User Score
6.9

Generally favorable reviews- based on 213 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 50 out of 213
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. 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.
  2. 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
  3. MikeymikeyS.
    Jan 30, 2005
    5
    I fell asleep way too many times while watching this- great style and effects, just not interesting for a second.
  4. TerryD.
    Sep 19, 2004
    5
    The film has amazing visuals, but the plot and characters are not involving ? I found myself not caring about either. This amounts to great ingredients in an otherwise burned cake - to bad because it had wonderful potential.
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. E
    Sep 20, 2004
    6
    My date loved it but I wasn't so impressed. I'll give up a lot of plot and acting for a 'pretty' movie, but Paltrow's acting was horrid, no wonder its Jolie's image everywhere even though her role in the film is small the plot was by no means original and I'm tired of kitch and cheez. Its worth seeing on the big screen, just wait for the discount theatres.
  8. 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
  9. 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.
  10. DanB.
    Sep 18, 2004
    5
    In the words of Eddie Izzard: "Looks great, talks shite." No good dialogue, hacked story, and the characters never looked as if they were where they're supposed to be. Sky Captain, wearing a fur-lined leather bomber jacket, in the middle of a tropical jungle: no sweat on his brow. Stupid. And on a flying zooming zipping ship, punching metal robots: no wind in his hair, no flinch as In the words of Eddie Izzard: "Looks great, talks shite." No good dialogue, hacked story, and the characters never looked as if they were where they're supposed to be. Sky Captain, wearing a fur-lined leather bomber jacket, in the middle of a tropical jungle: no sweat on his brow. Stupid. And on a flying zooming zipping ship, punching metal robots: no wind in his hair, no flinch as he punches steel. Kinda dumb. Expand
  11. EZimmerman
    Sep 19, 2004
    6
    Wow. A stunning visual feast for the eyes that falls absolutely flat when it comes to characters (with the notable exception of the always reliable Giovanni Ribisi). For the record, Gwyneth Paltrow nearly sinks the film on her own, displaying absolutely no range of emotion needed for this terrific homage to silver screen serials of the 30s and 40s.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. Devon
    Mar 7, 2005
    5
    As a 9 year old, I thought the movie was pretty boring. It didn't really have a story but it looked good. They spend most of their time making it look cool with lots of fighter planes flying through the sky. I would have liked the movie better without the fighting.
  15. JudyT.
    Sep 17, 2004
    5
    Too bad it's not very much fun. Not as good as other pretend B movies types like Indy or The Rockeeter. Too slow and humorless. Stupid ending.
  16. VictoriaS
    Jan 29, 2005
    5
    The special effects are breath taking, but the dialogue between the characters is silly. Jolie looked ridiculous in that eye patch get up.
  17. Apr 6, 2013
    5
    There's plenty to applaud Sky Captain for; the visual design is unique and it doesn't feel as though it's been put through a rigorous test audience mill but it's incredibly dull. Best taken for what it is: an ode to pre-war serials.
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.