Sky Crawlers

[CrazyAce01]

Sky Crawlers


Synopsis, screenshots, recommendations ~ Add Recommendations


Discuss the completed anime or post full reviews here. Post format and full rules can be found here.
__________________________________________


It's a level-headed review, not particularly ranty. Criticism welcome as always.

Story (5/10)

Sky Crawlers leaps into action right out of the gate with a heart-pounding dogfight. Mesmerized by the dramatic battle and excited for more, I was let down by the abrupt, lengthy lull in plot. The movie lives up to its name – the story crawls along at a snail’s pace. While giving the viewer a few interesting tidbits to crew over here and there, it moves so slowly and gives so little in return for attention that it becomes laborious to stay focused.

Centering on a small airfield with only a few pilots, the plot slowly limps towards a hazy destination. The story gives few details concerning the setting, which leads only to apathy and confusion. The few details the viewer can painstakingly gather hardly satisfy. A slow story can be excellent; Serial Experiments Lain comes to mind; while slow paced, it is brimming with rich psychological content to keep the viewer engaged. This is where Sky Crawlers fails, coming off as vapid and lazy rather than gentle and stimulating. It is certainly not a complete failure - but this time could have been used better.

In the last portion of the movie, the director came to a sudden conclusion: “Oh, right, we are supposed to be going somewhere with this!” The war, which remained contextually vague until almost precisely an hour and a half in, is suddenly explained. The origin and purpose of the characters are thrown in your face. And, of course, the philosophical message is mashed into your head with impromptu dialogue. Despite the spur-of-the-moment delivery, this final section, with plot that was actually discernible, was very enjoyable; I just really wish they didn’t feel the need to waste most of the movie on nothing. The ending ties in all of the small bits and pieces lying around throughout the anime, and it was, in all honesty, very original and surprising, but the captivating finale does not justify its tiresome conception.

Animation (9/10)

From the intricate trimming on wallpaper inside an elegant house to the fiery explosion of a bomber plane, the animation was superb. The fight scenes used a wonderful mix of classic animation techniques and computer generated images, and many of the set pieces were also computer generated – but I hardly picked up on some of it with the graceful interaction between the 2D and 3D. Character animations could have been improved with a touch more detail here and there, but nearly all the backgrounds were without any flaw.

Sound (10/10)

I would swear those planes were right in the room with me as the buzzing from the propellers zipped by. Every firing bullet, every dog bark, and every creak of each door opening meshes perfectly with the movie, and most of the sound effects were easily the best I’ve heard. The musical pieces are very infrequent, with footsteps and car engines creating, quite successfully, the bulk of the sounds, but when they did appear they are orchestrated wonderfully. Voice acting, while occasionally bland, was appropriate, the blandness coming off oddly appealing rather than standing out as a fault - rather than make the story melodramatic, or even annoying, this quiet, monotone calm pervades the movie, lending a sense of mood. There was not one single moment of sound I did not like.

Characters (6.5/10)

The characters were either intriguing or the boring, at least until the last half-hour sprint. The main character, Kannami Yuichi, was colorless, and while this is justified by the ending it was hardly enthralling to watch him do nothing for minutes on end. Much more eye and mind catching was the commanding officer, Kusanagi Suito, toward whom many hints are directed but few facts directly revealed. This makes her character an interesting mystery to be solved and it is the sole thing that works well with the strange pacing. The other characters are not heavily investigated and became cogs in the machine of the plot, which wasted quite a bit of potential.

Overall (7.5/10)

The surprisingly good story came in very late, making Sky Crawlers a bit of a snoozer. The last section of the movie was entertaining, but it begs the question of why the rest of the movie wasn’t as good. Still, with many interesting, unique ideas, some good things to say, and the best sound this side of Cowboy Bebop, I would recommend it to anyone – just don’t expect the best thing since sliced bread.

[ThePatches]

With your review on the table and the reviewers (and hopefuls) in the operating theater, it's time for a little Vivisection!

Comments in bold.

Originally Posted by CrazyAce01

Story (5/10)

Sky Crawlers leaps into action right out of the gate with a heart-pounding dogfight. <-- I understand the clever analogy you've tried to construct here by starting your review right in the action, but it read as jarring instead of wry. We like lead in sentences because they help to understand where the reviewer is coming from. Mesmerized by the dramatic battle and excited for more, I was let down by the abrupt, lengthy lull in anything particularly interesting. <-- Vague. I'd go with something like "subsequent dearth of action, plot, or exposition..." The movie lives up to its name – the story crawls along at a snail’s pace. While giving the viewer a few interesting tidbits to crew over here and there, it moves so slowly and gives so little in return for attention that it becomes laborious to stay focused. <-- Here, use your ranty voice. It SEEMS like you were offended by the story's stately progress ("laborious" is a dead giveaway), show us how offended you are. I'd go with something like "While the movie meted out tiny morsels of plot here and there..." and then launch right into a lathered up blasting of the slow pace.

