I want one of those floating aircraft carriers

I have so many pending posts sitting half-written in my folder that I'm not quite sure where to start, or where to find time to complete them.

Until such a time, I'll leave you with a brief review.

I recently rented Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, that scifi/comicy/almost animated movie from a few years ago that was a miserable box-office flop. It's been on my 'see when I'm bored' list for a while, and I had a free rental, so I picked it up.

Hmm. How to describe my reaction? On the one hand, I can see why it flopped... yet on the other hand, I had a lot of fun watching it.

In short (mild spoilers to follow), the movie looks like it's taken right out an early-20th century scifi story/comic. It is set in a 'futuristic' 1930s New York, where a journalist and her ex-lover mercenary pilot team up to find the originator of a group of killer robots that are stealing technology and resources from around the world. The film was fairly unique in that while nearly all of the sets where computer generated/animated, the actors were real and integrated rather seamlessly into the action (though they were intentionally filmed with filters to make them look more 'animated', a reversal of the usual trend).

What I really enjoyed about the movie was the sense that the creators of the film had an immense amount of fun in making it. There are little superfluous touches everywhere that point to it, from clandestine SF references to over-the-top cliches and some completely ridiculous dialogue between the two leads. It's not meant to be a movie that you watch for thinking or realism or much of anything other than escapist enjoyment.

The creators were paying homage to an entire era of SF and film-making; to airbrushed versions of 1930s New York city, to treasured mythos in early 20th century speculative literature (mad scientists, Shangri-La, etc.), to clunky robots and giant airships. The technology was completely unworkable and inconsistent - something that would normally have me complaining like no other. But it was so obviously intended to be unreal that I just sat back and enjoyed the artistry. It is similar to the feeling I got after watching Peter Jackson's King Kong; not really a good film, but one that was a work of dedication and love for a genre.

One other bit that was worthwhile was the art. As nearly every set was computer-generated, the art figured in very significantly... and was beautiful. Everything from the gritty New York to the mountain passes of Nepal to a flying aircraft carrier... all of it was lovingly crafted with an eye to detail and 'comic realism', if that makes sense.

Nonetheless, I can see why it was not successful in the box office. The plot is beyond cliched and the dialogue is ridiculously over-the-top (both intentional, I believe). I think the film would only appeal to those who are willing to look past the standards by which we usually judge movies (plot, characters, 'interest', etc.) and see the genius and care that went into the film.

In short, it's entertaining, but not really good as most films are measured. I'd recommend it for some light enjoyment, but certainly for nothing more.