No it wasn't. The audience I was with all enjoyed it greatly. If it wasn't your cup of tea, fine, but don't presume to mistake your personal preferences for some sort of objective rating of the overall quality of the film itself.
A)Gwenyth Paltrow's performance and appearance were dreadful. [...] it wasn't long before Paltrow's head shots marred the screen by appearing bucktoothed and gawkies.
Oh, for pete's sake. I'm not usually a fan of hers, but in this film I was won over by how great she looked and how well she fit the role. I've found her to be somewhat unattractive in some other films, but in this one she was practically luminious -- although I suppose the overall soft-focus of the film and the 1940's style of makeup went a long way towards helping her out there. And her acting was, in my opinion, spot on. Furthermore, much of the "dialog" of her character was communicated in nothing but facial expressions and body language, and she was nearly *perfect* in that regard. To gripe that she didn't *sound* like Myrna Loy seems like nitpicking to me, especially when her overall performance and character's cheekiness brought Nora Charles to my mind as I was watching the film today.
B) The Loony Gadgetry Look,
Excuse me, but if you saw the trailer at all, you *knew* what to expect in the nature of "loony gadgetry". If that bothers you and you went to see the film anyway, you have only yourself to blame. The entire premise of the film *is* the "loony gadgetry".
"Sky Captain" is NOT worth your five bucks.
Not worth *yours* obviously, since you couldn't enjoy it, but it was well worth *mine*, and it'll be worth the "five bucks" several times over I plan to pay to see it again along with the friends I'm going to take to it who I know will really love a film like this.
Yes, this is my review of the film.
It is as "objective" as any movie review can be.
I thought it stunk (for the reasons stated).
You disagree, I understand.