Centering on a small airfield with only a few pilots, the plot slowly limps <-- better if you can use a flight-related word towards a hazy destination horizon. <-- see? my goal is to make fun of the movie? Very few details are given <-- Passive! concerning the setting, which lead only to apathy and confusion. The few details I was able to gather - the viewer CAN painstakingly wrenched from the plot , I might add – were hardly satisfactory satisfy. <-- Passive once again. Also, after the intro it's practice around here to leave "I" out of the review until the Overall section in "formal" reviews. Ranty ones get a pass due to their obvious hilarity. A slow story can be excellent; Serial Experiments Lain comes to mind. However, while slow paced, S.E.L. is brimming with rich psychological content to keep the viewer engaged; this is where Sky Crawlers fails, coming off as vapid and lazy rather than gentle and stimulating. <-- Instead of worrying about the S.E.L. abbreviation, you could just combine the two sentences, "A slow story can be excellent. Serial Experiments Lain, for example, keeps the viewer engaged by counterbalancing its deliberate narrative with layered psychological content." or something similar would work.

In the last portion of the movie, the director came to a sudden conclusion: “Oh, right, we are supposed to be going somewhere with this!” The war, which remained contextually vague until almost precisely an hour and a half in, is suddenly given a lengthy explanation. The shocking origin and purpose of the characters are hastily thrown in your face. And, of course, the philosophical message is mashed into your head with virtually <-- this is a case of those "superfluous words" VivisQueen mentioned in her critique of your Zombie Loan review. words like this can be cut. Even though YOU know that they add important connotation, the reader just doesn't care. impromptu dialogue. Despite the spur-of-the-moment delivery, this final section, with plot that was actually discernible, was very enjoyable; I just really wish they didn’t feel the need to waste most of the movie on nothing. The ending ties in all of the small bits and pieces lying around throughout the anime, and it was, in all honesty, very original and surprising, but the captivating finale does not justify its tiresome conception. <-- This paragraph has a lot of great content. Your sarcasm, outrage, and begrudging acceptance of the exposition at the end make great review material, but you need to get all of your tenses in agreement and cut out the passives.

Animation (9/10)

From the intricate trimming on wallpaper inside an elegant house to the fiery explosion of a bomber plane, the animation was superb. The fight scenes used a wonderful mix of classic animation techniques and computer generated images, and many of the set pieces were also computer generated – but I hardly picked up on some of it with the gracefully flowing graceful interaction between the 2D and 3D. Character animations could have used a touch more detail here and there, but nearly all the backgrounds were without any flaw. <-- Watch repetition. You've worked hard to vary your sentence structure, don't ruin it by repeating the same verbs over an over again... Also, did you see how reducing "gracefully flowing" to "graceful" improved the flow of that sentence? Also, I might change "graceful" for something more like, "skillful" or "masterful".

Sound (10/10)

I would swear those planes were right in the room with me as the buzzing from the propellers zipped by. Every firing bullet, every dog bark, and every creak of each door opening was perfectly inserted into the movie, and most of the sound effects were easily the best I’ve heard. The musical pieces were relatively infrequent, with footsteps and car engines creating, quite successfully, the bulk of the sounds, but when they did appear they were wonderfully orchestrated. Voice acting, while occasionally bland, was appropriate, the blandness coming off oddly appealing rather than standing out as a fault. There was not one single moment of sound I did not like. <-- Repetition. See the comment above. I also think you could drive home how the blandness worked for the movie a little better. I understood why bland would work, but I know something about the movie. Draw a clearer connection for an uninformed reader.

Characters (6.5/10)

The characters were either intriguing or the boring, at least until the last half-hour sprint. Although the plot dictated having them wandering back and forward nearly pointlessly at times, watching some of the characters was the more interesting part of Sky Crawlers, and it kept me watching through the long doldrums. <-- This paragraph seems a little unnecessary. If there's something you want to say here, really say it. Otherwise, cut all but the first sentence and place it at the beginning of the second paragraph.

The main character, Kannami Yuichi, was colorless, and while this is justified by the ending it was hardly enthralling to watch him do nothing for minutes on end. Much more eye and mind catching was the commanding officer, Kusanagi Suito, toward whom many hints are directed but few facts directly revealed. This makes her character an interesting mystery to be solved and it is the sole thing that works well with the strange pacing. The other characters disappointingly serve as plot cogs and are not heavily investigated; a possible interesting use for that first hour became a faint disappointment. <-- The portion after the semi-colon makes no sense. Are you referring to a specific character? I'd consider using something like, "The remainder of the cast serves as cogs in the machine of the plot, and any potential life they might have brought to the script went entirely to waste."

