The Rocketeer sequel in development
- Thread starter Chris3123
- Start date
The Rocketeer makes the same odd move The Last Starfighter does, in that the hero and and love interest are already together when the (first) movie begins. One can give them points for bucking the overwhelming convention there if one likes, but it doesn't leave either character with much room for development, and since Cliff doesn't actually put on the rocket until forty minutes in, that's a lot of slow, not very interesting setup. (Mind, I don't mind talky movies without much action, but that's not at all necessarily the same as "slow, and not very interesting.") In other words, as with The Last Starfighter, it's just not a particularly good script. That said, if one is totally sick of "guy becomes hero while getting the girl" narratives, this is somewhat different.
On another note, though, I don't quite buy the relationship dynamic in the first place - Connelly's character looks great, of course, but she seems to have an edge and some sass to her, which makes for a somewhat awkward fit with the blandly goody-goody Cliff. A more wide-eyed, brighter type like Elizabeth Shue might have felt more plausible, or maybe a brasher, cockier Cliff. (And yes, I know the love interest is Betty Page in the comics, hence the look and Connelly's casting, but that's really neither here nor there.)
On another note, though, I don't quite buy the relationship dynamic in the first place - Connelly's character looks great, of course, but she seems to have an edge and some sass to her, which makes for a somewhat awkward fit with the blandly goody-goody Cliff. A more wide-eyed, brighter type like Elizabeth Shue might have felt more plausible, or maybe a brasher, cockier Cliff. (And yes, I know the love interest is Betty Page in the comics, hence the look and Connelly's casting, but that's really neither here nor there.)
That more measured pace is very true to the era that it's emulating. It's really only since the 70's and 80's that movies have gotten so intense that if nothing earth shattering happens in the first 20 minutes it's considered "slow".
There's something to be said for allowing a story time to breath, to get to know the characters a little before everything becomes about the action. It's not like *nothing* happens until he puts on the pack; the movie opens with a car chase/shoot-out/place crash and that's plenty to tide over all but those with extremely short attention spans until the excitement of the race sequence.
Which by the way, I think holds up *extremely* well given when it was made. A lot of that has to do with them opting for more traditional VFX methods rather than trying the still very nascent digital technology.
There's something to be said for allowing a story time to breath, to get to know the characters a little before everything becomes about the action. It's not like *nothing* happens until he puts on the pack; the movie opens with a car chase/shoot-out/place crash and that's plenty to tide over all but those with extremely short attention spans until the excitement of the race sequence.
Which by the way, I think holds up *extremely* well given when it was made. A lot of that has to do with them opting for more traditional VFX methods rather than trying the still very nascent digital technology.
So I did manage to watch it via... alternate means tonight. Ehhhh... Not great, but it had its moment. Probably my favorite thing about it was Timothy Dalton. Always a hoot watching him in scenery-chewing villain roles (see also: Hot Fuzz)
Overall I'd rate it 6/10.
Overall I'd rate it 6/10.
I literally haven't seen it since I saw it in the theater, and I don't remember a single scene. I should track it down and watch it again. It should be enjoyable just for the nostalgia factor at this point.
Sure, but as I recall, said characters are pretty dull.
Ah yes, the old "if you were bored, you have a short attention span" accusation. My attention span is just fine, thanks; I've been thrilled by movies in which very little happens, and bored stiff by start-to-finish actioners with dull, one-dimensional characters (cough, Star Trek Beyond, cough). I assure you when I found the first forty minutes of the movie slow, it was because I didn't find the action interesting in its own right, nor did I find the characters much engaging.
The DVD is less than 9 bucks on Amazon, and it's available for rental on Prime for 4 bucks. I might take another look at it.
As it turns out I was able to catch it on one of Showtime's sister channels the other day. It starts off well but I feel it does go flat (despite Jennifer Connelly...) after the introduction of Neville Sinclair.
One of the former Encore channels? Maybe it's on On Demand then. I'll check today.
No, like Showtime Beyond. It wasn't on the main Showtime but it has some airings on those ancillary (if that's the right word) channels.
For some low-key amusement, check out Ebert's review, in which he seems to grasp for reasons to justify his three-star rating:
The movie lacks the wit and self-mocking irony of the Indiana Jones movies, and instead seems like a throwback to the simple-minded, clean-cut sensibility of a less complicated time. That doesn’t mean “The Rocketeer” is not entertaining. But adjustments are necessary to enjoy it; you have to dial down, to return to an age of innocence when an eccentric inventor and a clear-eyed hero could take on the bad guys with a new gizmo they’d dreamed up overnight.
[...]
The virtues of the movie are in its wide-eyed credulity, its sense of wonder. Bill Campbell, an actor who in this film is largely lacking in charisma, may even be the right choice for the role; he’s a white-bread, Identikit leading man who seems as bland as the B actors who wore the superhero costumes in those old serials.
[...]
When the movie is over it’s as insubstantial as cotton candy. I suppose that’s a virtue.
[...]
The virtues of the movie are in its wide-eyed credulity, its sense of wonder. Bill Campbell, an actor who in this film is largely lacking in charisma, may even be the right choice for the role; he’s a white-bread, Identikit leading man who seems as bland as the B actors who wore the superhero costumes in those old serials.
[...]
When the movie is over it’s as insubstantial as cotton candy. I suppose that’s a virtue.
^^ He's obviously far too worldly for this type of movie. 
Ah, right. I was thinking of Starz. I don't have Showtime.
That Ebert review is funny but I disagree with him about Bill Campbell.
Especially if Agent Carter is in it.
Particularly if Agent Carter is in it. Plus Howard Stark cameo !Especially if Agent Carter is in it.
This could work very nicely as a way in towards films with 1960's MCU Cold War adventures, young Hank Pym, the establishment of SHIELD and more...
Similar threads
