By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com
Early Reader Reaction To SCatWoT
I think the THB reader e-mails below, received from Friday ticket buyers, pretty much sum up the two camps on Sky Captain… either you embrace the cool or you feel like a fool.
Friday estimates put the film at around $15 million for the weekend, unless it really plays like a children’s film, 50% up on Saturday, in which case it could get to $17m or $18m. This is a stark contrast to Sony Screen Gems’ Resident Evil 2 opening last weekend ($23 million) or last year’s back-to-back Big Sony/Screen Gems September openings of Once Upon A Time In Mexico ($23 million) and Underworld ($22 million). Especially cause SCatWoT cost multiples of each of those three Sony releases.
I would make the same box office argument as always… hugely enthusiastic geeks are good for about $5 million and energizing the AICN/CHUD/Dark Horizons/Etc/Etc/Etc crowd for those films has that kind of value. After that, they have no influence on the base of real moviegoers and you need to sell them something they want to see. Paramount did a pretty good job about going beyond that base, because this could easily have been an $8 million opener. But if Jude Law, Gwynneth and Angelina are worth about $7 million in opening weekend ticket sales between them, you’re only looking at a 20% reach beyond the core for this film.
But at least they’ll feel better than Disney, as that studio tries to figure out why Mr. 3000 couldn’t do more than 50% better than the unhappy openin crash of Soul Plane.
But on to the readers…
Soup-er Duper says: “Dave, I loved SCatWoT (“scatwot”- hey, that’s cool!). High 8 of 10. And I gotta say, I’m a little disappointed that you could so haughtily dismiss it. It is what it is better than any commercial release I’ve seen this year- a pure, unbridled, visually imaginative delight. The best movie that could ever be made by the smartest 12-year-old you’ve never met. The look is astounding, the performances circumspect, the dialogue slight but amusing, the plot as thin as the serials that inspired it. And there’s no fat on the thing- it comes and goes quickly. I know that I’ll see better movies before the year is out, but I doubt I’ll enjoy myself much more.”
But J-Mac Says: “I’ve been waiting for this movie to come out for so long because I _knew_ it was going to be horrible and indeed it is. This is the most lifeless overstylized piece of nothing this side of Attack of the Clones, but at least a Lucas movie delivers on some level. SCatWoT was dreadfully acted and so completely artifical it amounted to nothing more than a porn video for Art Deco fetishists. I didn’t give a rat’s ass about anything that was happening on screen for an instant. What pisses me off the most is that all the Aint It Cool geeks have been salivating over it just because it has a retro-nostalgic look to it, which strikes me as massively shallow and superficial.”
I thought the film was beautiful, but its also much less commercial than I expected. Kerry Conran is not a good director, he’s a good visualist. The guy should have been a DP or a graphic artist. As a story it doesnt really work, and the actors are about as bland as expected (with the exception of Jolie). I would have liked to have seen this made with real movie stars, with personality. I think of Ford around the time of Raiders. Larger than life. Anyway, if it makes it to $50 mill. I’ll be surprised. Not bad, just not particularly good.
Basically sky captain looks like crap. they’re saying indiana jones? yea in their dreams
I don’t know why people hate this film. It’s either I have no taste or they don’t. And I think it’s them. I think it’s a ton of fun. The plot makes no sense, but who cares? The visuals and devotion of the actors to the material make up for everything else. It’s like a combination of Flash Gordon, Metropolis, and tons of other movies (there’s even a shot that’s 100 percent stolen from Strangers on a Train). I hope this movie makes the money it deserves.
Uh lifeless? I hate bloody gurram dung nas who call any movie with CGI “lifeless.” Are ye blinded? Probably not because you seem way to easily DISTRACTED by a special FX to understand the story right above it. That attitude has to easily be the laziest cinema attitude going around today. Get over your antiquainted issues, and understand that CGI will not go away. You can either adopt and overcome, or suffer through your own ignorance that cannot come to grasp with evolving technology. I fear the day you come in contact with the truly, no human involved in anyway, virtual actor. Your head might pop straight off your head all Baron Munchausen like.
But hey, your opinion, at least I dont have to be the one acting silly. Sky Captain, nor Attack (a film seemingly too complicated for people to understand it as a tale of people disconnected from the world around them, but “it has horrible acting!” Faster and more intention, chuckles.”
Sky Captain, while a good movie, not a great movie, but you take a good movie any day over shite. So, there.