Overall (7.5/10)

The surprisingly good story came in very late, making Sky Crawlers a bit of a snoozer. The last section of the movie was entertaining, but it begs the question of why the rest of the movie wasn’t as good. Still, with many interesting, unique ideas, some good things to say, and the best sound this side of Cowboy Bebop, I would recommend it to anyone – just don’t expect the best thing since sliced bread. <-- Overall, a good close. Just watch your tenses!

----------------------------------------

I used "S.E.L." to refer to Serial Experiments Lain to reduce repetition, but is acronym usage frowned upon in a formal review?

- Watch your tenses! MOST reviews are in the present tense, but that's not necessary. If you want to write in the past tense STAY in the past tense. When I proofread my own writing, it's the first thing I look for.

- Passive voice! Passive != formal. The easiest way to solve this problem is to really ask yourself if you absolutely NEED every "to be" instance you write. It can be taxing work excising the passive, because it sure makes writing a lot easier but your work will become more powerful as a result.

This was a good attempt, but there are some pervasive mechanical issues in this one. Chin up, though, this stuff is easy to catch once you become aware of it and your writing will improve DRAMATICALLY as a result.

I think your problem here is that you felt a little constrained. Unlike in a rant where rhythm and momentum dictate the flow of your writing, in a "formal" review, you have to create flow where there might be none. I'd uncork your ranty side a little. Kira's mastered the almost-rant (IMHO) I'd look at this one for an example: Eiken Review by KiraRin | Anime-Planet

You could also try for VivisQueen's Dignified Rant Style: Code Geass: Lelouch of the Rebellion R2 Review by VivisQueen | Anime-Planet I'd love to write a FORMAL review as well put-together as that pseudo-rant. I'm trying to make the point that using all of that passive to "formalize" your review robs you of your most important asset: your voice.

All of this stuff was meant in good faith. I guess I opted to be a little more verbose than the way Vivis usually puts it:

:) <-- Obligatory smiley which means I don't hate you.

[CrazyAce01]

I love obligatory smilies, they make me feel warm and fuzzy. Thanks for the hard work.

However obviosly my writing is pirfect, because I know it's pirfect and you're just an eleetist jerk who cant aprreciate my unique stile.

:P

I made little effort to edit either tenses or passive voice and just stuck to technical errors rather than stylistic errors. I'll have to get into the habit of scanning for those as well.

I enjoy ranting, and apparently I write much more naturally when doing so, but I find it difficult to be ranty when I at least somewhat enjoyed what I'm ranting about. Unless I'm passionate to the point of obsession, or I really hated it, I don't have the fire in my belly to be witty. Anyone can find things to complain about in anything, but it wouldn't make much sense if I ranted about all the bad things in x category then gave it a score of 7 or 8. I guess I could have ranted in the story section as I scored it low, but I thought it felt more deserving of a yawn rather than an angry fist.

Working in my voice into things I liked will be a challenge. I'll edit this later, I don't feel too motivated at the moment.

edit -

Whatever the case may be, it seems I should stick exclusively to an informal style - the best I've gotten with the formal after repeated attempts is "pretty good". Informal is more fun anyway!

[vivafruit]

From the sound of it you have plenty of practice channeling negative emotion, but very little when it comes to praising stuff you genuinely like. I remember having similar troubles when I was in high school - everything I said was sarcastic, and I had genuine trouble expressing my feelings when I liked something. Incidentally that's one of the reasons I started reviewing; I was a fairly closeted kid, and reviewing was a medium to work on expressing myself.

My advice is this: don't give up on positive reviews altogether. Work on trying to get the same creative neurons to fire when you're lavishing your favorite anime with praise as when you're obliterating the latest trash to pollute your TV. Try to dispel the notion that a positive review has to be written formally - some of the best positive reviews I've seen don't calmly and logically explain why a work was good, but instead breathlessly gush about how it's the bee's knees in very much the same stream-consciousness style that your negative reviews are in. Granted, it's not easy, especially for a modern-era cynic like you or me, but it's possible and I think you have the potential to achieve that goal. Keep at it.

Also, don't worry about the fact that formal writing doesn't come naturally to you. Using informal writing in reviews doesn't come naturally to me, and I seldom bother with it! No one is requiring you to write formally; work on your voice, not mine or VivisQueen's or anyone elses'. Granted, we can help you with grammar and content issues, but ultimately it's up to you to decide how you want your reviews to sound, and what the best way to express yourself is.

