Genres

Visitors Review

moopet 2013-05-21 01:28:20

I saw it twice in one week, and liked it both times

This appears to have divided people into love it/hate it camps. It's afairly mundane story - kind of like a boys-own adventure, but it sureis lovely to look at. Paltrow as the female lead... was perfect. Ignoreall the comments to the contrary, I can't imagine anyone else playingit much better.The closest I could come to a complaint is that the film's too dark inmost of the scenes. They used a lot of haze effects (more so in thefirst 20 minutes or so) to give it an old-film feel which goes a longway towards giving this movie its incredible style. I initially thoughtI was going to hate it but soon got into the swing of things. However,I imagine myself playing this one on DVD in front of my friends andconstantly apologising for the quality when it's on a TV-size screen -to be honest it reminded me of nothing more than a dodgy cam piratecopy!A lot of people have complained that it's just a sub-standard IndianaJones... think again. If this film had contained all the humour andfrankly silly action sequences that make IJ what it is, it would havefailed on every other level, I'm sure of it. It's just right. There arefunny moments but they're buried in the murkiness.I didn't leave the cinema on a high, I didn't feel the need to raveabout it to my friends... but I loved every minute of it.

2013-05-20 18:57:59

The World of Tomorrrrrrrrrrrrrow---Today!

Really: is there anything so wonderful in all the world as Deadly Giant Robots? If you're like me, the answer is: NO! Giant Robots are the cat's pyjamas, any day of the week. And you'll find them in spades, and in all shapes and sizes, in the brilliantly retro "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow", among other joys, dark and light. Lightest of all is the artistry with which first-time director Kerry Conran (happily tinkering away on "John Carter of Mars") and effects/cinematography chief Eric Adkins and Mike Navarro have crafted this visual feast, which is so seamless, and harkens back so powerfully and nostalgically to the 1930's Golden Age of Cinema, that "Sky Captain" demands nothing less than to be seen in a gilded movie palace. If that can't be arranged, you're still in for a treat. You've got plummy Gwyneth Paltrow playing the plummier Polly Perkins, saving that single exposure for the shot of the century while evading Giant Killer Robots on Park Avenue. You've got the mostly bland but spit-and-polish swashbuckling of Jude Law (Sky Captain himself), dogfighting with Deadly Giant Flying Robots in his P-51 and keeping that scarf flying back over his shoulder. You've got Angelina Jolie as the airborne black widow spider of the piece (and femme fatale, natch) Captain "Franky" Cook. Piloting the huge, lumbering sky carriers and well-armed attack submersibles, kitted out in a form-fitting black uniform complete with peaked cap and jackboots. Oh, and she's got an eyepatch. Oh, yes. If that's not enough to sell you alone, you've got a race against the clock to locate the mysterious Doctor Totenkopf (Lawrence Olivier brought back from the Dead through the alchemy and black magic of high technology!) in his secret lair, before he can destroy the planet with his rampaging army of Deadly Giant Robots! And who can resist something that pulpy, to say nothing of something this gorgeous? To round off the festitivites, you get the shadowy evil operative Lai Bing (who fights as stylishly as she dresses), dinosaurs, death ray beams, and the Hindenburg docking on the Empire State Builiding (a scene that is almost painfully beautiful) and even huge guardian Robots with cyclopean attack lasers and wavy tentacles, and fiendish plots to kidnap scientists, and... Well, you get the idea. It's like being 9 years old all over again. JSG

garretsr 2013-05-20 07:26:17

Not great, not bad

Sky Captain was a decent movie but nothing special. The references to science fiction movie from the 1950s through 1990swere not enough to carry the film. The plot was mediocre but nothingspecial. If you are looking for a funny "camp" movie, this is not it.But if you want to kill a couple of hours, it's not bad way to.No great loss if you wait for video or pay per view before watchingthis one.Giovanni Ribisi gave the best performance in the movie. Jude Law andGwyneth Paltrow fans will probably love it, although their performanceswere nothing spectacular. Angelina Jolie fans will wonder why shewasn't a bigger part of the movie.

scirceo 2013-05-19 20:46:32

Bad script but a nice look and feel

Well, I went into this movie with no real expectations. Good thing. Thescript was totally predictable, the characters were boring, and theelectricity between Law and Paltrow couldn't run my garage door opener.I will say this: The look of the movie was striking, but once you getbeyond that, like, say, after the first five minutes, somethinginteresting has to happen. Nothing did.I heard people comparing this to an Indiana Jones movie, but it is afar cry from that. The action in Sky Captain is just about nonexistent,and the character of Sky Captain doesn't display the humor or skillthat Indy does.Don't bother with this one. 2/10.

