|
Directed by: Martin Scorcese Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, John C. Reilly, Cate Blanchett & Kate Beckinsale Howard Hughes is a man encumbered by his own ambition and haunted by his own handicaps in "The Aviator", the latest film by Martin Scorcese. In this highly stylized biopic, we get a sense of just how much Howard Hughes had at his fingertips, and how much he was willing to lose: personally, financially and mentally, to see his dreams see the light of day. We should all be so willing to suffer and fight for our dreams. Leonardo DiCaprio portrays Howard Hughes, the heir to the Hughes family money, and as soon as he controls the family's finances, he sets out to film a major war epic: "Hell's Angels". The film takes 3 years, nearly 26 film cameras, over 560 hours of footage and an unheard of 2 million dollars to complete, but completion is never satisfaction for Howard Hughes. Never does he take a moment to enjoy what he's created once the creation is completed. Every moment after the realization of his dreams, he is immediately fixated on the next evolution, the next invention and how to get there. The very night of the wrap party for "Hell's Angels", Howard Hughes demands they reshoot the film altogether for sound. The night of the premiere, he stomps out of the credits, telling his producers they need to go back and edit some re-used shots. At the same time, Howard Hughes continues in his first and most beloved endeavour: aviation. He constantly pushes to invent the fastest single-wing airplane and then insists of test piloting it himself. Howard Hughes is a man who wants to experience every second of his own creations, even if they kill him, and they almost do. Leonardo DiCaprio takes on a performance of not only a debonaire and lavish oil mogul, but also an intrepid aviation enthusiast and a man tortured by his own obsessions. We see the creativity and brilliance of a man who directs films, runs Trans World Airlines and innovates new forms of aviation, but Leonardo DiCaprio also never fails to create a truly human performance of a character struggling at his very core with the fears instilled in him in his youth. The race is between Howard Hughes' ambitions and the demons chasing him down, and both have their own little victories. Some more technical garbage: the score by Howard Shore is memorable and quite well done; it made the film more wholesome and helped with the overall experience of the film which ran the gamut of exciting and adventurous to incredibly subtle and powerful. Also, Robert Richardson created a look and feel nostalgic of the yesteryears of cinema, and the post-production techniques of color-timing to focus on primary colors enhanced the audience involvement and journey to the 1920's, 30's and 40's. Overall, I was quite happy with this film by Martin Scorcese. With "Gangs of New York", I really enjoyed much of the story but felt the film was weakened by the Cameron Diaz melodramatic love subplot. "The Aviator" aptly shows Howard Hughes in moments of tenderness and in search of something wholesome and fulfilling, but it never compromises the pursuits of Howard Hughes which only enhances the depiction of the struggling, haunted and brilliant aviator. RATING: 5 PROS: Excellent direction, very stylized, great pacing, Oscar worthy performance by Leonardo DiCaprio CONS: Only once or twice, the story failed to directly link subsequent scenes; Beginning felt like it needed more focus ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0338751/
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2004 16:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 20:45 |
|
|
I thought this was a drat good flick, the casting was superb, the acting was great, and the cinematography was perfect. My only gripe was I think it could have used about 15-20 minutes of tighter editing, but overall, a fantastic look at a very eccentric millionaire. 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2004 20:12
|
|
|
I was unaware of much of Hughes' life, which is ironic, given that I live right next to what was once his main airstrip. In fact, I saw the movie at the "Howard Hughes Center" mall in Culver City. I gather that the movie skips over much of his anti-communist, and apparently anti-semitic views, but that's probably to be expected. Overall, a terrific film in which Leonardo DiCaprio does an excellent job of portraying a highly intelligent and driven man, struggling with paranoia and obsessive-compulsive disorder. The moments when he finds himself unable to stop repeating a phrase, or furiously washing his hands are truly touching. I felt it dragged slightly in the middle, and would agree with Eyecannon that 15 or so minutes could easily have been cut. 4/5.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2004 20:33
|
|
|
Saw this film Christmas Day and thought it was very well done. The directing, cinematography and acting were fantastic, especially by DiCaprio. I've never been a huge fan of his or anything, but he was truly stunning in this role of a man driven to see his dreams come true, but at the same time haunted by debilitating mental disorders (the repetition of words is called perseveration, and I thought he depicted it unbelievably well. There's nothing that you can do to stop yourself, even though you are aware of what you are doing - note his anger during those scenes). Agreed that the editing was loose and could have been cleaned up a bit. Overall, it was a great biopic that is sure to net DiCaprio an oscar nomination (and probably Scorsese for Directing, and Blanchett for Supporting Actress) and a really good shot at a win as well. 4.5/5. Easily a 5 with about 20 minutes chopped out. Edit - And props to Brent Spiner for another 90 second role.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2004 04:44
