Loading ...Movie Review - Sky Captain & the World of Tomorrow
User Rating:
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
2004 / 106 Minutes / PG
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz
I’m not going to be one of those blithering idiots that tell you “Sky Captain” is perfect, and the reason I’m not going to do that is not because I believe there is no such thing as perfection. There isn’t such a thing as perfection, but that’s irrelevant. There are things that are close, even movies that are close (“The Good, The Bad and the Ugly”, “Raiders of the Lost Ark”, a certain movie about the busting of ghosts that doesn’t have a 2 in the title) but there isn’t anything that truly is perfect. There. Sorry to burst anyone’s bubble, but it’s a fact of life. Anyone who tells you that “Sky Captain” is perfect, well; they are first and foremost an immense geek. They are probably no older than thirty years old and they will probably cite the old wartime motion picture serials that were “Sky Captain’s” inspiration when they make this rabid argument. If they do use this tactic just ask them to name the serials that they have actually seen. They will suddenly become quite silent. That is because they likely have actually seen any of the serials in question. I like to consider myself a rather well rounded individual, cinematically. I’m the sort of guy who often wonders if I have enough anime or silent cinema or foreign films in my DVD collection…and there is no logical reason why I should really give a shit. Is someone really going to come into my house and grade me on the diversity of my film collection? It seems highly unlikely. And if they do, I should get at least a passing grade. I own less than half a dozen silent films, this is true, but I at least have a few. ANYWAY, the point I’m trying to make is that I watch a lot of movies (A LOT of movies) and I own a lot of movies (again A LOT of movies) and I have only seen one batch of serials in my life. Those were some Dick Tracy serials from the Thirties. They were a lot of fun, and they went out of their way to cram as much action into the narrative as possible, and they were filled with machine guns and nefarious, possibly Nazi villainy and strange ventures into cowboy territory. But they were by no means perfect. The acting was fairly hollow, the action had more enthusiasm than it did finesse, and the bad guys were pretty much one-note.
So what these geeks are inevitably comparing this film to is their own personal idea of what the old fashioned serials were like. And, as with any old genre, we have a tendency to make them a little better than they actually were. We look at everything from the past through a bleary, Vaseline-smeared lens of perception. Everything looks a little nicer in hindsight. But we only think these serials were so magical because the guys who grew up on such serials went on to make the Indiana Jones and Star Wars movies using the magic they absorbed at Saturday matinees as children. We have a tendency to think every serial was like “Raiders of the Lost Ark” or “The Empire Strikes Back” (and I’m sure that some were high quality, even if by accident) but the Dick Tracy serials weren’t quite up to that sort of comparison. They were fun to watch, but mostly as a sort of historical piece. (Sadly, the original “Star Wars” films are more interesting as historical notes than actual entertainment as well…but that’s a rant for another time and, truth be told, I still get a lot of enjoyment out of them.) These geeks are using “Raiders” and “Star Wars” as a yardstick for talking about “Sky Captain”. I saw a blurb by no less than Roger Ebert mentioning all three of these films in the same paragraph. Again, this is a bad move. If you go into this movie expecting it to be as good as “Raiders of the Lost Ark” or “Star Wars” then you’re bound to be disappointed.
If, however, you go into this film looking for the sort of “Gee Whiz”, action-packed entertainment that kept audiences riveted in the Thirties then you might find yourself watching the film with a certain amount of glee. I know that I did. I enjoyed “Sky Captain” thoroughly, despite a few minor problems, and I’ll tell you why: here is a movie that throws everything it can think of onto the screen for our amusement. It’s a delirious film that flies by the seat of its pants and practically bends over backwards to entertain. It’s got giant robots, nefarious plots, feats of derring do, flying fortresses, underwater escapes, dynamites with long burning fuses and lots and lots of narrow escapes. It has all the things that are sadly missing from so many hollow, modern action spectacles. It has a sense of awe that most films are so utterly lacking. Look at the original “Jurassic Park”, for example. It’s not that great of a movie. It’s fun, sure, but it’s a “B” film at best. The reason it was worth watching, however, and worth noting even so many years later was the fact that it had a true sense of wonder and awe. It respected its own special effects enough to treat them as something that was special. “Sky Captain” has the same sense of wide-eyed wonder. It’s a very uncynical movie. It aspires to be magical and, for the majority of its running time, it succeeds. Too few movies these days even try to do that.