Neil Welch 2013-05-08 22:39:32

Very nearly

So what went wrong? Because so much went very right.The idea was good - an action/adventure with strong science fictionovertones, homaging the pulp movies and serials of the 30s and 40s. Theproduction concept was good - using live actors against a CGIbackground, with the image desaturated to give an almost sepia periodfeel to it. This film looks exactly as intended, and it looks great.The story is fine - plenty of plot, plenty of action (including anearly set piece drawn entirely, and lovingly, from the Fleischer StdiosSuperman cartoon The Mechanical Monsters). The characters are thinlydrawn, but that is intentional: they are functional above everythingelse. The music is terrific. And the performances are mostly good,although Jude Law doesn't quite convey the square-jawed insouciancewhich ought to go with Sky Captain.But something doesn't quite work: the film never really gets hold ofyou in the way it should, and I'm not really sure why.

Pleasehelpmejesus 2013-05-08 09:18:57

Big disappointment

"Sky Captain" may be considered an homage to comic books, pulpadventures and movie serials but it contains little of the magic ofsome of the best from those genres. One contributor says that enjoymentof the film depends on whether or not one recognizes the filmsinfluences. I don't think this is at all true. One's expectations ofthe films,fiction and serials that "Captain" pays tribute to wereentirely different. Especially so for those who experienced thoseentertainments when they were children. This film is almost completelydevoid of the charm and magnetic attraction of those. Of course we knowthe leads will get into and out of scrapes but there has to be sometension and drama. Toward the climax of "Captain" Law and Paltrow haveten minutes to prevent catastrophe and by the time they get down tofive minutes they are walking not running toward their goal. They taketime out for long looks and unnecessary conversation and thecontemplation of a fallen foe with 30 seconds left to tragedy. Ofcourse one expects certain conventions to be included but a gooddirector would have kept up some sense of urgency.One doesn't expect films like this to necessarily "make sense". Onedoes expect them to be fun, thrilling and to have some sense ofinterior logic. "Captain" has almost none. Remember when Law andPaltrow are being pursued by the winged creatures and they reach a hugechasm which they cross via a log bridge? Well how come they areperfectly safe from those creatures when they reach the other side?They can FLY!!! The chasm itself means nothing to them. The bridge isunnecessary for them so where is the escape? If the land across thechasm is 'forbidden' to the flying creatures the film made no effort tolet us know how or why or even if.I know that Paltrow and Law (both of whom have given fine performancesin the past) were playing "types" but both were pretty flat. OnlyGiovanni Ribisi (who showed himself capable of great nuance here) andAngelina Jolie seemed to give any "oomph" to their roles although OmidDjalili seemed like he could have handled a little more if he'd onlybeen given the chance. He did a pretty good job anyway considering howhe was basically wasted.The film had a great 'look' but there are so many ways in which CGIdistracts. CGI works best when it is used for the fantastical, when itis used to create creatures who don't exist in nature or for scientificor magical spectacular. When it is used to substitute for naturallocations it disappoints. There is no real sense of wonder. A CGImountain doesn't have any of the stateliness or sense of awe andforeboding that a real mountain does. I know that the design of thisfilm was quite deliberate and it wasn't necessarily supposed to LOOKreal but shouldn't it FEEL that way? It just didn't. As for the weak and clichéd script...homage is no excuse. Even so, hadthe movie had some thrills and dramatic tension it might still havebeen enjoyable. "The Last Samurai" was as predictable as the days ofthe 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 andmade 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 bookheroes of the 30's and 40's. The original (Jay Garrick) Flash or GreenLantern (Alan Scott) come to mind as being ripe for such treatment.Maybe the better, more well known and fully realized characters thatthose character are would make for a much better film. It would be hardto be worse.

