Judging packaging is a little bit of a tricky gamble dancing at the top of a slipperly slope because it is always in danger of overshadowing, upstaging, or in the worst scenarios misrepresenting the source material. Leaving an opinion about the actual film aside (at least until slightly later), we have to judge the package on its own merit first, then answer the obligatory question that plagues advertising, "how well does this represent the original source?"

The box takes as its jumping-off point the film's most prominently recurring motif, sprawling skyscapes intruded upon by hideously human machinations, helping it to stand out against the self-satisfying headshots and pulp-era typefaces that otherwise clutter the walls of our video stores. In fact, there is no human element whatsoever beyond a grotesque and 'literally' two-dimensional parody. And there is a distinct "less is more" philosophy at work given that type and text is virtually absent with the clouds taking center stage. Clouds (even those that come out of cooling towers) have a curious way of being simultaneously dynamic and boring; we see them each and everyday, yet if we stop and look at them, we can't seem to help ourselves but be drawn in, wowed, and even humbled by them. This package itself is a cloud; from the front, it's not actually all that interesting as there's nothing that jumps out at us, and the back isn't much different outside the novelty of showing us the 'back' of the artwork. But like I said before, the more we look at it, the more it draws us in. Instead of jumping out at us like far too many of its keep-case bretheren, it opens the door, steps to the side, and passively invites us in. It's polite enough when we do come in (and we even share a laugh), but it just as politely tips its hat to us if we keep walking.

I have only two real criticisms, with the second one relating to what I asked before about representation. Firstly, the faux tears on the upper right corners of the front, spine, and back look out of place and frankly like a bit of an afterthought. I'd say there should be more of them, but that would just make it look tacky. The scratches and dust-flecks are fine as those were in the film itself, but only in places. Similarly, the airship and 'torn man' are not present in the film either, but I can forgive that; the torn man represents the flaws of the characters, and the airship is just another human machination intruding upon the clouds just like the towers and factories. On that note, and going back to what we asked before about whether or not and how well this represents the product, I'm sorry to report that while it does aptly represent the film, it unfortunately overshadows it. All I'll really say about the film is that I just didn't like it very much, and that this box art is a mismatch but only in terms of quality, with the box art winning by a knock-out five seconds into the first round. Yeah, it's disappointing for all those people expecting a little more of a fight, but we can't hold that against the package; it's doing what it's supposed to be doing, and that brings us to what we should really be talking about.

Beyond representation of the original source, the more important and ultimately relevant questions to be answered by this packaging are thus:
Q: Does it draw attention (make you stop while walking by)?
A: Yes, absolutely.
Q: Does it compel and reward a closer look (picking it up)?
A: Maybe. Some people might feel a bit 'cheated' when they turn it over to find no description or synopsis, but they do get the 'ironic punchline' to the front, and that may be enough.
Q: Would it make you buy the movie (has it sold you on it)?
A: I'm going to say no, but that would be largely a lie as I have bought movies solely on the power of their box art. Would this join those ranks? Maybe, though I might just leave it propped open on my coffee table to use as a conversation starter. And I mean that in a good way. I mean, I've never done that with any other DVD in my collection....