[Xennon]

Originally Posted by CrazyAce01

Sky Crawlers (click for info)

It's a level-headed review, not particularly ranty. Criticism welcome as always.

Story (5/10)

Sky Crawlers leaps into action right out of the gate with a heart-pounding dogfight. Mesmerized by the dramatic battle and excited for more, I was let down by the abrupt, lengthy lull in anything particularly interesting. The movie lives up to its name – the story crawls along at a snail’s pace. While giving the viewer a few interesting tidbits to crew over here and there, it moves so slowly and gives so little in return for attention that it becomes laborious to stay focused.

Centering on a small airfield with only a few pilots, the plot slowly limps towards a hazy destination. Very few details are given concerning the setting, which lead only to apathy and confusion. The few details I was able to gather - painstakingly wrenched from the plot, I might add – were hardly satisfactory. A slow story can be excellent; Serial Experiments Lain comes to mind. However, while slow paced, S.E.L. is brimming with rich psychological content to keep the viewer engaged; this is where Sky Crawlers fails, coming off as vapid and lazy rather than gentle and stimulating.

In the last portion of the movie, the director came to a sudden conclusion: “Oh, right, we are supposed to be going somewhere with this!” The war, which remained contextually vague until almost precisely an hour and a half in, is suddenly given a lengthy explanation. The shocking origin and purpose of the characters are hastily thrown in your face. And, of course, the philosophical message is mashed into your head with virtually impromptu dialogue. Despite the spur-of-the-moment delivery, this final section, with plot that was actually discernible, was very enjoyable; I just really wish they didn’t feel the need to waste most of the movie on nothing. The ending ties in all of the small bits and pieces lying around throughout the anime, and it was, in all honesty, very original and surprising, but the captivating finale does not justify its tiresome conception.

Animation (9/10)

From the intricate trimming on wallpaper inside an elegant house to the fiery explosion of a bomber plane, the animation was superb. The fight scenes used a wonderful mix of classic animation techniques and computer generated images, and many of the set pieces were also computer generated – but I hardly picked up on some of it with the gracefully flowing interaction between the 2D and 3D. Character animations could have used a touch more detail here and there, but nearly all the backgrounds were without any flaw.

Sound (10/10)

I would swear those planes were right in the room with me as the buzzing from the propellers zipped by. Every firing bullet, every dog bark, and every creak of each door opening was perfectly inserted into the movie, and most of the sound effects were easily the best I’ve heard. The musical pieces were relatively infrequent, with footsteps and car engines creating, quite successfully, the bulk of the sounds, but when they did appear they were wonderfully orchestrated. Voice acting, while occasionally bland, was appropriate, the blandness coming off oddly appealing rather than standing out as a fault. There was not one single moment of sound I did not like.

Characters (6.5/10)

The characters were either intriguing or the boring, at least until the last half-hour sprint. Although the plot dictated having them wandering back and forward nearly pointlessly at times, watching some of the characters was the more interesting part of Sky Crawlers, and it kept me watching through the long doldrums.

The main character, Kannami Yuichi, was colorless, and while this is justified by the ending it was hardly enthralling to watch him do nothing for minutes on end. Much more eye and mind catching was the commanding officer, Kusanagi Suito, toward whom many hints are directed but few facts directly revealed. This makes her character an interesting mystery to be solved and it is the sole thing that works well with the strange pacing. The other characters disappointingly serve as plot cogs and are not heavily investigated; a possible interesting use for that first hour became a faint disappointment.

Overall (7.5/10)

The surprisingly good story came in very late, making Sky Crawlers a bit of a snoozer. The last section of the movie was entertaining, but it begs the question of why the rest of the movie wasn’t as good. Still, with many interesting, unique ideas, some good things to say, and the best sound this side of Cowboy Bebop, I would recommend it to anyone – just don’t expect the best thing since sliced bread.

Just me popping in.

I would remove that reference to Cowboy Bebop. For me, and most people I know (can't speak for everyone), but when I hear Bebop, I think of music, and Sky Crawlers only had a single song. I understand you are talking about SFX, but I just would remove that reference.

It really isn't a big deal, it really isn't any kind of deal, but just something that stuck up while reading your review.

[CrazyAce01]

Thanks for the encouragement vivafruit. I'll keep on truckin'.

Originally Posted by Xennon

Just me popping in.

I would remove that reference to Cowboy Bebop. For me, and most people I know (can't speak for everyone), but when I hear Bebop, I think of music, and Sky Crawlers only had a single song. I understand you are talking about SFX, but I just would remove that reference.