bluesman-20 2013-04-24 11:53:30

Sky Captain battles for liberty and freedom against a madman's dreams

Sky Captain and the world of tomorrow is a Fantastic homage to the waythey use to but no longer make them. This movie is perfect for thewhole family Heroes are heroes and the villains are villains and thewoman in distress is not entirely helpless . There is no violence forviolence's sake nor no swearing this movie beautifully captures the eraof the pulp hero and it combines the best quality of the old pulpfiction heroes and the golden age of the superheroes. Sky Captain wouldhave been at home along side Blackhawk or Skyboy. Jude Law Captures thehero perfectly he doesn't ham it up he's serious in a fun derring dokind of way. This movie would not be out of place on a movie nightalong with the Indiana Jones series. Sky Captain is a wonderful tributeto the human imagination and the dreams that we once had of being agallant hero rescuing woman in distress. Then roaring away with yourbuddies The Rocketeer and Flash Gordon to meet Buck Rogers. Everyoneshould see this movie if only to recapture the magic of our childhood

2013-04-23 21:37:22

Amazon needs turkey rating ( 0 stars)

People who suggest parallels to 1930s Sci-Fi are FAR too easily convinced by "retro" trends. Citing gauzed, halo-like imaging as some wondrous approach is like falling for the horribly widespread ploy that Thomas Kinkade is a great artist. Tricks and gimmicks, that's Sky Captain. Only the visual effects have any bonafide relation to films of the 1930s, the worthwhile films anyway. This film is infinitely distant from films like Metropolis. This film is for dorks who excuse a film's flaws for the sake of the fact that it's particular to their interests. If this film had portrayed a murder mystery, for example, these Sci-fi nerds wouldn't be nearly as impressed as they are about this film. Zero stars, a TURDKEY

gbtbag 2013-04-22 18:43:52

The Studio Wasted Its Money. Don't Waste Yours.

This film is HORRIBLE. If the production designer gets an Oscarnomination for this, his co- nominee should be Albert Speer, Hitler'sfavorite architect of the Third Reich, whose signature style to createbuildings on a grand scale. It's creepy.Jude Law and Gwyneth Paltrow have no chemistry whatsoever, so thewriter/director's attempts at creating 1930s-style comedy dialogue forthem falls flatter than a pancake run over by a steamroller. (Itwouldn't have worked much better if they did have chemistry as the"humor" is really feeble.)Much has been written about the film's "look" but whatever was donetechnologically to create this post-modern art deco world has theeffect of flattening out the actors' images. It looks like "Tron",except that the actors retain their skin color.One thing really bothered me: if the film is set in March 1939, why arethe protagonists talking about "the first world war"? No-one knew atthe time that there was going to be a second world war, so people wouldhardly have referred to the Great War of 1914-18 as "the first worldwar", would they?Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy.

soupe12 2013-04-22 12:08:37

Not worth it.

I saw this movie last month at a free sneak preview and I walked out.It was pretty horrible. In the process of trying too hard, they overacted and made a horrible movie. I was disappointed since I felt allthe actors had made respectable choices in the past so this onecouldn't be that far off the mark--but, I was wrong. I was hoping theywould give out a survey at the end of the movie so I could tell themnot to release this movie. I was lured in by the free aspect of thepreview, but it turned out to be a waste of my time--and, usually, I'mvery easily amused. It tried to be innovative and creative with theshots, ideas and filming, but because they threw together so many ideasat once, it failed. I'm not usually picky about movies and I usuallydon't feel the need to display my opinions about movies, but I had towarn everyone not to watch it. I registered on IMDb just to tell all ofyou guys