|
|
|
I hated this movie and so did the rest of my family. People actually walked out of the theater during the movie. The movie had no real plot or theme. It was just sort of a picture of some of Howard Hughes' life. It began at a random place in his life and ended at a random place in his life. The scenes of his OCD and mania were well-done but awkward to watch. The only thing to recommend it was the action. Leonardo DiCaprio was terrific. Everyone else did a decent job. 2/5
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2004 21:32
|
|
|
I enjoyed this film a lot and was impressed with Leonardo's performance. Definitely worth watching. 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2004 04:26
|
|
|
I have to agree with dj_clawson here. The acting was good, but the story seemed to focus on some random point in his life. Also, the point at which it abruptly ended made everyone I went with saying "That's it?" 2/5
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2004 04:39
|
|
|
This movie was very overproduced and was more or less DiCaprio pushing to get it made because of some book he read about Hughes. For three hours worth of overacting (granted, it was good overacting, easily DiCaprio's deepest work thus far) it never got into Hughes' head to try and explain why he was so hosed up and obsessive. Blaming it all on his mom giving him sponge baths doesn't fly well (lol aviator pun) with me. That said, Howard Hughes is sadly one of the more interesting American historical figures that hardly anyone talks about anymore. Unfortunately, this is just the first great act of his life -- the second came after he holed up in Las Vegas, got heavily involved with the CIA and got caught up in both the Kennedy assassination and the Watergate scandals, then died an eccentric, wasted old man (see Melvin and Howard). Like he did with "Gangs of New York," Scorcese managed to get The History Channel on board to tell "the real story" behind the movie, so suddenly there's some push behind getting to know Hughes all over again. Lots of history got left out, unfortunately -- for example, his controlling interest in RKO Pictures (which he ran into the ground) and his addictions to codeine and Valium (though they could have occurred later in life -- his autopsy revealed bits of hypodermic needle embedded in his arms.) His romance with Kathryn Hepburn, by contrast, is well explored, and Cate Blanchett steals the show with her portrayal of yet another historical figure that most people know little about, besides being old and gray and dotty. I went to see this movie with my brother over the weekend. During the piss-bottle scene I actually turned to him and said, "Is this Scorcese or Cronenberg?" Very weird and hosed up in parts, but the segment where Howard test pilots his XF-11 spy plane and crashes it into Beverly Hills (read more about that) is the film's visual "cool, explosions" highlight. 3.5/5. Don't go unless you have friends or family with you. J.theYellow fucked around with this message at 13:40 on Dec 28, 2004 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2004 13:32
|
|
|
4/5 - I enjoyed it but thought it was a bit slow and drawn out in quite a few places. It's a long movie and feels like it to me. Incredible performances however. I'm not a fan of Dicaprio, but this is easily Oscar worth work. The same can be said for Kate Blanchett among others. I don't think it will suffer much if you wait for DVD. One thing I did think was odd is they didn't explore his parents much. Evidently alot of his biographys point out that him being screwed up was a large result of his family life. (Beyond the fact he was fairly nuts, the movie made it feel like he had torrets (sp?) at times.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2004 19:28
|
|
|
Sharp bunch here in TFD. Editing bad=yes. There were a number of scenes when I was thinking to myself, why are we seeing this? Not spoiling much, but there's a scene when he spells out the word quarantine REALLY slowly and we know he's losing it. But most of us know how to spell the word or don't care or didn't pay money to see a loon spell it, so why show it? Lots of scenes like that. There were some giggly teeny girls next to me and they got all gigglier during some of Leo's buff scenes. After he got loony, they shut the gently caress up, thankfully. One problem with any biopic is the beginning and end. Most of our lives don't have a convenient and overriding arc. It's a limitation of the genre. Cate did a great job. All the supporting actors did, even Alec Baldwin, who is easy to make fun of (though he was also great in The Cooler). I thought this movie was less than Gangs of New York. I didn't think there was much CINEMA here. It was all about the actors and sets and costumes, which Scorcese of course influenced, but still. I bring this up, because every year he puts out a picture, there is massive talk about whether he should get an Oscar for it, since he's never won one. This isn't Oscar-worthy, IMHO. 3.5 /being generous
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2004 01:35
|
|
|
My only complaint with this film is that I really can't buy DiCaprio as a man in his early 40's. I really saw no physical maturity during the film's progression. Not to say he didn't surprise me with his excellent performance. I have mild-to-moderate OCD, and this film really hit home in a few scenes. This is not Scorcese's best film by any means, although I thought the changing color scheme was a brilliant touch.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2004 07:03
