockbusters would have been possible without Sky Captain's innovative creative team showing future filmmakers what was possible. Don't compare this to the comic book movies - it's actually much closer to the Indiana Jones franchise.

reply

I saw it in the theater and really liked it. It's exactly as you describe the film and in that sense done to perfection. Not everyone will like this kind of film, but those that do would surely have a favorable opinion.

A tad surprised it didn't do better at the box office but maybe there wasn't a big enough push from the studio?

Regardless, it's in my home collection to this day and I revisit the film nearly once a year.

reply

I think it failed because of the strange atmosphere and the effects. The visual was never done before on a mainstream movie from a studio. It had a very odd look to it looking futuristic but taking place in the past. When I saw the trailer for it I was not sure what to make of it and I think that was the general consensus t the time. I never saw it, but I might just give it a look tonight.

reply

You hit the nail right on the head. It was just a little too weird for mainstream audiences at the time.
Ironic that the bulk of big budget movies today are pulpy comic inspired CGI extravaganzas shot in front of a green screen.

reply

That's certainly an interesting take. I suppose it's reasonable to assume that there was something off-putting about the film. I thought also it could be that "Sky Captain" isn't a recognizable character, ala Superman, Spiderman, etc., so there wasn't a strong draw for that reason. So it could have been more than one reason for the film's failure. But your reason is most likely the primary reason.

I think a year later Sin City was released and had a similar look, of sorts, and performed much better at the box office.

reply

I thought it was fun!!!

reply

Saw it at the time. It was awful.

reply

Yeah, its a good movie and I liked it.

reply

When I first watched Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, I thought it was really cool. They had created a great '50s sci-fi with (at the time) pretty cutting edge tech. Seeing a retro-future world with very modern effects was cool. The adventure story was fun.

But, as time went on, the polish wore off, and I found myself thinking Sky Captain was good - okay, but not great. Why doesn't it rest in my mind as a classic or perennial favourite? Well...

For a start, they spent a LOT of time on the effects and the world - getting the atmosphere right - but they didn't have enough story. I understand they expanded a short film into the full-length. I don't think they had enough plot to go 'round. As a result, the story is just a basic adventure story and nothing jumps out. That's not "bad" but it doesn't stick in your brain.

More importantly, there are the characters. I remember standard-issue Main Hero Character Jude Law. I remember Angelina Jolie is an eye patch sky pirate. I remember Giovanni Ribisi is...there. Finally, I remember they "resurrected" Lawrence Olivier to play the villain. I don't remember anybody else, and of those I mentioned, I don't really remember them for their characters, just the actors or costumes.

Jude Law does a reasonable job, but the character isn't really memorable. Angelina Jolie is a costume, not a character. Not a knock against the actor, she just doesn't have anything to do. Ribisi - I legit can't recall if he's a geek or just a stressed-out engineer like Scotty. I only kinda remember him being there. I know there was a love interest who I'm forgetting entirely. She was blonde, right? As for Olivier, to be honest, one of the main reasons I remember his character is because of the strange name (Totenkopf) and because I still think about the ethical implications of strapping a dead actor to a project they can't approve of.

Compare that list of characters to another throwback fun adventure: The Mummy. Brendan Fraser's Rick is super-memorable for his witty one-liners, tough guy swagger, and backstory. What's Sky Captain's history? He flies stuff?

Rachel Weisz plays a chipper nerd with an inferiority complex and plenty of bravery to match her intellect.

John Hannah is goofy and bumbling and cowardly.

I can go on-and-on, but I even remember side-characters like the various Americans (most of whom get enough slap-on personality to differentiate them) and sub-villains like Benny.

I think the biggest thing that holds Sky Captain back from being "so good!" is that the characters are perfunctory - functional, not just fun.

reply

"She was blonde, right?"

Gwyneth Paltrow!

I have to admit, this is the only time I've ever heard of SCATWOT being compared to The Mummy!

reply

Oh, yeah, she was Gwyneth Paltrow. Good recall, stevewyzard.

I haven't heard anybody compared SCATWOT (what an acronym...) to The Mummy, either, but then again, nobody really talks about SCATWOT at all (while The Mummy is enjoying a kind of internet culture renaissance for whatever reason). But I think it tracks. Both are nostalgic for old adventure stories and films-gone-by, and both are trying to just have a fun romp. The difference is, as I said, The Mummy works and SCATWOT (I'm just having fun with that now) doesn't.

Blame tech, blame whatever - it's just not as good.

Maybe one reason for The Mummy's success is that, while it hearkens back to adventure serials and the Universal horror pictures, it doesn't rely on them. SCATWOT is at least 50% nostalgia. "Look at this '50s sci-fi. Isn't it comfy?" It's like a lot of franchises these days, out of gas, just hoping audiences buy tickets because they heard the Ghostbusters theme or saw an X-wing in a trailer or something like that.

reply