User Score
6.5

Generally favorable reviews- based on 185 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 50 out of 185
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. LedleyK.
    Sep 27, 2004
    3
    Thank you guys for giving this movie a 3. It was an abination yes, not not a total abomination. But I cant get pass the abomination part. Paltrow was sooooooo annoying. I just hated every single word that came out of her mouth, and the Movie is sooo Generic and so lifeless, you never care about the characters, you never wonder if they are in danger or not. In the first scene when they Thank you guys for giving this movie a 3. It was an abination yes, not not a total abomination. But I cant get pass the abomination part. Paltrow was sooooooo annoying. I just hated every single word that came out of her mouth, and the Movie is sooo Generic and so lifeless, you never care about the characters, you never wonder if they are in danger or not. In the first scene when they were being chased by the bat planes, they were having a good time and making a joke of it. Those guys arent even afraid of Giant robots. When Jude law ran over to that robot and pushed it down after shooting it in the leg. I spit out my sprite. I mean, how the hell could he do that. It was so fricken comical it wasnt even funny. Anyway, Somebody here mentioned to see the Indiana Jones movies again. Please do that instead of watching this. Expand
  2. Abby
    Jul 1, 2007
    3
    When I saw this movie I almost died of bordem. If you have insomnia I would recommend this movie to cure it.
  3. MichaelF.
    Oct 4, 2004
    2
    Boring with some good effects but generally dull.
  4. AlfonsoH.
    Sep 18, 2004
    4
    Visually I found the movie very appealling. Though some of the 30's appeal became tedious. Overall pace of the movie is much to slow to be considered an exilharating adventure.
  5. BenjitheGreat
    Sep 20, 2004
    4
    Well... you can add my name to the growing list of viewers here who thought this movie sucked. I used to have faith in Hollywood critics, but after reading the reviews above, i'm starting to think they have their heads up their arses. Watching this movie.... i remained completely disengaged the entire duration. Bad, corny acting and dialogue; contrived plot; boring boring action Well... you can add my name to the growing list of viewers here who thought this movie sucked. I used to have faith in Hollywood critics, but after reading the reviews above, i'm starting to think they have their heads up their arses. Watching this movie.... i remained completely disengaged the entire duration. Bad, corny acting and dialogue; contrived plot; boring boring action scenes; hideous musical score. Worst of all... this movie tries to cram in elements from many past action movies but fails to be half as good as a single one of them. Maybe i'm missing something here, maybe if i went back and saw this again i'd agree with Mr. Ebert. Expand
  6. RichardG.
    Sep 20, 2004
    3
    This movie was filled with your predictable adventure crap. So utterly predictable its, mine blowing. You've seen it all before, You know what they want to say before they say it. You know who is alive and who is dead, You know what they have to do. But you dont know how they manage to do it with such ease. You dont know how they can fight robots without even twitching. You dont know This movie was filled with your predictable adventure crap. So utterly predictable its, mine blowing. You've seen it all before, You know what they want to say before they say it. You know who is alive and who is dead, You know what they have to do. But you dont know how they manage to do it with such ease. You dont know how they can fight robots without even twitching. You dont know how they have no plan what and go along and conquer everything. Its like they've all done this before. whew... Jolie was good, she didnt seem Generic, and she saved me from Gwyneth Paltrow---- Gosh she was annoying. It was so annoying, I talked out loud, and got angry at her. Did the director want us to like her, or dislike her? Why was Jude law involved with her anyway? She was sooo fricken annoying! A guys worst nightmare. See the Indian Jones movies again instead of this one. Expand
  7. JimD
    Mar 30, 2005
    2
    This is one of the worst movies I've ever seen, utterly unbelieveable on many levels. The cinematic style was annoying, and the script was terribly predictable. I was really surprised to see such great actors in such a bad movie.
  8. LomaxHunter
    Mar 6, 2006
    0
    May be the single worst entertainment product I have ever witnessed. Shame on everyone involved.