|
|
|
Beautiful movie, great period piece. Parts of the movie are colored like some of the first color movies and some of the old-school techniques such as split screening is just awesome. Acting and sound were superb and the story, albeit written with a lot of creative liberties, is a very interesting biopic. It didn't feel as long as it was, the scenes where Hughes is flying and scenes of his psychotic ramblings really break up the 2.5+ hours of the movie. 4/5 because I ABSOLUTELY loving HATED every single scene with the Catherine Hepburn character.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2004 08:33
|
|
|
It just wasn't very focused. There were many scenes that were seemed completely unnecessary, and the theme of 'OMG BATSHIT INSANE' was overstated to a ridiculous extent (the ending being an example). There were many wonderful moments, beautiful shots, and a lot of great acting, but it could have been so much tighter and more intense than it was. I found myself glancing at my watch many times, so I'll second the '20 minutes too long' sentiment. I give it a 3.5/5 because of sloppy editing, pacing problems, and a seeming lack of any real purpose (or a purpose obfuscated by redundancies). Fabulous performances by DiCaprio and Blanchett.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2004 03:14
|
|
|
Just came back from seing the movie. And started to sink in, while reading through previous posts. Although the movie is long (about three hours) I never realized it, mostly due to the fact that the man's life, as portrayed is both troubling and uplifting at times. DiCaprio's performance is Oscar worthy in the intense delivery he gives of Hughes' at his worst and best moments. Supporting cast is very good all around. Stunning scenes distributed throughout the movie punctuating the trials and tribulations of Hughes. You can be amazed and share the passion of aviation through the stunning shots. The visual treatment, with scenes delving into symbolism, as the display of the planes from his movie, "Hell's Angels" roaring across his burnt and scarred body were both well executed and useful to the movie. It is definitly DiCaprio's performance (being passionned by the subject) that makes this an outstanding movie in my opinion. Without his performance the movie would have been good, but would not have been memorable. As to the end being a disappointment, I disagree, the relapse scene with his conscious realisation, acting as an effective foreshadowing of his eternal turmoil and sickness. On the positive side, it will also push people to rediscover this great figure. I know I'll want to watch "Hell's Angels" and the original "Scarface" now, as well as read up on this larger than life character. I give it 4.5
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2004 07:46
|
|
|
A lot of the flaws are already stated here, so I won't go over them again. However, I'd like to point out that the Senate hearings are really loving entertaining, and I wish a whole new movie would be made about them alone. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2005 10:32
|
|
|
I thought it was mostly a good flick, but I feel the focused too much on him going crazy - I wish the focused more on his advances in Aviation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2005 19:51
|
|
|
The cinematography was stellar as is often the case with a Scorsese film, although I felt that the script left much to be desired. A lack of character development undermined empathy towards the protagonist, weakening identity, interest and emotional effect. Despite this unfortunate flaw, the film kept me entertained and I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it. 3.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2005 21:25
|
|
|
Excellent movie, the first fifteen minutes felt kind of awkward for me, but once I adjusted to the pacing, I got really into it. The acting was great all around, especially from DiCaprio, though Blanchett overdid the Hepburn a tad bit. The cinematography was superb, which is to be expected from Scorcese. 4.5/5 slydecix fucked around with this message at 09:05 on Jan 3, 2005 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2005 08:54
|
|
|
This film was everything I wanted it to be and more. Leo did a great job with the accent, and everything thing about the film was first rate, except the editing, which IMO was distractingly choppy in some parts. Still, The Aviator is tremendous entertainment and draws favorable comparisons to Citizen Kane. 5.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2005 16:55
|
|
|
I just couldn't get into the film enough to really like it. Everytime Cate Blanchett tried to impersonate Kate Hepburn's accent I shuddered. Leonardo Di Caprio did a great job, but he is still too boyish looking to be playing a tycoon like Howard Hughes. The story was slow in alot of places and new characters came and went like they were just thrown into the script for no reason at all. I didn't care for any of the characters, or about their problems. Some good acting in places wasn't able to redeem this movie. Not even the CGI planes. 3/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2005 22:40
|
|
|
It needed to have one of those "Howard Hughes went on to... yadda yadda yadda" scrollers at the end, since it sort of stopped at some point in what may have been the late 1940s. It did an alright job of stringing together the events of his life (up to the point where the film ends, anyway.) Parts of it are very funny - it just could have been put together better at the end. One nitpicking thing I noticed: They didn't really "age" DiCaprio enough. The movie appears to cover about 25-30 years of Hughes' life, but he doesn't seem to age much. 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2005 12:30
