The computer-generated sets and locations were astonishing.
It’s a shame they didn’t let the computer take a crack at the script, too.
#1 New York Times Bestselling Author & TV Producer
The computer-generated sets and locations were astonishing.
It’s a shame they didn’t let the computer take a crack at the script, too.
So tell us. What did you really think?
I agree, the script wasn’t that great…I didn’t think Gwenyth was that good either…but it was really awesome and who needs a good script when Angelina Jolie is in a movie…she made the film great (as always)!
This movie wasn’t about script, so the fact that it was essentially pure cheese didn’t really bother me. I thought it was kind of an homage to the sort of Saturday morning serials that inspired STAR WARS, which also didn’t exactly have the best of all possible scripts.
It was a good time at the theater. Though it was only a less-than-five-dollar matinee for me….
While STAR WARS and INDIANA JONES were clearly inspired by the serials, they were more than just technically updated homages. They were terrific entertainment in their own right. Star Wars was wildly entertaining… it was more than inventive special effects. Indiana Jones was great fun…and not just a showcase for computer-generated wizardry. They could have been made by virtue of their scripts alone. SKY CAPTAIN, without the wonderful computer-generated sets, is… well… nothing except a bad script that nobody would have made into a movie.
Much as SKY CAPTAIN seems like something I’d like, I’m still on the fence, wary it’ll be too much spectacle to pay full price. I never get tired of Star Wars or Indy, but drawing me into worlds I willingly accept is increasingly difficult.
As much as Indy and the original Star Wars trilogy were homages, there was the sense that these events were happening for the first time. The Star Wars prequels have ridden on the originals’ coattails and have themselves been soulless.
Current movie buzz seems so quick to reference classics: “Like Star Wars, The Magnificent Seven, and E.T. rolled into one…” Has this always been the case?
For as long as I can preserve the feeling, I don’t want anything new to seem “like” anything else. I want to believe I’m exploring new territory. Nods to tradition are fine, but new material shouldn’t overlook building a tradition all its own. A good recent blend of tradition and new, IMO, was Joss Whedon’s short-lived “Firefly.”
I loved it from start to finish. I mean, just the look of the film itself…it’s one of the few movies (way beyond Superman or Spiderman or X-Men) that made me feel like I was watching a moving comic book. Or more accurately, an old issue of Analog or similar mag, their cover art come to life. Yeah, the plot wasn’t that great (but I happen to think plot is the least important element in a movie/TV show/novel anyway), but it held my interest and had some nice lines. Good cast too.
It looked spectacular, no argument there. Just imagine, though, how great it would have been if the characters and plot were equally spectacular. The problem is that the wow-factor of the computer effects wears off… and you are left with the characters and plot.
I went to see it last night. Agree with you 100%. But a couple of my friends thought the computer effects made up for it. No wonder so many bad movies make it big.