  9. MarkB.
    Oct 12, 2004
    0
    Being just a little tired of movies that substitute comic book plots for real subject matter, that recycle long-dead genres in place of coming up with original premises, and that give actors blue screens to play against instead of other actors, I walked into Kerry Conran's computer-generated 1930s/40s pastiches with somewhat diminished expectations--and lo and behold, Conran went Being just a little tired of movies that substitute comic book plots for real subject matter, that recycle long-dead genres in place of coming up with original premises, and that give actors blue screens to play against instead of other actors, I walked into Kerry Conran's computer-generated 1930s/40s pastiches with somewhat diminished expectations--and lo and behold, Conran went below and beyond every single one of them! This is a movie that is so relentlessly misguided and wrongheaded in every conceivable way that it actually invents a few NEW ways to be misguided and wrongheaded! Faintly reminiscent of Michael O'Donoghue's elaboratye Art Deco parodies in early 1970s issues of National Lampoon , this has all of their archness and none of their wit. The color schemes and art design are obviously done with a lot of ambition but end up making the film look like one of those patchy, ultra-cheesily colorized VHS versions of such public domain favorites as It's A Wonderful Life and Night of the Living Dead that flooded video stores at rock-bottom prices before even undiscriminating viewers and renters screamed foul. When I wasn't bored to tears, I was shocked at how Conran had so completely locked such lively and distinctive actors as Jude Law, Angelina Jolie and Giovanni Ribisi into his no-wiggle-room approach that all of them give hugely, depressingly joyless performances. Then there's Gwyneth Paltrow, whom I normally really like, who as a pushy reporter gives the most aggressively irritating performance I've seen so far in any movie this year. (And if you think that the actors had an insurmountable dilemma having to work against nonexistent computer effects that were filled in later, think again: Bob Hoskins faced the same challenge in Who Framed Roger Rabbit 16 years ago...and met it with a delightfully quirky, original portrayal.) But then, Sky Captain has fundamental problems that plumb far below Conran's execution: it's his concept that is fatally and irreparably flawed. If you're going to reproduce an old genre (in this case, the futuristic serial) to modern audiences, there are two ways to go about it: you can either be fundamentally faithful to the source but make it your own, adding your personal sensibilities and technology to it and rechannel the material into the best movie you know how to (the obvious examples here are the Star Wars and Raiders movies)...or you can recognize their fundamental absurdities and have some fun with them (as Larry Blamire did earlier this year with his incredibly accurate, lovingly rendered Edward D. Wood parody The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra). If all you're going to do is regurgitate everything that's already been done, particularly with the money that Conran and Paramount spent, then far, far better to rerelease some of the originals and donate the money you would have spent to a good charity. Enough said...but wait! Just when you think Conran has plumbed the depths of stupefying unwatchability, he digs a little deeper, as Sam Kinison used to say. The controversial issue of digital reproduction of dearly departed famous actors and personalities (the movie buffs' version of the stem cell research debate) CAN be put to responsible use; the way that Alex Proyas allowed us to enjoy Brandon Lee's last performance in The Crow is a top-notch example of that. More often, though, the result is as despicable and grotesque as the use of Humphrey Bogart, Marilyn Monroe and John Wayne to sell soft drinks. I sincerely hope that the estate of Sir Laurence Olivier can put several children through college with the blood money they were paid to desecrate his image; only the fact that despite Paramount's desperate rescheduling Sky Captain ended up STILL becoming a resounding (and deserving) flop prevents me from being convinced that this grave robbery is a sign of the Apocalypse. Expand
  10. DKade
    Oct 9, 2004
    3
    Wait for the DVD and play it with the sound off. Visually stunning: scifi meets sepia tones. But the plot/dialogue is a step below the average comic book and not quite camp enough to be funny. Best line: "Is that light supposed to be on?" as the plane runs out of gas.