It really isn't a big deal, it really isn't any kind of deal, but just something that stuck up while reading your review.

Amazon.com: Sky Crawlers (OST): Kenji Kawai: Music

I distinctly remember more than one song in the movie - there was only one with lyrics, but many different pieces. Regardless, read the reviews on that amazon page and you'll understand why I gave sound a ten. People often say the music in Cowboy Bebop is like another character - in Sky Crawlers, the music was the character.

[FalseDawn]

I'm actually going to disagree with the review rather than the style (hope you don't mind!).

I'm pretty amazed that you considered the slow burn aspect of the first, let's say, forty minutes as less important than the tactical warfare that developed later on. I'd be very careful about comparing a film to a series (like Lain) because a series has to have more "action points" as I like to call them to keep people watching from episode to episode, generally ending on some kind of cliffhanger etc. Films, however, you view in one sitting.

Slow burn doesn't necessarily equal worthless either (Look at anything by Makoto Shinkai) - and I'd suggest that the first half of the movie is essential to the story. The lack of setting isn't an issue either because it's purposefully done that way. The whole point is that it could be anywhere or, for that matter, any time period.

Let's face it: if you took out the slower sections of this film, you'd make it worse. The first section introduces the whole philosophy behind the film so that the ending can be as powerful as it is. Without it, the ending would be weak and unheralded. To dismiss it because it's "slow" or, as the case seems to be, "not action-packed," would be a horrible error in judgment - and would merrily swipe at pretty much every other film/series in the philosophical canon.

I'm not saying the film doesn't have its flaws. The concept of the Kildren is only really half-explained and the art style doesn't really differentiate between those who are meant to be Kildren and those who aren't. There are also a number of flips in character motivation (especially in Kusanagi) that don't quite follow all the time, though it admittedly makes her a more interesting character because of it. There's also a lot of throwaway characters, though again, I think that's kinda the point :)

So yeah, in short, you're being way too hard on the story. Or at least, you're not, but for potentially all the wrong reasons. You can't punish an anime series/film for what it is, but instead you highlight what it fails to do. It is intentionally slow burn - it doesn't set itself out as an action flick - so to punish it over that seems a tad absurd.


EDIT: having a quick reread of your Lain remark, I'd actually suggest that what hasn't convinced me about your disappointment of the plot speed is that you don't really give any details. I feel like you've missed the whole point of that section, rather than understanding its necessity but instead thinking it could have been done better.

[Xennon]

Originally Posted by CrazyAce01

Thanks for the encouragement vivafruit. I'll keep on truckin'.



Amazon.com: Sky Crawlers (OST): Kenji Kawai: Music

I distinctly remember more than one song in the movie - there was only one with lyrics, but many different pieces. Regardless, read the reviews on that amazon page and you'll understand why I gave sound a ten. People often say the music in Cowboy Bebop is like another character - in Sky Crawlers, the music was the character.

I just breezed through the movie, and counted 5 different pieces, one of which being that music box version of the main theme. I counted only two different battle songs for all the action scenes, and the main theme song being used at least three times, for a very short amount of time.

I'm not saying the soundtrack isn't good, it is. But you should rate the music as it appeared in the actual movie, rather then reviews of its stand alone sound track on Amazon. There are a ton of insert songs on all of the Bebop OST that are used once for 10 seconds, very soft in the background in a single episode. To me, I wouldn't use that in a review. This isn't my review, this is yours, however, for sound, I don't understand how you could rate it a perfect 10 for Sky Crawlers. The sound effects were good, but music in that two hour long movie is virtually no-existent.

I understand, that is part of the movie, but I consider a major lack of music a flaw in any show or movie, and in this movie, you could go 20-30 minutes without hearing a single track.

[ThePatches]

I just wanted to say that I agree with viva's points. I was not suggesting that you try to be Kira or VivisQueen (PLEASE don't try to be Kira, that could get ugly... then sexy... then ugly), but I always learn better from examples, so I was trying to provide some that I thought bridged the gap between "formal" reviews and "ranting".

[KiraRin]

I enjoyed the review Ace, and would use the criticism as a point to build on. You'll notice edits take less and less time as you write more, but there will always be points to learn from. I don't think Patches was saying to try to be someone else, but look at the flow and style in ranty type reviews. My Eiken one isn't particularly ranty, but the Skelter Heaven one is. And the Paniponi Dash! one will be very ranty when I finally finish it >.<

Originally Posted by ThePatches

(PLEASE don't try to be Kira, that could get ugly... then sexy... then ugly)

....

Did I say you could be let off the leash??

H.