Sunil Patel 2013-04-21 02:28:16

Retro-Futuristic Fun with Impressive Visuals

Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow = ((Star Wars + Raiders of theLost Ark) * The Iron Giant) / The ShadowIt's so freaking fun. Clearly, the visual style is a big draw, and itdoesn't disappoint in that aspect. Your brain's all, "That's real, butwait, I know it's fake, but maybe it's real, it can't be real, right?"Everything is so well integrated, you completely forget it's all actorsin front of a blue screen. And the muted colors in the beginning are solush. There are very few points where anything looked obviously fake.It's very impressive.But there's not only the retro-futuristic visual style, there's thestyle of the movie itself, an old-school adventure story with anarchetypal hero and heroine. Jude Law is great, and Gwyneth Paltrow hasthe look down, but she acts like the most annoying backseat adventurerever: "Joe, look out! What are you doing? You can't do that! We'regoing to die! What's that? Are you listening to me?" And she's obsessedwith "getting the story" and "making sure her camera isn't trampled bygiant robots," but not in an adorable Chloe Sullivan way. I'll acceptit as part of the trope of 40s backseat heroines. And anyway, thecamera ends up being a pretty entertaining running gag. Angelina Jolieis quite obviously enjoying the hell out of herself, and who wouldn't,when you get to wear an eyepatch?Critics who are complaining about the story can bite me. Sure, thestory's pretty ridiculous, but it's very well paced, and the actionsequences are incredibly well choreographed and shot, the kind whereyou end up moving in your seat from side to side to avoid the planes.Kerry Conran's made a movie that gleefully embraces the adventure movietropes of yore while not being afraid to subvert them for a laugh ortwo. It's not here to deliver any preachy messages or explore the humancondition. It takes you on a ride where even halfway through the movie,it manages to give you the kind of thrill where the audiencecollectively laughs and spontaneously bursts into applause. I freaking*love* when that happens. That's why you go to the movies, man. Ireally felt like saying, "This makes me feel like a kid again," exceptI'm too young to make that sort of statement.Make sure to look out for a couple of George Lucas references, a timely*THX-1138* reference (at least, I assume it was one) and a scene thatlooks almost identical to a scene in *Attack of the Clones,* the onemovie Kerry Conran's seen since he started working on this film.Go see *Sky Captain,* peoples. It's the most fun I've had in a theaterin a long time.

craig smecher 2013-04-20 18:09:17

Highly entertaining and visually stunning

I loved this film, it was entertaining and original. A beautiful filmthat, although not challenging to grasp, was cutting edge. What I meanby that is, it was a movie with originality like The Matrix or Pulpfiction (not it's content as few people would be offended by SkyCaptain). Its title is so campy and challenging - Sky captain and theworld of tomorrow! A very cheesy title. I love the look of the film theanimation is beautiful and creative. I love the closing line, veryfunny. This is the best popcorn summer movie this year. It deserves tobe ranked with Raiders of the Lost Ark. Not everyone will get it but Ican't see why not. I guess there are people out there who are unable tosuspend there disbelief, even though this is an animated film.

2013-04-13 02:52:23

Nostalgic Comic Book Sci-Fi falls a little flat

Sky captain is an exercise in specific throwback story telling that most people can recognize right from the first frame. There is no mistaking the film-noir/action-adventure/sci-fi genres that this movie so firmly holds in its roots. However, stylish visuals and computer animation alone cannot hold a movie up.Don't get me wrong; Sky Captain is a decent movie, with great action and a sense of humor and fun. It throws in many elements of old films and comes up with an interesting amalgamation of creative production value. The story starts off somewhat normal; scientists are being abducted and Polly Perkins (Gwenith Paltrow), a brash and fearless reporter, is hot on the story. As large robots attack New York City, the Sky Captain (Jude Law) is called in to defend the city. Flying what looks like a Corsair fighter plane, he successfully runs off the robots but not before they have unearthed generators in the city. As the story goes on, more pieces of the puzzle are put in place and the dangers become bigger and more menacing. They discover that they must stop a mad scientist bent on a `New World of Tomorrow' domination scheme.The technology and sci-fi aspect get so wild there is a large amount of faith put in suspension of disbelief. I personally thought the 40s era approach and perspective on some of the technology was fascinating. They found such simple ways to do complicated things. But if you have no love for that kind of far fetched technology (planes that can go underwater, flying mobile airstrips) then you may hate it quickly.The direction of the actors leaves a lot to be desired. Despite the heavy hitters, Paltrow, Law and even Giovanni Rabisi, they obviously had a hard time trying to act in front of green screens (their parts were filmed against green screens first to have everything added later in the background with computer animation). They do well in some parts but others they just seemed lost. Overall they do well, considering what they are up against.The movie is still a sight to behold and surely others will follow the example. Director Kerry Conran is living his own dream and does a fantastic job of pulling out one fantastic fantasy visual after another. He obviously has a soft spot for the Wizard of Oz as well, which becomes very apparent, as the heroes get closer to the finale.