  11. JasonJ.
    Sep 17, 2004
    1
    The effects are startling and wonderful, but there's better actingin the original Buck Rogers reels. And its called a plot, people. Cool CGI is neat, but I don't like the paying seven bucks to watch somebody else play a video game. I can't believe so many respected reviewers gave this movie high marks. Did somebody slip these guys some bad LSD? I'd rather sit through a The effects are startling and wonderful, but there's better actingin the original Buck Rogers reels. And its called a plot, people. Cool CGI is neat, but I don't like the paying seven bucks to watch somebody else play a video game. I can't believe so many respected reviewers gave this movie high marks. Did somebody slip these guys some bad LSD? I'd rather sit through a German snuff and scat film than watch this kind of computer-driven souless crap. Finally, Plan 9 From Outer Space has a rival. Expand
  12. AlbertW.
    Sep 18, 2004
    3
    Effects and the graphic concept is OK, but there is no script, poor acting and directing is all over the place. The director has no experience so probably all the advisors and producers "helped" him to direct. The actors can't even pronounce Totenkopf the same way. The score is really miserable and completely out of concept. One would expect something in the same style as the visuals Effects and the graphic concept is OK, but there is no script, poor acting and directing is all over the place. The director has no experience so probably all the advisors and producers "helped" him to direct. The actors can't even pronounce Totenkopf the same way. The score is really miserable and completely out of concept. One would expect something in the same style as the visuals but instead there is the worst kind of mainstream hollywood crapola. Expand
  13. jsmoke
    Sep 19, 2004
    4
    Visually, this movie is on par with anything released this year. It is obvious that the director has a keen eye for creating interesting images. It is a shame the story and characters are weak. His work reminds me of David Twohy of Pitch Black/Riddick fame--a director that is quite good at creating compelling images, but weak on story and character. The plot holes in this movie are as Visually, this movie is on par with anything released this year. It is obvious that the director has a keen eye for creating interesting images. It is a shame the story and characters are weak. His work reminds me of David Twohy of Pitch Black/Riddick fame--a director that is quite good at creating compelling images, but weak on story and character. The plot holes in this movie are as sizable as any I have seen in some time. I would love to overlook them and just enjoy the spectacle, but I was unable. I agree with several other reviewers....I was hoping that Polly Perkins would be killed. I wish I could recommend the movie, but I feel it is not worth the money movies cost these days. Expand
  14. MetaC.
    Sep 21, 2004
    4
    This movie is a novelty at best... I would have enjoyed it more sitting on my couch in the rental mode. There is no real drama in this movie with a linear plot and actors who give a shallow performance. You won't be sucked in at all... at best you'll periodically enjoy the visuals but in my book that doesn't make a good movie. Also what's up with metacritic and their This movie is a novelty at best... I would have enjoyed it more sitting on my couch in the rental mode. There is no real drama in this movie with a linear plot and actors who give a shallow performance. You won't be sucked in at all... at best you'll periodically enjoy the visuals but in my book that doesn't make a good movie. Also what's up with metacritic and their interpretations of the reviews ? You can't just go by score anymore... sometimes they give 2 reviews the same number and if you read the review you see how vastly different they can be. Ebert is all over the board ... one week 100 then next 20 ! This site is losing it's usefulness. Expand
  15. AdamL
    Sep 20, 2004
    3
    Thank You All. (average movie goers) For restoring my faith in humanity. Im SO releaved that so many REAL people saw this movie the way that I did. Critics are idiots sometimes. I basically agree with every point made by average users who gave this movie a "5" or below. They have already said it for me. Dont see this movie, maybe send your 11 year-old to it, and take a nap at home. (other Thank You All. (average movie goers) For restoring my faith in humanity. Im SO releaved that so many REAL people saw this movie the way that I did. Critics are idiots sometimes. I basically agree with every point made by average users who gave this movie a "5" or below. They have already said it for me. Dont see this movie, maybe send your 11 year-old to it, and take a nap at home. (other wise you will be paying money to take a nap in the theatre, like I did ! ) Expand