Another thing about “Sky Captain”: it’s very well written. I’m not saying it plumbs the depths of human emotion and delivers a searing message about humanity and the times in which we live. Much the opposite is true, in fact. It makes us completely forget about our lives and our troubles for two hours as we bask in the glory of an era that never really existed and thrill to feats that have never actually been performed. It’s audaciously far-fetched, but it takes itself seriously enough that we, as an audience, do the same. This film understands tone and atmosphere and it gets those little things right. Yet it always seems to have a certain wink in its eye. The characters are well written and fun to watch, the plot is absurd but tongue-in-cheek enough that we accept every flight of fancy it throws to us, and the film is paced so quickly that you never have time to notice the ludicrous nature of it all. This is all very refreshing. It’s one of those rare movies where the screenwriters seem to be in the next room making the story up one step ahead of the audience, and I don’t mean that in a detrimental way. The Indiana Jones films operate in much the same way. “Sky Captain” feels spontaneous, and yet it adds up as it goes along. (It may not ALL add up, but neither did the old serials…judging from the one I’ve seen).
And the most amazing thing about “Sky Captain” is the visuals. This is a movie you could enjoy on a pure eye candy level and still emerge from the theater satisfied. It’s a movie you can bask in. I don’t know much about the technical efforts involved in bringing this movie to the screen and, really, that doesn’t matter much to me. I know it’s a process in which everything but the actors was done in a computer and the actors were reacting to nothing against the backdrop of a green screen but, really, I don’t know why that’s so damned impressive. It seems to me that Lucas’s “Star Wars” prequels have been done in much the same manner. (That’s how they look, at least.) Sometimes the film looks like this was the case, but most of the time you won’t even think about the manner with which the film was constructed, you’ll just ooh and aah at the beautiful scenery and cinematography and smile at the little nods the filmmakers have included to old filmmaking conventions. There are perhaps too many quick cuts in the film and a few too many close-ups (you went through all the trouble of constructing this world, why not let us see a little more of it) but the film still made me giddy for most of its length. It has the burnished, shimmering glow of a particularly wonderful dream. The action sequences are a bit too disjointed as well but, again, they kept me close to the edge of my seat, so they must have been doing something right.
And now I come to the performances of the film, all of which, I must say, are absolutely perfect. Jude Law is perfect as the charming rogue Joe “Sky Captain” Sullivan. He’s a great aviator with some woman problems, a peptic ulcer, and a perpetual wink in his eye. He’s a great character with just enough flaws and foibles to make him interesting and keep him from becoming larger than life, but just enough steely heroism and charm to skirt the edge of being a legend. Giovanni Ribisi is also quite good as Joe’s gum chewing inventor and resident mechanical genius. He brings a lovely flair to his role. But the real treat here is Gwyneth Paltrow’s dead on portrayal of Polly Perkins, a plucky reporter of the Lois Lane variety whose sheer tenacity and moxie make her the most fun person onscreen. She’s brilliant here. Absolutely brilliant. I’d forgotten how much I actually missed Gwyneth, who brings such class to films that you’d never expect to have any, like this or particularly “Shallow Hal” (for which I still insist she should have gotten an Oscar nomination). She’s in top form here, playing this sort of character better than most of the actresses who originated this sort of role. And she and Law have remarkable onscreen chemistry. It’s dazzling to behold.
Then again, most of the film is dazzling to behold. The action sequences could have been a bit more coherent and some of the stuff in the film is pushing suspension of disbelief to its absolute breaking point. But Kerry Conran’s design of this world and attention to character and dialogue (the dialogue is breezy, smart and immensely quotable) make it more than memorable. It may not quite deserve comparisons to the early work of Lucas and Spielberg, but it has some of the same sense of invention, some of the same moxie and verve and awe. And that is truly a feat worthy of respect. “Sky Captain” is a film that made me giddy and kept me so giddy that I didn’t even notice its flaws until after the fact. It dares to remind us that film was invented not to enlighten or broaden our minds, but simply to entertain and provide us with an escape hatch from the world around us. And I, for one, welcomed the escape.