|
|
|
Avaiator joins maybe two other movies that I would ever rate a 4/5 or above. The movie was amazing and dignified in that, while explaining/exploring Hughes sickness it was primarily about his accomplishments instead of his more scandalous and well known "crazy as gently caress" days that would have, undoubtedly sell more tickets. But it also did not try to sugarcoat the man, Alan Alda gave a surprise AMAZING performance and DiCaprio was great. Law was a hilarious Erol Flynn As for the length, everytime the movie feels as if it's a bit long something new and great happens. quote:J.theYellow came out of the closet to say: The book used as the basis for this movie was originally optioned by John Malkovich with Michael Mann to direct, dealing with the "crazy as gently caress" days. In my dream world, this will be a sequel. I really can't believe I'm ending this review with this but here goes.... 5/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2005 05:56
|
|
|
I thought it was an excellent movie, and can't really think of anything to complain about, and nothing to praise about it that the first post doesn't cover. Excellent acting, and a great story. 5/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2005 23:08
|
|
|
If there was a rating higher than 5.5, I would give it, I thought this epic was incredible. The acting is top notch, better than what I see in alot of today's films, and the way everything comes together is excellent. Leo deserves 10 awards for this movie, making it what I would call the best movie of 2004.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2005 16:13
|
|
|
This is an extremely well-made film. The acting is great and this is easily Scorcese's best since "Goodfellas". But when the film ended, I couldn't help but think: "why did I just watch this? what was the point?" It felt more like an abstracted history lesson -- like some History channel mini-series. Not in terms of its cheapness or lack of flair, but in the sense that this was a largely informational movie. It's exactly the sort of fictionalized-biography that every major Scorcese picture (with the possible exception of Taxi Driver) has been. In that sense, I suppose that I shouldn't be complaining. The only real thing that separates this from Goodfellas is the content - the actual characters that Scorcese is investigating. I suppose my problem is that it doesn't seem as if the section of Hughes' life that we were shown has enough lows. There are some fantastic highs, but the only real "low" in this entire movie was during his particularly horrific isolation. Both Goodfellas and Raging Bull had more dramatic swings, and both are better films because of that. Still, it's impressive that Scorcese and DiCaprio took what I consider to be a slightly above average screenplay and turned it into a very solid film. This will land DiCaprio and Scorcese Oscar nominations. 4.5
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2005 21:31
|
|
|
I feel like I can't be subjective whenever I just finish seeing a movie, and especially one by one of my favorite Directors..but anyways. Throughout the movie I was wondering first, if people knew he was crazy and had OCD among other things, and you finally see they do know towards the end. The story is paced very rythmically as we have steady paced scenes followed by frantic scenes. At first I was like, "ok something better happen so that this interests me" and soon I am engrossed in the film. Scorcese does an icredible job with this. The production is simply amazing. The set design, the 20s, 30s, 40s feel. I didn't for one second feel like "hey, this is just some fake hollywood garbage" All the little details and subtleties is what I look for, and the editing of this film was perfect as well. Leonardo DiCaprio: I had no respect for him.....until now. His acting was so flawless, dare I say, that even though he looks like he did in the Titanic and in real life (no real physical alterations), I forgot that he was "that dude from Romeo and Juliet and Titanic" while I watched, and really felt like he embodied Hughes perfectly. Kate Hepburn was played really well, even though she's this weird, old-fashioned speaking, "gal"....you can't help but notice that Blanchett did a good job with becoming Hepburn. I used to watch movies, and only approve of them if they offered a parable, or made you think about life, or if it had existential themes....poo poo like that. If it was a comedy, did it make me laugh? But with a movie like The Aviator, you must know you are about to watch a film about someone elses life whether you know about the guy or not, and you must be prepared to WANT to learn about this guy. And Marty did a great job with sucking the viewer in to want to watch this movie. Like said before I will say this is his best work next to Goodfellas. In Short: Pros: Incredible acting, great editing and set design. Engrossing film. Martin Scorsese. Cons: It might become slow at times, you may feel frustrated and go "what the hell is this" and shut yourself off from liking the movie. Thats only if you are a stubborn rear end movie-goer. 4.5
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2005 22:11
|
|
|