  16. MikeD.
    Sep 25, 2004
    3
    To the extent that the cinematography, premise, and overall artistic inventiveness succeeds, it earns a couple points. Otherwise, the plot is terribly punchy, porous, and illogical. Yeah yeah yeah, "It's a comic movie, it's not supposed to be logical," but the characters' decisions and the plot's movements are so unreasonable, it leaves the viewer in the dust, asking To the extent that the cinematography, premise, and overall artistic inventiveness succeeds, it earns a couple points. Otherwise, the plot is terribly punchy, porous, and illogical. Yeah yeah yeah, "It's a comic movie, it's not supposed to be logical," but the characters' decisions and the plot's movements are so unreasonable, it leaves the viewer in the dust, asking "what? why???" Well, at least the viewer older than 14 or so. Expand
  17. Rene
    Sep 27, 2004
    0
    This was the most God-awful piece of canine dung I have seen in quite awhile. People are raving about the CGI, but to me, it was so GLARINGLY computer generated you couldn't even be convinced to slip into the fantasy of it. And Gwyneth Paltrow - I wished and prayed for her death for the entire hour and 47 minutes, but it, unfortunately, never came to pass. The acting was absolutely This was the most God-awful piece of canine dung I have seen in quite awhile. People are raving about the CGI, but to me, it was so GLARINGLY computer generated you couldn't even be convinced to slip into the fantasy of it. And Gwyneth Paltrow - I wished and prayed for her death for the entire hour and 47 minutes, but it, unfortunately, never came to pass. The acting was absolutely the worst. And what in the name of all that's holy was the relationship between Jude Law and the kidnapped "Dex?" Were they brothers? Lifelong friends? Gay lovers? Everytime the man's name was brought up, Jude Law was looked at like he had antennae growing out of his head. This was only the most miniscule of the many major discrepancies and unexplained nuiances. There were so many holes in the plot, I refer to this film as not only grade F government cheese, but SWISS cheese at that. Some have said that those under 14 might enjoy it. My 11 year old sat agasp at the horror of this film - she asked halfway through if she could go sit in the lobby for the remainder. She also couldn't get past Jolie's enormous lips - who could? She wanted to know how it was their clothes were burned, they didn't bring anymore with them and yet Sky Captain has a flight jacket and Polly has her cute little 40's suit and high heels? If you could get that wardrove in Shangrilah, couldn't she have found a place to pick up a couple extra rolls of film? My poor husband couldn't even sleep last night - worse yet, it was his birthday. Turning 35 was made all the more horrifying by sitting through this stinker. The only way this movie could POSSIBLY be redeemed is from a good rework by the gang at Mystery Science Theater. Too bad the show isn't still on the air..... Expand
  18. ChrisJ.
    Sep 20, 2004
    1
    This movie was so tepid and un-inspiring. The visuals were good at times, but really felt like they were useless, considering the cellophane acting that was passed off as a character. The story couldn't have been more predictable and the timing almost like a clock. Those that have even dared compare this movie to the Indiana Jones series best watch them again. At least thier plot This movie was so tepid and un-inspiring. The visuals were good at times, but really felt like they were useless, considering the cellophane acting that was passed off as a character. The story couldn't have been more predictable and the timing almost like a clock. Those that have even dared compare this movie to the Indiana Jones series best watch them again. At least thier plot lines weren't as predictible as Sky Captain. Truely disappointed. Expand
  19. DavidM.
    Jan 10, 2005
    4
    The only reason this empty husk of a movie gets a four from me is that the visuals are truly awesome and push the bar for movies in the future. However, just because you do experiment as a director with something new does not mean you are doomed to failure. Look at the amazing results achieved in The Matrix. This attempt at something refreshingly retro has failed. If you get a kick out of The only reason this empty husk of a movie gets a four from me is that the visuals are truly awesome and push the bar for movies in the future. However, just because you do experiment as a director with something new does not mean you are doomed to failure. Look at the amazing results achieved in The Matrix. This attempt at something refreshingly retro has failed. If you get a kick out of wanting the hero / heroines to fail and see the machines triumph go and see this movie. Expand
  20. AC
    Feb 4, 2005
    2
    This movie is so full of plot holes and bad acting, i wanted to break the DVD in half and burn it in effigy after wading through this crap. I eagerly anticipated this release only to be so disappointed in the story and extremely bad acting that I never want to see another Conran film again.... EVER!!! By the way I am a huge sci-fi buff and love the genre, but I cannot accept this crap.