Have a nice day…
Sky Captain is bad on multiple levels. If the story was strong and entertaining I could’ve forgiven the wooden acting and lousy (yes, lousy) special effects.
If the acting was fantastic, I could’ve forgiven the ridiculous bad and convinient script and lousy special effects.
If the special effects were … well, you get the point.
I was most disappointed with the FX really. Honestly, they just didn’t look good. Between the soft focus and the obvious blue screen work, I just felt cheated. From everything I read, I was expecting the next stage of cinema. Instead I got special effects that can’t even compare to the original Matrix from five years ago.
Two key special effects scenes that looked God awful:
Paltrow ‘running’ away from the robots as they trounce through Manhattan and Ribisi getting his leg caught in the falling apart air hanger. Both scenes couldn’t have looked worse, and both actors couldn’t have been more obviously playing on blue screen.
Plain and simple, this movie sucks as bad as the past two Star Wars. When will geeks learn to use Peter Jackson as their benchmark? I find it hard to believe that he is the only geek filmmaker who can successful match story, effects and acting. Unfortunately, in the last decade (outside of the first Matrix) he is.
Sky Captain, if you are the World of Tomorrow, count me out.
Sky Captain is such a bad movie, I couldn’t believe it. Yeah, the visuals are amazing, blah, blah, blah. Could the guy not spend at least half the time he spent on making things look cool on trying to get Gwyneth Paltrow to act, you know, GOOD? And did anyone else notice that you can see the eye that Angelina Jolie’s got the eyepatch over? Finally, I wanted to strangle Kerry Conran because he thought, for some silly reason, that a running gag about a camera was funny. This is not a good movie unless you bring earplugs.
The ultimate glorification of style over substance. Who wants a good story when over-the-top, geek fantasy- fueled visuals will do the trick?
Sadly for the filmmakers of Sky Captain, quite a lot of us. I do not object to CGI-infused artistry in movies. On the contrary, when it is done well (and with an eye towards serving the story and the characters) then it can be a wonderful tool in suspending disbelief. Think Peter Jackson’s LOTR or Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man movies.
Sky Captain has none of their charm. Instead, it offers a hodge-podge of references to other, better films, and in the process, loses the audience.
Hey I am not justifying the story, because even I see he could have spent more time on the characters.
However, not one of the people before this post seem to understand the CONTEXT in which the film should be viewed. It’s a friggin ode to films from the past. Where the action took precedence over the CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT so many of you bitch and whine about needing today.
Why are so many people in the moviegoing public caught up in the 21st century? Why can so many of you not grasp, CONTEXT, when it’s right there in front of you? It continues to bug me. Good lord, get a grip on what’s going on before you bash it.
Naive attitudes like this screwed over the Matrix Sequels.
BOS, I understand where you’re coming from. However, SC just didnt do it for me. I’d put it up there with the Mummy movies. Has good Nostalgia factor and great visuals but the story just didnt hold up for me, even in the hokey genre its working in. People seem to either love or hate the movie. I’m sort of in the middle. Not something I’d buy, but if it was on tv I’d probably watch for a few minutes to marvel at the visuals. Dont even try to compare it to the Matrix movies. They were made with an intellect and craft that Sky Captain never came close to approaching. This is what happens when a so-so movie gets overhyped. If this flick had come out of nowhere, a low-budget b-movie no one really knew much about, it could have caught on. Now everyone expected way too much from it.
If you want the general moviegoing public to like something, you’ll have to do more than satisfy geek tastes. Was this a film that kids and teenagers could enjoy enough to come out in large numbers? A resounding NO. They plain don’t get the retro-futuristic look, and Law, Paltrow and Jolie are not box office stars.
BOS, I sicerely hope you weren’t talking down at me from your last post. I get the movies’ sensibilities entirely. I am perfectly aware that not every action/genre movie has to have the depth and characterization of, say, a drama. But in order for it to be even the least bit worthy, it needs to make at least a token effort – the way Die Hard, for example, tries to give more depth to the central characters played by Willis & Rickman. Not much, but something for the audience to latch on to.
Sky Captain? Polly Perkins? Zip. Nada. A Black Hole. These are cookie-cutter characters with all the charm of a bad record. That isn’t an indictment against the genre – for a terrific 30’s action/adventure serial look no further than Indiana Jones or the Rocketeer, which are vastly superior.
Incidentally, the problem with the Matrix sequels wasn’t that nobody ‘got them’ or that they suffered from poor reviews. Poor word-of-mouth killed them. They were just bad movies, period. I completely GOT them – but they just weren’t entertaining enopugh for me to care!
