Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow

Why pretend I'm doing something new when everyone around me is pretending the same thing? Why not admit that everything important has already been done and film a fun and naïve retro with futuristic tricks, endearingly terrible acting performances, the atmosphere of old comic books and the plot of the most hilarious trash? Conran managed to do it really well... His Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow is a well-balanced mix of retro (everything listed above) and modern technical procedures with a special atmosphere of colorized movies, old photos and comics. If there was even more humor and perspective, Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow would be almost flawless, closely related to the similarly conceived Indiana Jones trilogy. The way that it is, it is sometimes spoiled by an excessive insight into its own visual perfection and a lack of distance from the triviality of the story. But it still functions as a spectacle, it’s almost a schematic parody, it’s infectiously entertaining, adventurously wild and cheerfully picturesque. Conran and his team’s attempt to achieve retro works on almost all fronts (the editing, acting, directing, soundtrack, artistic stylization) and if you accept it, you will see one of the most entertaining films of this season. Even with all the naivety, it’s much more intelligent than 99% of the adventurous production made in Hollywood. By the way, isn't it symbolic that entering the new visual age of the film is happening through a designer return to the immortal years of the 1920s and 1930s? (06/11/2004)

Yes, the film has a weak story. But to criticise it for that would be like being upset at the lack of dinosaurs in Schindler’s List. Because Sky Captain is pure fan pleasure whose main asset is what Star Wars has, which is something that 90% of current Hollywood productions lack. Sky Captain is a beautiful tribute to old movies, with pleasant humour, great heroic music and likeable protagonists (Jude Law and Angelina Jolie are excellent; only Gwyneth Paltrow seemed to me to be a bit unsure of what she was supposed to be doing). The sets need no comment; the Tibetan “recreational” valley reminded me of Rivendell from The Lord of the Rings. I was almost moved at moments. The only thing that prevents Sky Captain from being perfect is the lack of a specially adapted black-and-white version. P.S. The film points to an era in which flesh-and-blood actors will be replaced by digital facsimiles in films. (11/01/2005)

While the plot is quite thin, and particularly the point fizzles out into nothingness, it's a visually remarkable film that references famous past movies and evokes the atmosphere of cinematic and literary classics of adventure stories. There's a bit of Jules Verne, a touch of Metropolis, and echoes of American sci-fi from the 1930s. Overall impression: 65%. (01/12/2007)

A lot of blinking, lively dialogues, and one big toy that I can't play with. Jude Law is forever a character actor for me, who has nothing in common with a smiling action hero, and the cold Angelina is pure agony this time. The only significant advantage is that something is constantly moving, breaking, or flying on the screen, but in terms of how much was said about the film during its creation and how the creators boasted about it being a historic milestone, it quickly deservedly fell into oblivion. (12/09/2007)

A generously produced fan’s homage to film adventures. It has so many quotes and visual ideas that a day later I’ve already forgotten what it is supposed to be about. I didn’t get bored, for sure, and I admired the boldness of the creators that, notwithstanding the poor quality of the special effects, send the heroes into a relentless series of huge set-pieces, but by the end I was missing a more solid director power and I could no longer bear Gwyneth Paltrow, who has forgotten how to act and whose annoying character destroys the godly Angelina in five minutes. That said, it’s likeable bullshit with a filmmaking soul. 70% (24/01/2019)