  21. MoeL.
    Mar 12, 2006
    0
    One can only appreciate this film if one has a smooth brain and breathes exclusively from the mouth.
  22. MattC.
    Mar 6, 2006
    0
    Sure it has poor dialogue, an incoherent story, hackneyed adventure sequences (taking down plodding metal behemoths with a tow cable, hmm, where have we seen that before?), lazy acting, but it was so imaginative and technically-- wait, no, this is a cinematic abomination. If you want to give Mr. Conran a A+ for working a computer, great. Is this a film? No. 0% style and -1,000,000% plot Sure it has poor dialogue, an incoherent story, hackneyed adventure sequences (taking down plodding metal behemoths with a tow cable, hmm, where have we seen that before?), lazy acting, but it was so imaginative and technically-- wait, no, this is a cinematic abomination. If you want to give Mr. Conran a A+ for working a computer, great. Is this a film? No. 0% style and -1,000,000% plot and acting. Stop giving films a pass because someone used a new gadget on their Mac. Expand
  23. LarryR.
    Oct 3, 2004
    3
    Why did they bother to hire actors at all? The scenery had more showmanship that Gwenyth Paltrow. Would someone tell her you have to be awake to act!
  24. JoVi
    Sep 17, 2004
    4
    This movie was boorrriiiiiing!!!!! The only thing entertaining are the visuals and Angelina. The story is weak, there's no plot, silly too many times, acting was second rate, and the score lousy. The old Flash Gordon serials had a better story and mood. This film almost makes Star Wars Episode 1 seem like a masterpiece.
  25. BillS.
    Sep 18, 2004
    0
    Parts of it reminded me othe other movies - bits and pieces here and there... mostly like the wizard of oz though. Conran really needs to ask the wizard for a plot.
  26. DaveS.
    Sep 19, 2004
    2
    This movie was a big dissapointment. Based on the previews I at least expected to be visually appealing, but the grainy wannabe black and white look was dull and ugly. The worst part of the movie, however, was Gwyneth Paltrows unbelievably annoying character. I wanted to reach through the screen, grab her stupid camera and smash it into pieces.
  27. AliP.
    Sep 20, 2004
    1
    It had a lot of potential... too bad more time wasn't spent on actually writing the script and developing a meaningful plot. I imagine a more thoughtful sequel could be better
  28. GregG.
    Sep 20, 2004
    2
    Stephen Hunter from the Washington post rules! Paltrow was so annoying I had a headache, I know what you are talking about guys She was like "whats that?" "Why are you doing that?" The ending is bulls..t. In have the whole plot is crap. You still dont know If those guys from Nepal were working for the evil guy, and you still dont know how the world was going to blow up after the space Stephen Hunter from the Washington post rules! Paltrow was so annoying I had a headache, I know what you are talking about guys She was like "whats that?" "Why are you doing that?" The ending is bulls..t. In have the whole plot is crap. You still dont know If those guys from Nepal were working for the evil guy, and you still dont know how the world was going to blow up after the space shuttle was in space. Arrgghhh.... I'm so angry at Paltrow. God! I wanted to strangle her! Collapse