2013-04-12 12:35:03

Fine tribute to Flash Gordon and friends and a fun movie to boot

I really liked this film. It's a fitting homage to all those old serials and "Weird Science" magazines. Personally, I love those old classics. But I guess the movie fails in one respect because if you don't love 'em, you probably won't think much of the film. Too bad. But it just goes to show that you can't make a blockbuster motion picture that appeals to a niche market.Well, I'm part of the niche, and I think this picture's just swell! (To use some old fashioned venacular) It's got daring heroes, plucky dames, and a good ol' fashion evil genius trying to destroy the world story. I thought the dialogue was fun, and the characters terrific updates of old 50's standards.I particularly enjoyed the dogfight sequences as Sky Captain flies his plane between skyscrapers as he fights weird mechanical flying machines. Completely unbelievable, but so much fun.So if you, like me, are a fan of Flash Gordon and his ilk then I highly recommend this film. For anyone else, I just can't predict if you'll like it or not.But like I said, I loved it.

leo_mazur 2013-04-05 03:05:14

If you enjoyed Flash Gordon back in 1936...

...you'll feel right at home here.Otherwise, you might find yourself wondering why anybody wouldgreenlight a project that spends millions of dollars making somethingwith a paper-thin plot looks like a colorized (sic) version of anancient Saturday morning serial.Listen, if I wanted to see something that got top marks for emptyself-congratulating cleverness I'd go and see something with subtitlesin French. What I want and expect from mainstream Hollywood product is stuff thattaps into the deep well of myth and legend without coming out stinkingof rotten corn.I missed the point of both the lead actors; although it was nice tohave a character who spoke British (specifically English-) English whowasn't the villain, I can't see the appeal of Jude Law. It might besomething to do with being an X-chromosome short.I'm told that Gwyneth Paltrow is a fine performer - but she comesacross as sexless and charmless here. I'm tempted to put in a plot spoiler here - but it really isn't worthit.Best moment of the film: a moviehouse showing Kings Row.

2013-04-04 19:23:34

Giant Robots, Ray guns and a Flash Gordon of Aviation

When Scientists have disapeared and giant robots have invaded our world, we needed a hero and the one man with the heroic effort to save us is "SKY CAPTAIN" Jude Law stars as Joe Sullivan AKA Sky Captain, the dashing young hero, Gwyneth Paltrow as Polly Perkins, the intepred reporter of the Chroncile and Angelia Jolie as Franseca "Franky" naval officer of an all women's navy in "SKY CAPTAIN AND THE WORLD OF TOMORROW. In the Tradition of 1930s 25 minute serials of the legendary Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers comes this full length SC-FI adventure that is the first film shot entirely on blue screen. It's a fun SC-FI thriller,a timeless film inspired by timeless serials. a blast of 1930s excitement,if you liked Flash Gordon starring Sam Jones, you'll like Sky Captain. Jude Law is the new Buster Crabbe. They should make a sequel. See new exciteing SC-FI fantasy adventure,amazing,incredible. Enjoy this SC-FI treat and what SC-FI serials where like in the 1930s-the World of Tomorrow, TODAY.

Bert 2013-03-31 23:40:33

Well, I was sort of disappointed...