Like everybody else, I initially thought "wtf this guy doesn't look like Hughes" but that wore off pretty quickly after some time. This movie is a pretty good classy movie for folks who don't go to classy movies. I typically only see one, if any, of the big Oscar movies and it's usually the mainstream one, so period dramas aren't usually my typical choice. Overall, this was a good movie. The old era of Hollywood was recreated very well, the woman who plays Katherine Hepburn did a very good job of sounding like her, Leonardo eventually meshes into Hughes after some time. I only really have two counts of stupid moments in this movie, one is small and one is rather annoying. The small one is that an arrow falls off a speedometer in one scene in a fashion which doesn't seem likely to happen. The larger, more annoying concept is that plane engines fail and the plane they're attatched to falls out of the sky like a rock. This is a really irritating sacrifice of reality for drama because everybody with a brain knows that airplanes can still glide and descend in the event of an engine failure. Yes, even the old ones. 3.5
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2005 00:59
|
|
|
I didnt expect much from this movie, and got what I expected. The art direction, sets, costumes, etc. were great. I thought dicaprio was OK, i couldnt buy him as an older man, and i thought his accent sounded a bit forced. I am appalled that this movie got an oscar nomination for editing, because there were about 20-30 min that needed to get snipped from the movie, most of it from the bits with OCD ad naseum. The portions of the movie where he was flying really made the movie passable. Hughes seemed to come alive during those portions, and I really enjoyed those scenes. I was a little dissapointed with the abrupt ending, and was very dissapointed by the magesty of the spruce goose's flight which was more free willy and a far cry from the "flight" in real life. All in all this movie was fairly entertaining, but i wish I could have seen it at home so I could have gotten up and stretched or something during the tedious portions. This warrants about half the oscar nominations it received. 3
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2005 22:07
|
|
|
I found this film to be very immersive and entertaining, which was a surprise because I normally dislike biopics. This may be partly because I have suffered from OCD and a felt a good deal of empathy with that aspect of the movie (particularly the hand-washing scenes). A lot of people are criticising it for being unfocused, but 1) biopics are unfocused by their very nature, and 2) Howard Hughes himself was pretty unfocused on any one thing. Some of the interesting aspects of Hughes's life that were left out have already been mentioned; even without them, it's quite a crowded film. It was a bit of a relief that The Aviator ended where it did, because it could have easily got into Hughes' later life and continued for another 2 hours. It did drag at one or two points but I can think of very few films I've seen recently that couldn't be criticised for exactly the same thing. Overall, 4.5
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2005 04:03
|
|
|
I didnt like this movie. Basically its got a great director, great actors, great production, boring script. Howard Hughes likes hot chicks, has clean phobia, and takes alot of huge risks, some of which bankrupted his rear end. Thats all you really need to know about the guy. A few breathtaking scenes, some nice backgrounds and sets but thats about it. I found it really hard to sit through the entire movie. I suspect there were some good scenes cut, and that the DVD version might restore my faith in this movie, but so far, its not worth an Oscar nomination. As far as Bio's go, 'Ray' was a better movie. 3.0 elister fucked around with this message at 15:54 on Jan 28, 2005 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2005 06:45
|
|
|
double post
night unkempt fucked around with this message at 18:04 on Mar 1, 2005 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2005 18:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 20:45 |
|
|
I have to agree with what other people have been saying about this movie's weaknesses. The good things, like the portrayal of Hollywood in the 30s and 40s, some of the acting, and some of the symbolism, were overshadowed by the lack of focus of the movie. I walked out feeling like I didn't get a good idea of why Howard Hughes was who he was. Even though the main characters were acted passably well, they were very shallow impersonations of famous people. I had trouble getting past the horrible accents and mannerisms given to Hughes and Katherine Hepburn. They may have spoken like that, but it was a barrier in this movie. If their mannerisms had been accompanied by less awkward attempts at depth, the acting would have been excellent. Instead, the characters repeat "cute" catchphrases to imply intimacy. Dicaprio acted well, but I'm sorry to say his appearance just did not seem true to the part. It didn't work to have him interacting with other men who were supposed to be in their late thirties, while Dicaprio still looked about 20. If he really wanted to play the part, he should have modified his appearance. I tried to enjoy the movie while I was watching it, ignoring the inconsistencies in the flying scenes and the somewhat awkward CGI. I will say that the crash scenes were neat, the humor was well done, and the mental illness was engaging. Unfortunately, this movie was a lot of potentially good aspects which just did not work. Famous people directed by a famous director, with pretty pictures (cinematography), do not necessarily make a good movie. 2/5
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2005 18:03
|
|