  29. EfeB.
    Sep 24, 2004
    0
    Sure, it's like a comic book...as thin as a comic book! sky captain suffers from over stylization and over the top "fuzzy sepia" fog that makes it almost impossible to watch without getting dizzy. all the stars in the film perform as if they are in a junior-high school stage performance, especially paltrow seems like an overly grown, sexless cardboard cut-out. the so called "retro" Sure, it's like a comic book...as thin as a comic book! sky captain suffers from over stylization and over the top "fuzzy sepia" fog that makes it almost impossible to watch without getting dizzy. all the stars in the film perform as if they are in a junior-high school stage performance, especially paltrow seems like an overly grown, sexless cardboard cut-out. the so called "retro" science fiction elements are "been there, done that" at best, where the only trick the creator has up his sleeve is a ww2 fighter plane diving into water and becoming a submarine. (yes, we have all seen james bond do that with his lotus). how this constitutes as "wild imagination" is beyond me. i guess the people who rate this film higher than a big fat zero has never seen the likes of "brazil", "blade runner", "star wars", "titan a.e", "fifth element", "iron giant", "metropolis", "never ending story", "adventures of baron munchausen" and basically every movie spielberg has made...because this movie attempts and fails to combine all the above, including some enki bilal and moebius comic strips. he fails, not because he picks wrong influences but he takes only the visuals and leaves soul and story at the door. what we get as a result, is a forgetable, no story, no emotion, no action, no fun, shallow weekend pop corn movie fix. through the film, i waited for the screen to get sharper and more colorful, yet it got more and more "designed" and "stylistic" to the point where i could not "see" what i was looking at and to the point where everything got so predictable that i felt like i had seen this film before. i remember turning over to my friends ear and whisper what was coming next, i got 10 out of 10...but she was not surprised, as she also could guess what was coming next, as with the rest of the theatre i presume. i looked at peoples reactions when they were leaving the theatre, i saw nothing but blank and bored expressions. the film is suppose to be a science-fiction adventure yet its just not up to par with our times, that being communicating to the 21st century film going audience. the reason for this is that the film tries too hard to impress and over explain every little thing. the director fails to recognize that the same audience he attemps to reach play on the level of kubrick's 2001 and matrix and more complex pictures such as films by david lynch....simply put....we are no idiots, stop giving us baby dialogues and dynamite exploding jokes. for me to give this film a big red zero, is more intellectual and imaginitive and more fun than what the director is giving his audience...which is absolutely nothing. Expand
  30. BrockR
    Sep 25, 2004
    3
    I have to agree with almost every sane person on that list. This movie was simply lacking in a good script. The actors had potential, I really like the people in the film, but I hated their characters. If this is supposed to be an homage film to the past please burn all previous documents.
  31. M.Clarke
    Sep 26, 2004
    1
    Oh my God! What a horrible bore this film was. The fact that the scenery was all fake was patently apparent on the numb faces of the actors. Colin Mockery on "who's line is it anyway" gives more realistic facial expressions to his "blue screen" events and he doesn't even know what's behind him! This was only slightly better than cool world or dark crystal -- two of the Oh my God! What a horrible bore this film was. The fact that the scenery was all fake was patently apparent on the numb faces of the actors. Colin Mockery on "who's line is it anyway" gives more realistic facial expressions to his "blue screen" events and he doesn't even know what's behind him! This was only slightly better than cool world or dark crystal -- two of the worst movies ever. And it goes to show that Ebert only gives his 4/4 "*'s" to the worst films. I think his last one (that I remember was "Kill Bill." Expand
  32. JamesA.
    Sep 27, 2004
    0
    This comic book of a movie should have been left on the shelf and heavily discounted. The blurry visual effect is incredibly distracting but mysteriously missing is some instances, especially the closeups. Gwyneth Paltrow has some humongous pores on her face! You'd think the wonders of computer animation would have smoothed out this complexion issue but nothing could be done to This comic book of a movie should have been left on the shelf and heavily discounted. The blurry visual effect is incredibly distracting but mysteriously missing is some instances, especially the closeups. Gwyneth Paltrow has some humongous pores on her face! You'd think the wonders of computer animation would have smoothed out this complexion issue but nothing could be done to smooth out her acting. Her lips look like flat tattoos. Ugh! Jude Law is a lot better looking than Gwyneth and a better actor too! Those eyelashes are to die for, but it seems as if a lot of this movie ended up on the cutting room floor, because there's simply a lot of missing story... Thumbs down. Expand
