"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n\"Sky Captain\" may be considered an homage to comic books, pulp adventures and movie serials but it contains little of the magic of some of the best from those genres. One contributor says that enjoyment of the film depends on whether or not one recognizes the films influences. I don't think this is at all true. One's expectations of the films,fiction and serials that \"Captain\" pays tribute to were entirely different. Especially so for those who experienced those entertainments when they were children. This film is almost completely devoid of the charm and magnetic attraction of those. Of course we know the leads will get into and out of scrapes but there has to be some tension and drama. Toward the climax of \"Captain\" Law and Paltrow have ten minutes to prevent catastrophe and by the time they get down to five minutes they are walking not running toward their goal. They take time out for long looks and unnecessary conversation and the contemplation of a fallen foe with 30 seconds left to tragedy. Of course one expects certain conventions to be included but a good director would have kept up some sense of urgency.
One doesn't expect films like this to necessarily \"make sense\". One does expect them to be fun, thrilling and to have some sense of interior logic. \"Captain\" has almost none. Remember when Law and Paltrow are being pursued by the winged creatures and they reach a huge chasm which they cross via a log bridge? Well how come they are perfectly safe from those creatures when they reach the other side? They can FLY!!! The chasm itself means nothing to them. The bridge is unnecessary for them so where is the escape? If the land across the chasm is 'forbidden' to the flying creatures the film made no effort to let us know how or why or even if.
I know that Paltrow and Law (both of whom have given fine performances in the past) were playing \"types\" but both were pretty flat. Only Giovanni Ribisi (who showed himself capable of great nuance here) and Angelina Jolie seemed to give any \"oomph\" to their roles although Omid Djalili seemed like he could have handled a little more if he'd only been given the chance. He did a pretty good job anyway considering how he was basically wasted.
The film had a great 'look' but there are so many ways in which CGI distracts. CGI works best when it is used for the fantastical, when it is used to create creatures who don't exist in nature or for scientific or magical spectacular. When it is used to substitute for natural locations it disappoints. There is no real sense of wonder. A CGI mountain doesn't have any of the stateliness or sense of awe and foreboding that a real mountain does. I know that the design of this film was quite deliberate and it wasn't necessarily supposed to LOOK real but shouldn't it FEEL that way? It just didn't.
As for the weak and clichéd script...homage is no excuse. Even so, had the movie had some thrills and dramatic tension it might still have been enjoyable. \"The Last Samurai\" was as predictable as the days of the week and I am no fan of Tom Cruise but it had everything that \"Captain\" didn't most notably it drew the viewer into its world and made us accept its rules and way of being in a way that \"Sky Captain\" most definitely did not.
I'd like to see a similar approach taken for films about comic book heroes of the 30's and 40's. The original (Jay Garrick) Flash or Green Lantern (Alan Scott) come to mind as being ripe for such treatment. Maybe the better, more well known and fully realized characters that those character are would make for a much better film. It would be hard to be worse.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"