Well, for better or worse, this is a movie trying to actually BE a serial action movie from the ’30s and ’40s with modern technology, and doesn’t strive to improve anything but the visuals. I mean, almost literally from the the soft light focus and the art deco imagery to the archetype characters, thin plot, and gee whiz dialogue, it could be one if you took out the the technical advances. I enjoyed myself for what it was and I REALLY liked the freewheeling action without all the “hiding the rear-projection/model/stock footage” camera movements. However, nothing in this movie works as well as it should. I wanted to love it, but oh well. What can ya’ do?
Talking down to people? Youre not a pet. So I reckon I did not do as much. However saying the Matrix Sequels are not entertaining certainly plays into another argument that I can slam upon anyone like Serena Williams facing a tennis ball in a bad mood. That aside, this film has nothing to do with GEEKS, because GEEKS cannot even get behind something like this because of their own sensibilities.
Leaving Paramount with a movie either to broad or thin for audiences to enjoy. Again, everyone and their bs modern sensibilities make something like Sky Captain hard to sell, since movie audiences can take crap like Far From Heaven, but something like this warps their fragile little minds.
Makes no sense to be, but my name is Paul and that’s between Y’all.
“Everyone and their bs modern sensibilities…?”
That seems to imply,Paul, that to you the modern cinematic audience cannot tell the difference between ‘good’ movies and ‘bad’ movies. What you are saying amounts to “I in my wisdom, can see something in this movie that the majority of you cannot.” I disagree.
Pardon me for having more faith in the majority rather than in a single individual!
I put it to you that it is in fact fairly simple:
A good movie will usually succeed in the box office on its own merits, and while a bad movie may benefit in its opening week from all the hype and attendant publicity, poor word-of-mouth soon leads to huge falls by the second week onwards, i.e. no repeat business, no ‘plugging of the movie to your mates.’ etc. We have seen this pattern time and time again over the last few years.
That has nothing to do with ‘modern sensibilities’ and everything to do with the general public’s ability to separate good movies from bad movies.
In any case, let us see how Sky Captain does over the next few weeks. If a great deal more people latch on to it and its box office improves significantly, then I am prepared to admit I could have been wrong about the film.
oh my god it was amazing
great effects
great acting
great story
great sarcasm
Bill. Bill. Bill. As Poland has said time and time again, sort of like this; “BOX OFFICE DOES DICTATE THE QUALITY OF THE FILM!” Trust me. He has hammered that point home, at least in my head, and I always here.
However, as always when someone makes a stance, the people on the other side of the stance take it as a slag. Im not slagging you at all. I personally feel that the cynicism and sarcasm of this age has a created one hell of a wanky moviegoer.
A moviegoer no longer eclectic, as if they ever were possibly, but a moviegoer more willing to accept total and utter BULLSHIT in certain circumstances. If they feel their ass has been tickled with a feather. Leaving me wondering what movies these people are seeing, that I am not seeing. Or just creating in me; an eclectic moviegoer who doesnt feel as if I am connected to the rest of the moviegoing public
Again, not like Im slagging anyone in particular. Im just trying to figure out what the hell happened.
box office does not equal good film. we have learned this. davey boy beats it into our heads. and u should know better.
RE: Box Office and Quality
I must admit – and this has always been a contentious issue – that I do not necessarily agree with Poland on this one.
In general (and by that I mean there will always be exceptions) I think that the public do have the ‘final say’ on what ultimately gets recognised as a good or great movie.
1001 critics may hail a movie like Far From Heaven to be a masterpiece, but if the public don’t go to see it, chances are it won’t be remembered as one. In ten years time, will anyone even remember what the movie was about?
Again, there will always be exceptions. Great movies like “The Shawshank Redemption” or “Blade Runner” were moderate failures at the box office, but were discovered by a much bigger audience afterwards. But they remain the exceptions, not the rule.
There will be movies that the critics will label as good – as they have done in the past – that have then been swiftly forgotten. There are far more examples of movies that the critics hated (or were divided over) that have become box office successes, and have then gone on to be recognised retroactively by critics as ‘classics’ rather than the reverse.
Are there crap movies that do good box office? Sure – as I have noted before, great marketing campaigns will hype up even a bad film so that it does fantastic business in its first week. Or, in the case of bad sequels, the legacy and goodwill of the original movie will secure a large built-in audience for the next, regardless of its quality.
That is at least where I am coming from. Critics would of course disagree – but then you’d expect them to wouldn’t you?