  33. BenB.
    Jan 27, 2005
    3
    Only a 3 because lower should be reserved for unambitious, horrid knockoffs. Unfortunately, you can always tell when a film has nothing else going for it when the studio hawks the 'ground-breaking special effects'. Then, adding insult to injury, the film has an 'all-star cast'. Writing? We don't need no steenking writing. Homage? Next comes 'pastiche', Only a 3 because lower should be reserved for unambitious, horrid knockoffs. Unfortunately, you can always tell when a film has nothing else going for it when the studio hawks the 'ground-breaking special effects'. Then, adding insult to injury, the film has an 'all-star cast'. Writing? We don't need no steenking writing. Homage? Next comes 'pastiche', then finally 'ripoff'. I can't count the number of movies they did pay 'homage' to, and one can easily be impressed simply by how diverse they are. We go from Metropolis to Thunderbirds to Commander Cody to Star Wars to King Kong. Wow. However, just like many 'experimental' sci-fi films, it still needs a plot. Remember Tron, anyone? Didn't think so. If you want to see an 'experimental' movie with an engaging plot, see 'The Incredibles'. See Star Wars. Don't see Sky Captain. Expand
  34. JonathanS.
    Jan 30, 2005
    4
    The sepcial effects and visual style of the movie were original, but didn't quite work for me, so I never was drawn in by the movie. The plot and the characters were especially weak--had they been stronger, the movie's style might have seemed more appealing.
  35. PatC.
    Mar 21, 2005
    4
    Fantastic rendering of a combo Casablanca/Jules Verne era. The lighting and photoplay involving Paltrow's facial expressions was stunning. The editing was not bad. As for plot and human interest content, these elements were apparently way too inconvenient to include in an engaging manner, and the result is a film considerably less than the sum of its parts.
  36. LynneK.
    Apr 5, 2005
    2
    I had heard this was good, so I was SHOCKED at how BORING it was. The visual effects might've been better in a theater, but at home on a small screen they were PAINFUL to watch. I was shocked that anyone rated this film highly - maybe it's 1 of those you either love or hate.
  37. MarcK.
    Oct 11, 2004
    3
    Am I allowed to say the word, "dreck"? Because that's what this film was. Unfortunately, I relied on the Metacritic score, and not the "real" people who saw this movie. I have very little to add to what others below have so eloquently stated. I understand that the film is a send-up on serial movies, but it still wasn't any good...it took itself far too seriously. "Raiders of the Am I allowed to say the word, "dreck"? Because that's what this film was. Unfortunately, I relied on the Metacritic score, and not the "real" people who saw this movie. I have very little to add to what others below have so eloquently stated. I understand that the film is a send-up on serial movies, but it still wasn't any good...it took itself far too seriously. "Raiders of the Lost Ark" got it right...this one didn't. Yes, the art direction/cinematography is not just good but great. Give it Oscar nominations for that, but so what? As for Ebert's high ratings, I've come to the conclusion the more I see his scores on this site that he (and Joel Siegel for that matter) are worthless when it comes to assessing a movie. How hard is it to say you think that practically every movie you see is great. This flick almost definitely makes my "Worst 10" list at the end of the year. Expand
  38. CarthoG.
    Sep 16, 2004
    0
    Having every scene 100% digitally created is no excuse for a movie to completely lack plot, a sense of adventure or any other redeeming feature that would carry the viewer along. Even the actors (Jolie especially) don't seem particularly keen on participating in this soulless take on 50s style adventure television. They seem to be going as woodenly as humanly possible through the Having every scene 100% digitally created is no excuse for a movie to completely lack plot, a sense of adventure or any other redeeming feature that would carry the viewer along. Even the actors (Jolie especially) don't seem particularly keen on participating in this soulless take on 50s style adventure television. They seem to be going as woodenly as humanly possible through the paces, despite the overlooming feel of melodrama. Expand
  39. BillE
    Sep 18, 2004
    3
    Fantastic visuals and likeable leads do not - unfortunately - a good movie make. Sky Captain has a paper-thin plot, stodgy dialogue and the sligt veneer of unreality that goes with an all-CGI approach. Thus, it looks great, but you don't really believe it's there - unlike The Rocketeer or the Indiana Jones films, for example.