I've said this in other reviews, without a story, you can give theaudience all the smoke and mirrors you want, still no one will give adamn.The director seems to have a great eye for 30s art deco (which I love),and I think the idea of using all digital backgrounds and such couldindeed be the wave of the future in movie making. However, it's obviousthe director got so interested in the digital rendering of his movie,he forgot to film many scenes which would have enormously helped thissurprisingly thinned-plotted film. (SPOILER) For crying out loud, theyforgot to have a villain in this thing! OK they have one, but he's beendead for 20 years by the time the movie takes place. Conran misses thepoint of HAVING a villain. As far as action goes, well let's see, SkyCaptain (Law) shoots down ONE robot, two or three of the flapping wingairplanes (before Dex (Ribisi) tells him to stop shooting themdown!!!), and a couple robots, but mostly spends his time lookingdashing and getting others to fight his battles for him. Paltrow asPolly or Peggy or Punky or whatever is totally wasted in this movie(the reviewer who comments on hers and Law's lack of chemistry is soright) and I for one got a little sick of seeing repeated shots of thetop of her camera, showing she ONLY HAS TWO SHOTS LEFT, both of whichshe wastes subsequently in the movie, one uncomically, one quite funny,although I saw it coming from 70 years away. No one except Law andPaltrow have any significant time on screen, and that's the movie'sreal flaw. An audience doesn't identify with robots, they need a heroto root for, and a visible, despicable villain to hate. Without that,plus a good engaging story, all the CG in the world won't help.

tito131 2013-03-31 12:20:35

excellent!

OK, I have heard some mixed reviews from this. but regardless of yourpreconceived notions of this movie, or from what you've heard, you haveto see it for yourself. the feel this movie has is of the old b- movie sci fi's of the 50's andsome of the comics from the 20s and 30s, and the way the characters areall painted, or seem to be, and the special use of shadowed lightingare reminiscent of those types of filmsthe kind of people that wont enjoy this film are people who don'tgenerally like that kind of film, and while I admit some of those"B-Movie" movies that i've seen were terrible, i think Kerry......KerryConran that is not the candidate, was on the right track when trying tobring that style into this movie. the one line that really took thismovie to that level for me was when Gwyneth Paltrow said partially toher boss and partially to the audience "it's only a movie" this was inreference to her going to meet someone at the movie theater. someone said that we shouldn't take this movie seriously because itdoesn't take itself seriously. I think that's true. all of thebackgrounds were CGI nothing was real, except the actors, but using itthat way gave the effect that it was intended to have. and i have tosay the scene in this "valley" of sorts reminded me a lot of"Rivendell" from Lord of the Rings.The actors, in the lighting aspects were really the backgrounds, whichwere there but not lighted or highlighted very much, this was so thecharacters would stick out more, and they certainly did. the humor itself was great, jude law and gwyneth paltrow played offeach other so well. some great scenes with the two of them, sometimesnot even speaking...some of it had to do mainly with facialexpressions. two very talented actors, not to mention Angelina Jolie,though her part was a bit smaller than I'd hoped. I also enjoyed the beginning, with the series of superimposed scenesupon one another, basically setting up the whole movie. i will admit, iwas a bit disappointed that the robots at the beginning weren't in themovie as much. of course i was hoping for a massive battle scene, andthat was my preconceived notion. but being let down by that fact wasquickly replaced by the grandness and majesty of the film. The use oflighting in the beginning contrasted with the rest of the film wasgood. it started out being really dark in the city streets and to theattack of the robots, and later on got a bit brighter.I don't know if Kerry Conran wrote this alone but the conflict and humorwas well written into this movie. though i see many people found manythings quote unquote "wrong" with this movie, as for myself i cant findmuch. though personally i pretty much like every movie. a few thingsirk me about some films, but mostly i enjoy the way they were made.even though no film is perfect, i enjoy the production of the filmprobably more than the film itself. being an aspiring filmmaker i tendto look past the film and see what the director or writer or editor orwhatever was thinking when they made it. you can definitely learn a lotfrom behind the scenes or commentaries.If you haven't seen this, you should, at least to get your own view ofit rather than others. i would say though, don't take it too seriously,if you do, you may not enjoy it, but then again, that's up to your ownpreferences.

