SPOILERS: Sky Captain And The World Of Tomorrow

[For anyone who saw this film and wants to give their opinion/discuss
the details.]
===============================================================

The beginning of this film starts off so promising. The scene set in New York 1939, where huge robots are pounding down the streets - Gweneth Paltrow, "Polly Perkins", is down on the street dodging them. Jude Law, as "Sky Captain", saves the day by flying his plane around them and roping them. The beginning Hindenburg shots, the late'30's stylishness, the throwbacks to old films...

This whole intro to the movie really captured my imagination. I really had the impression I was in for something unique and exciting...

...I later realized that Hollywood got a hold of it.

The "sure-fire" Star Wars cliches pop up like mad - the flying ships/fight scene near the carrier is most blatant. The "mysterious person" on the plank with a Darth Maul saber-like weapon...hood and all.

I thought Jude Law's dry delivery wasn't suited for the part of "Sky Captain". Gweneth Paltrow, although decent in this film - could of been paired up with someone else.

It is definitely an entertaining film - the fact that they didn't use any actual movie sets (utilizing the blue screen technology) was just mind-blowing as I watched it. The awesomely majestic looking backgrounds/"sets", the very effective "soft-light" on the actors, the constant action sequences - yet it ultimately falls into the typical "let's not take a gamble" Hollywood cliches. Very sad.

Very good - but could have been so much better.

Just saw it. They had me with the Hindenburg III docking and thirties atmosphere. ( Ever been to Rockefeller Center ... ) But the robots were too much too soon. The whole thing was instantly incoherent.

And say, How about Newton's Mathematical Principles ? They sure didn't go anywhere with that! Also did you see the 1138 on the door of the warehouse or whatever it was ?

Agreed. The "look" was captivating, and you felt the constant pull into the story, but it wasn't enough.

Yup.

I'll give it pretty good. It was way too Indiana Jonesish. I'm a guy who has bought not one but two Flash Gordon CD's, and two Rocky Jones CD's to boot, so you'd think I would be susceptible. Sky Captain drew on the Flash Gordon schtick, but was more of a Bogey + Indy thing. So I dunno - just didn't gel - it didn't sit still long enough to gel, if you know what I mean. Oh, there was a definite Tom Swift component, too, with the base. The first Tom Swift Jr. novel was Tom Swift and the Giant Robot, BTW.

They had something going, too, with "Dex" ( dexter = "right hand" ) and they did stick with this pretty well. The scene at the end where they discover Todkopf was pretty good, but this started to draw on Independence day - it was eclectisism gone wild. ( I guess that's redundant. )

Lew Mammel, Jr.

In rec.arts.movies.current-films Lewis Mammel wrote:

With added references to the films I thought of:

It reminded me of Legend of Hell House, where a corpse in a sealed room was directing the haunting. Also a very british sort of atmosphere.

Other films: Wizard of Oz, of course, w/Olivier's projected visage. Some of the robots were very War of the Worlds. The land of unlikely creatures was King Kong (the original). I know I've seen the tiny oddities in jars in some Boris Karloff movie or other. Gwyneth was chanelling Lauren Bacall to Law's Bogie (who was also a bit Cary and a bit Gary), while Angelina was more of an original creation. Bai Ling was less Darth Maul to me and more a sort of Evil Queen (Snow White)/dragon lady sort of stereotype.

Shangrila was Lost Horizon, the big hangers of stuff was Citizen Kane; it was all as over the top as Van Helsing, except it was cleverer, never as overwrought or downright hokey.

Shawn

Shawn H wrote:

Of course, the huge log across the chasm was right out of King Kong.

Lew Mammel, Jr.

In article , shill#@fas.harvard.edu says...

I'm thinking ISLAND OF DOCTOR MOREAU.

Not to mention Lois Lane from the Max Fliescher Superman serials.

Angelina was a reverse gender of the typical military male pal, ala SPACE ANGEL's Scott McCloud (with eye patch), or JOHNNY QUEST's Race Bannon (sans eye patch).

There wasn't the scene chewing of VAN HELSING, certainly nothing akin to Dracula yelling that Frankenstein's monster as a "TRIUMPH of SCIENCE over GOD!".