  40. JoeE.
    Sep 22, 2004
    0
    The worst movie of all time used to be Gods and Generals. It is now Sky Captain and the World of Tommorow. Avoid this movie like the plague. It makes episode 1 look like pure artistry.
  41. Darkmage
    Sep 25, 2004
    3
    I can't believe that Roger Ebert gave this movie 100%. For the first time in my life, I'm convinced that he was NOT unbiased, and that he has some personal gain with this rating. I LOVE adventure, sci fi, and movies with no plot. I love action on the big screen, even if there isn't a story to tell. I HATED this movie. I couldn't wait for it to end. And you know what I can't believe that Roger Ebert gave this movie 100%. For the first time in my life, I'm convinced that he was NOT unbiased, and that he has some personal gain with this rating. I LOVE adventure, sci fi, and movies with no plot. I love action on the big screen, even if there isn't a story to tell. I HATED this movie. I couldn't wait for it to end. And you know what the hatred reminded me of? The same way I felt during Van Helsing. Both of these are movies that SHOULD have been good, for much the same reasons. Both are just as bad as each other, for all the same reasons. Expand
  42. CraigB
    Sep 27, 2004
    0
    Ugh! Two words: "let down." These visuals that are supposed to be really unique and add to the affect of making this appear as a "kitshcy" sci fi serial from yesteryear are inconsistent, muddy and sometimes just plain awful. The dialogue is campy at it's worst. This just might be the worst movie I've seen in a while. It scares me that anyone would rate this above a 1. What were Ugh! Two words: "let down." These visuals that are supposed to be really unique and add to the affect of making this appear as a "kitshcy" sci fi serial from yesteryear are inconsistent, muddy and sometimes just plain awful. The dialogue is campy at it's worst. This just might be the worst movie I've seen in a while. It scares me that anyone would rate this above a 1. What were the critics thinking? Expand
  43. [Anonymous]
    Jan 22, 2005
    3
    The special effects were great. But great effects don't make a move. There was simply no story here worth paying to see. A groundbreaking effort on the technique, coupled with a dreadful script. Not worth it, unless you a effects junkie.
  44. ChipT
    Jan 29, 2005
    3
    The movie simply lacked any substance. I've seen very few movies with weaker character development or less meaningful plotlines. If you're one of those people that can enjoy a movie purely composed of eye candy then maybe you'll enjoy it.
  45. Jeremiah
    Mar 12, 2005
    1
    Good lord! This is one of the most painful movies I've ever sat through! I wanted to scratch the DVD before returning it to Hollywood Video as a service to humanity. I've come to metacritic to be comforted by why I thought would be negative reviews lambasting it in humorous ways, hoping to redeem the time I wasted watching this film. The action sequences were so generic - Good lord! This is one of the most painful movies I've ever sat through! I wanted to scratch the DVD before returning it to Hollywood Video as a service to humanity. I've come to metacritic to be comforted by why I thought would be negative reviews lambasting it in humorous ways, hoping to redeem the time I wasted watching this film. The action sequences were so generic - I've played them a million times in video games! The grade A actors cite lines from a grade F script. Painful in all ways a movie can be. I'd watch the new star wars films over this any day! Expand
  46. Sep 1, 2014
    2
    Sky Captain is a fascinating adventure story perfect for the big screen. However, providing us with this digital illusion is not only unnecessary but hugely distracting.
Metascore
64

Generally favorable reviews - based on 36 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 23 out of 36
  2. Negative: 2 out of 36
  1. Other than the actors, their costumes, and a few props, everything in Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow is digital illusion, and the effects are often exhilarating.
  2. Reviewed by: Todd McCarthy
    70
    Arresting at first but gradually trails off under the weight of its hyper-derivativeness and anxiety to please.
  3. 90
    As an imaginative visual experience, there's nothing like it. Today, at least.