Movie Review: Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow

Sky Captain And The World Of Tomorrow

I would guess, if you surveyed reviews of this movie, you would see at least two references that director Kerry Conran reacted like "a kid in a candy store." But think about that for a minute. Nobody ever lets a kid get away with whatever they want in a candy store — that would be verging into reckless endangerment. A kid with free reign in a candy store would gorge himself on too much candy, resulting in high blood sugar, excitability, and a poor appetite for real food.

Metaphorically, that's what Conran has done with Sky Captain. He's indulged himself beyond the point that makes sense; the only difference is that it's the viewer who ends up with the stomachache and jittery nerves at the end of the movie. It's a beautiful movie, and there's a lot of material that will satisfy your sweet tooth, but you'll probably have a headache afterwards as you try to process what you've seen.

The plot is clearly pulling from comics-based serials of the 1930s and 1950s. Scientists are being kidnapped, and intrepid reporter Polly Perkins (Gwyneth Paltrow) is on the case. As she investigates, New York is attacked by a squadron of 100-foot tall flying robots. They're unstoppable, and the city (and Polly) is in danger — until the arrival of Sky Captain (Jude Law), aka Joe Sullivan, in his P-40 Warhawk, flying through the city and eventually turning back the robotic onslaught. Polly's one lead is that the mysterious Dr. Totenkopf may be behind these attacks, and she and Joe start to dig into the mystery.

With so many fantastic elements, this could have easily become a huge movie — on the scale of a Phantom Menace or a Spider Man. Instead, Conran made a commitment to filming exclusively against the blue screen. So everything in the movie, except for props directly handled by the actors, is computer generated and digitally integrated with the live actors. This technique has been used before, including with large sections of the new Star Wars trilogy. But where George Lucas and others have done their best to integrate this into traditional filmmaking, Conran has taken these capabilities and used them to create something new.

The whole film has a very nontraditional look, sort of a fuzzy/dreamy 21st century version of 1930s movie posters and comic books. I'm not sure whether this was a good choice, but it's certainly interesting. However, the real power of the greenscreen technique is in the robotic devices the characters fight. Here Conran is in his candy-store element, and he's created a fantastic menagerie of cool and creepy machines. Building-high humanoid robots; wing-flapping jet-powered flying robots; giant squat underwater robots. The good guys' equipment is also inventive and cool. In the beginning, we see things we're basically familiar with, like the "Hindenburg III" and Sky Captain's P-40 Warhawk, but as the movie develops we see that the good guys have some powerful tools of their own.

Fantastic movies like this obviously require a suspension of disbelief. But the movie has to do its part to make this work, by delivering a world that's internally consistent. The audience has to understand the rules of the game; if the movie violates these rules, it has to be clear why it's able to get away with it. The Matrix is an example of this — the movie actually creates two sets of rules ("real world" and the Matrix); the viewer has a strong sense of what the rules are for each world, and understands what's happend when characters learn they can change those rules.

But with Sky Captain I never knew what was in bounds and what wasn't. The movie starts out with a 1935 level of technology — zeppelins, P-40 Warhawks, and so forth. It's one thing to see that the bad guys have 10-story robots... but they're flying? How do they do that? And then we find out that the good guys have some pretty magical technology too. Well, fine, then why is Sky Captain flying a P-40?

The problem continues when you try to figure out the rules of the world we're in. We quickly realize that we're dealing with Germans — the first shots include the Hindenburg III, and then we realize that there's a 'person of interest' named Dr. Totenkopf. It worsens with very prominent references to Nanjing (a real-world Japanese atrocity site) But are we in a world with a Nazi movement and an alliance of Axis powers? Or is this an alternate reality with no Nazis? Either approach would be fine, but it feels strange to be in a world of 1935 with evil Germans that doesn't address the question.

These kinds of gaping backstory holes come fast and furious. I could mention more — what kind of physics are they using? — but the point is, that you never know what's possible and what isn't. This can work in an Alice-in-Wonderland scenario, but in this story I kept having 'wait just a sec!' moments that broke my suspension of disbelief. In a fantastical world like this, that's a fatal flaw, and I found myself evaluating the movie rather than watching a story.

For further examples I'll digress for a moment, to discuss two plot holes I found jarring. Some spoilers here, so skip ahead a couple paragraphs if you wish.

SPOILERS

Early in the movie, we see Joe's gadget-loving sidekick Dex testing a ray gun that melts metal. Joe later grabs this gun and puts it in his jacket. Some time later, Joe and Polly are trapped inside a storeroom filled with dynamite. As fuses burn short, they're trapped behind a locked door that looks like a watertight ship's portal. Joe uses another stick of dynamite to try to explode the door, with little chance of survival. Did he just forget the gun? Had he lost it? No; he pulls it out a while later, when he needs to fight a few robots. So why didn't he use his raygun, when death was otherwise nearly certain? (Other than because it was convenient for the plot.)

