Wow

Rating: Null/10 (5 July 2005)

If I could give this dreck a negative 10, I would. "This is the film they were trying to make when they made Sky Captain." I've heard this, or similar statements over and over in the press and on the web.
Let me see: Both are digital movies. Only the actors and some of the props are "real." But where SK created fully realized, DAYLIGHT worlds, SC is all dark and virtually black and white.
SK is from an original idea by its director. SC is (from all accounts) a shot by shot remake of a comic book. (Yeah, I know, comic books are freakin' art now.) SK provided a sense of wonder and amazement. SC provides cheap thrills and waves of disgust. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
SK had fun, subtle sexual chemistry between one guy and two disparate women. SC had men who are violent (and proud of it in most cases) and women who are tits, attitude, and foul mouths. The entire time I forced myself to sit through this crass, low-class, crud I could only think: This is the wet dream of all the puny, pasty-souled, weak-willed little men of the world. Men who want a big gun and a big powerful way to make up for their tiny truth, in other words, its defenders.
SK did it first. SC did it wrong, from they hyper-red lipstick to the uber violence and prejudice (misogyny and homophobia runs roughshod) SK had a first time director showing the world his deepest fantasy. SC, a "Quentin Tarantino" dithered with Rodriguez low-budget horror show. If this is Frank Miller's deepest fantasy, then I want to be warned if he's in the state.
All you defenders, you defend this mess. This is one man's opinion. It is too bad I didn't see this at the press screening, I might have been able to warn others.
Sin City is not better than Sky Captain. SK has all kinds of faults. But it is not ever going to be as bad (or faux hip) as this.