2013-03-26 12:36:47

An interesting oddity

"Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow" is a movie that will be better appreciated in the future than it is today. Its advanced technology was lost on today's audience, which could not comprehend it. It's a technophiles dream. It's also an ode to almost every action flick Hollywood has ever made.I could say a lot more, but I want you to actually SEE this movie and decide for yourself,

2013-03-25 22:25:28

Tribute to the Art Deco period.

I rented Sky Captain on DVD and I really enjoyed the retro sci-fi atmosphere of the movie. I won't go over the plot too much since many other reviews have good summaries. I thought I would share my feelings and observations. Almost all the motifs in the film are recognizable from both real history and the sci-fi from the 30s/early 50s although there are many interesting twists that definitely show the world portrayed is a type of alternative universe. For example, the great opening scene shows a German Zeppelin flying over New York City to dock on the top of the Empire State Building but when the scene zooms close to the dirigible you seen the name Hindenburg with a roman numerial III attached to it. (An interesting side note is this Zeppelin has no swastika on it hinting perhaps this world avoided the horrors of the Nazis.) The first half of the movie takes place in 30s/40s New York City in all its art deco splendor. In many ways this movie is a tribute to Manhattan during that era. You see all the beautiful elements from that period: the art deco of Radio City Music Hall and the interior of the Chronicle newspaper offices, the clothing of the period (I must admit Gwyneth Paltrow as crack journalist Polly Perkins looks really nice all "dolled" up in her 30s/early 40s clothing including trench coat and fedora), movies including Radio City hall showing Wizard of Oz and you see the marquee of Wuthering Heights on another theater. (As a side note the 6 minute short this movie was based on had a theater with a marquee for King's Row. This movie starred Ronald Reagan in what critics regard as his best performance). All the ugliness of that period have been eliminated so there are no signs of the Great Depression and definitely no hints that World War II is being waged or might break out in the near future. The second half in the movie has our heroes, Joseph Sullivan (Jude Law) and Polly traveling to the Tibet and then to the middle of the Atlantic to discover an uncharted island that definitely a reminder of movies like Lost World.The visual feel of this moving and the attention to detail is amazing. The movie has a intentional washed out effect with a warm glow to it. The retro sci-fi elements really catch the spirit of that period. The robots shoot rays like the one would see in movies and comic books from that day. You see the white halos representing radio transmissions. The ray gun Sullivan's resident genius Dex produces shoots circular beams and the gun looks like something out of the Flash Gordon series of the period. The robots are clumsy rectangular steel mindless machines. The wing flapping robot planes are really cool with their flying wing aerodynamic shape. Sullivan flies in a P-40 Warhawk with the characteristic shark teeth on the nose although all the gadgets Dex has put on this plane would make James Bond envious. The British planes under the command of Francesca "Franky" Cook (Angelina Jolie) have the blue and red circular insignia for the RAF of that period. The clothing is perfect from the normal everyday clothes to the military uniforms. The movie uses themes from movies from that period. For example, when the robots are flying over NYC you see several hands, in black silhouette, point up simultaneously at the flying robot host. The way the movie shows the robots flying over NYC is itself strongly reminiscent of films from that period. The plot and pace of the movie was pretty good. I never got bored. I thought the main negative of the movie were the performances of Law and Paltrow. Maybe this was intentional but their performance were very low key, especially Paltrow. It seemed she was taking valium at the time she was filming this movie. Law does not have the intensity of Harrison Ford in the Indiana Jones movies. The two have some humorous banter between them especially when Angelina Jolie enters the picture. I thought Jolie was pretty good in her brief appearance in the movie and Giovanni Ribisi as Dax was very good as a type of JamesBond Q serving as resident inventor and genius for Sullivan. Perhaps the flat performances of the main heroes was intentional to more reflect the movies from that period or because the movie was all shot in front of a blue screen these two actors had a tough time adjusting in what must of been an alien environment for them. But overall I am glad I rented the movie. If you want to be entertained and escape reality, the movies of the 30s/40s were all about escaping the reality of the Depression and War, for 90 minutes then go rent this movie. My wife enjoyed it and she is no sci-fi fan.The movie is rated PG. This is entirely due to robots causing mayhem, the aerial combat scenes, objects getting blown up, and the action/adventure theme of the movie. The language is clean and no sexual references.