Another example. Joe and Polly come ashore on Dr. Totenkopf's island in a swampy lagoon (with more than a passing resemblance to Dagobah from Empire Strikes Back). After five minutes of walking, while fleeing from pursuers, they're faced with a thousand-foot chasm that they must cross. Now, excuse me? They were at sea level on an island, only a few minutes earlier. Now there's a huge crevasse in front of them, which stretches for miles in either direction. So... where did the water go?

END SPOILERS

I haven't mentioned the acting, and that's not surprising since it wasn't the problem with the movie. All the main characters were well realized; the characters are all instances of classic serial archetypes. Jude Law and Giovanni Ribisi crafted fine realizations of heroic Joe Sullivan and his assistant Dex. Gwyneth Paltrow had a bit more difficulty; her character was written a bit haphazardly (hm, Conran in the candy store again?) but she did fine work in pulling together a performance that worked very well in total despite problems with some of the parts. Angelina Jolie provides a saucy turn that's small but equally well crafted. But ultimately, the fine performances are overwhelmed by the spectacle that surrounds them, and so the movie stands or falls on other factors than the acting.

So where does the movie end up? Your appreciation for the movie will ultimately depend on how forgiving you are. I tend to be pretty forgiving, but even so I was overwhelmed with too many 'wait a minute!' moments to lose myself in the movie. Others probably react differently. Certainly the movie is interesting; Conran has a stong vision and vivid imagination, and he has created a world with much visual interest and intriguing concepts. But in the end, it's a sexy, inviting mess, and it never pulls itself together for long enough to achieve coherency. It will be interesting to see where Conran goes from here. Either he will develop some discipline (and a better script) and create something very interesting... or he will fade into obscurity (or cheesey formula horror movies), having exhausted his imagination in one binge of eye candy.

Verdict: Interesting Failure
Score: 4 of 10

Transfer Deadline

And now for something completely different...

Midnight on August 31 is the close of the transfer window in the English Premiere League -- sort of analagous to the trade deadline in US sports. My team, Arsenal (and yes I'm a lucky man), ended up not making any moves before the deadline. They were on track to sign Angulo, but at the last minute the Valencia midfielder decided to stay with his current club instead.

In a way it's disappointing because he sounds like an intriguing player, skilled and versatile. But I can't get too wound up about this. For one thing, Arsenal are still ringing from the Patrick Viera saga. The Gunner faithful were all but convinced that our team captain would leave us for Real Madrid; when he changed his mind and stayed in London, there was much relief. So -- to now see the same situation in reverse, feels a bit like 'turnabout is fair play.'

But more importantly, I'm not sure that we needed him. Unusually for a sports fan, I'm completely willing to trust Arsene Wenger's judgement in this matter, based on his track record with signings. If he thought Angulo would be useful, I won't doubt it. But it's difficult to worry too much about an offense that's been so prolific at scoring goals this season. On the other hand, if we have a weakness at the moment, it's in defensive cover. And so I'm a bit disappointed that we didn't make any signings in the back four. It's not that we're in bad shape, but still it would be nice to see some more solidity.

Campbell and Toure have been rock solid, but Campbell's been injured. Pascal Cygan isn't horrid for a reserve, but he has his moments of weakness, and he's about as slow as I am. I don't have much opinion on Justin Hoyte yet but he's young and inexperienced if nothing else. Our left side is world-class; Ashley Cole is on the short list for best left back in the world at the moment, which is only disappointing in that it means few opportunities for the young, exciting Gael Clichy. But on the right side, Lauren has looked shaky at times. He's certainly a quality player, but of our first-choice starting XI he's probably the weakest, and there's no obvious cover for him. He's the player that could really use someone like Clichy to challenge him -- or replace him. I have a hope that we'll start to see Frankie Simek playing with the first team; it would be great to see an American in the home colors at Highbury. But I have no idea if he's ready to take on that burden.

All of which is to say, it would have been nice to see a defensive signing. There was a lot of noise about signing Hatem Trabelsi from Ajax. I grew less excited about the deal after reading stories of his poor behavior with Ajax, but still it would have been nice to have additional options -- and he's not the only defender available. Again, I have a deep trust of Wenger, and I'm sure he knows what he's doing. I only wish that would help me when I'm drumming my feet in nervousness, watching a long ball floating past Cygan with an opposing striker charging past him.