-- Ken from Chicago

"Ken from Chicago" wrote in message news:[email]...

wrote:

I

you

with

Robot, BTW.

and

Independence

creatures

it

Jolie reminded me more of Nick Fury and the Hele Carrier.

Is it me or is the whole thing a bit Captain Proton?

MDP

In article , Shawn H wrote:

Bride of Frankenstein.

There's some other '30s flick about a doctor into shrinking people that uses this device. "The Doll People," or something like that...?

C. ** (Yeah, too lazy to look it up--g!)

[email] (888eight888) wrote in news:[email]:

Sorry, you got only one newsgroup right out of three.

-Dan Damouth

Daniel Damouth wrote in message news:...

It must be very frustrating to not be able to control people on the internet.

[email] (888eight888) wrote in news:[email]:

Foruntately, most people see the usefulness of the rules, or at least respond to peer pressure. But some people are all ego and no shame.

-Dan Damouth

[email] (888eight888) wrote in message news:...

True, but at least we know who the idiots are. LEARN TO READ. rec.arts.tv and alt.tv.simpsons are NOT movie groups./ Go back to first grade you fucking retard.

[email] (David Johnston) wrote in message news:...

What I mean by "cliches" are the Star Wars-like battle scenes, the Star Wars/Indiana Jones -John Williamesque score, the Indiana Jones-like scenes in Shangri-La, (I thought that foreign guy with them was about to say something like "bad dates"), the constant resort to action scenes to keep the audience interested. The appeal to the masses - the unwillingless to let go of cliches for fear of loss of ticket sales profit.

Yes, there are homages to old-style films, including the whole "Buck Rogers" thing. My complaint is that Star Wars/Indiana Jones are recent movies whose cliches have been done to death in the past 25+ years...

By no means am I belittling the efforts of the filmmakers - because it was surely a laborious undertaking. Although I don't know how much ultimate artistic control the writer/director of this film was given -- the film started off with a very unique flare and gradually spun into the typical.

[email] (888eight888) wrote:

I suspect that Conran had more or less the same motivation that Lucas and Spielberg had when they made RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK (or Lucas making STAR WARS): just wanting to make a film that they would've loved to see when they were kids.

It never struck me that Conran was unwilling to let go of the cliches, but that he was relishing in them.

-- jayembee

[email] (888eight888)

Dear 8-iot:

This has absolutely NO relevance to rec.arts.tv, alt.tv.simpsons. Stop spamming.

[email] (Troy Heagy) wrote in message news:...

Ok...first off: What does it matter to you whether or not someone cross-posts into other groups?

Is it that horrible to scroll past a post? All of you that seem so upset about a post apparently have gone out of your way to click it and reply...

Is a post topic about movies so "spam-like" compared to the daily crap being trolled on a daily basis (which is obviously not being stopped)?

I frequent both alt.tv.simpsons and rec.arts.tv and, yes, I believe that in both groups there are people who are interested in this subject.

Do you need me to afix a little "OT" to guide you? I am not going off to every different group to post about every different subject that comes up. If you haven't figured out that there is a familial element to groups on the internet - I don't know what to say...

Additionally, you don't know that people who like tv also like the movies?

You're the retards for getting bent out of shape. If it was "against the rules" - why does Google enable cross-posting?

P.S. It must be boiling your blood that you can't control what I say....It's like trying to bend a spoon with your mind... Think a 'lil harder..you'll eventually get it. :P

[email] (888eight888) wrote in message news:...

For the same reason it matters to me if someone drives on the wrong side of the road.... or ignores stop signs... or walks into my house and helps themselves to my food.

There are RULES... aka manners... which we learn to obey to keep the world functioning. On the Usenet, one of those rules is: "Post your message to *releveant* groups." This way the Usenet stays organized instead of chaotic.

So stop driving on the wrong side of the road.

Troy

Don't try to reason with the cross-posting and cross-dressing trolls, you'll only end up wasting your time.

Just block them and move on...

[email] (Troy Heagy) wrote in message news:...

So, I suppose it's okay to cross-post in a response (i.e. yours)?

Nobody is harmed by an irrelevant discussion on usenet. If anyone was physically or mentally endangered by someone posting off topic, anyone who has ever visited, for instance, sci.physics.relativity would be dead by now.

MDP BBC2 8.30PM GMT 20th September