Genres

Visitors Review

Enoch Sneed 2012-05-25 21:02:03

A misfire with good flying scenes

This seems a very odd choice of film for Martin Scorsese. The directorI associate with films such as "Bringing Out the Dead" has come outwith a glossy, superficial biopic which makes a hero out of a ratherdistasteful (racist, politically *extremely* right-wing, tax-dodging)American millionaire.There is an element of Greek tragedy about Hughes. By the standards ofour culture he was a man who had everything - wealth, power, a stringof glamorous lovers - but whose character contained a fatal flaw whichdestroyed his entire personality. Unfortunately, despite the views ofothers on this site, I don't feel Leonardo Di Caprio's performance is asuccess, although he tries hard. He still seems too callow and youthfulto play a tormented 40 year-old on the brink of insanity. (When thefilm was released Di Caprio said there would be nothing 'dramatic'about Hughes as a recluse living in hotel rooms. I beg to differ - thestory of a madman living in isolation trying to buy the government ofthe United States could be fascinating.)Even as the story of Hughes's early life the film is incomplete - hisrecord-breaking coast-to-coast flight (which he completed withoutcompass or radio) is missing - and sometimes inaccurate (his chiefinquisitor in the Senate was Senator Homer Ferguson not Brewsterhimself).The supporting cast are equally unable to capture the glamour of thereal-life figures they portray. Cate Blanchett has a decent stab atKatharine Hepburn, but Kate Beckinsale's Ava Gardner is a colourlesswashout.The film is saved by exhilarating flying scenes using very good qualityCGI (having stood on the prow of a CGI 'Titanic', Di Caprio gets tostand in the nose of a CGI Gotha bomber). The XF-11 crash ishorrifically realistic, and the flight of the Hercules a demonstrationof sheer guts and will-power in getting the thing into the air.Ultimately, though, the film lacks drama (in terms of characterdevelopment and a true story arc). It is interesting and sometimesexciting to watch but doesn't go any further with the Howard Hughesstory than the Tommy Lee Jones TV mini-series from the 1970's (and thatwas much better acted).

Nick Zegarac 2012-05-25 14:16:07

Over Inflated Bio Pic with Under Inflated Performances

The Aviator (2004) is director, Martin Scorsese's send up toHollywood's mythology in glamor during the golden thirties andglittering forties. A quick recap of Scorsese's career finds that hehas delved into various time periods throughout his film canon in anattempt to make the past live again. On some occasions – as with hisfifties pastiche done in snapshots for Raging Bull or Goodfellas, or inhis sixties rekindling used in Casino, Scorsese is bang on, andgenerates a genuine flair. Other attempts, like his reconstruction ofturn of the century city life, in Gangs of New York, or exploring thecultured set in The Age of Innocence have faired less than ably –perhaps hinting of a sniff of formaldehyde dabbled in sensibilities andmannerisms that are too contemporary to fit in."The Aviator" ranks somewhere between these two extremes in thedirector's film making prowess. Like his previous efforts to celebratethe forties in "New York, New York", "The Aviator" proves equivocallythat Scorsese has trouble evoking this sort of past without addingsomething of a contemporary vein to it. From his recreation ofHollywood's legendary Cocoanut Grove through his valiant attempt atrecapturing the pioneering spirit that made intercontinental flyingsuch an exciting prospect in the first place, Scorsese's mastercraftsmanship is once again hampered on this occasion by his casting ofeffeminate and prepubescent-looking Leonardo DiCaprio as the legendaryHoward Hughes.Hughes – at least in the photographs I've seen that were taken in hisyouth – was studly yet, quite clearly looked every bit his age, in away that men of his generation tended to have a more careworn façadethat was both sexy and mature, much more than today's youth. DiCapriohas something of the coloring of Hughes' wanton and maniacal flair forthe dramatic – at least in spots – but it gets mired in his owndisbelief of acting the part; as though he suddenly awakens half wayinto his lines and realizes that he's just Leonardo DiCaprio and notHoward Hughes. Hence, the suspension of belief for an audience in hischaracterization only comes to life in fits and sparks – most oftendying slowly – and rather painfully – before our very eyes.But enough about DiCaprio's shortcomings. I remain at an even greaterloss to explain why so many critics found Cate Blanchette's take onKatharine Hepburn the definitive evocation of this great lady. Havingseen every Katharine Hepburn movie ever made - at least twice – and,owning more than a handful of her best performances for repeat viewingafter seeing this film – as well as owning no less than fourdocumentaries in which Hepburn speaks about her life, the movies,Spenc' and so on - I must reiterate for this review that Blanchette isnowhere near the stature or embodiment of Kate Hepburn any more than Icould pass for Cary Grant! In both her mannerism and behavior,Blanchette presents us with a gross caricature of Hepburn, something inthe subtext of a manic latex puppet.The story of Hughes and his romantic goings on with Hepburn fuel thefirst half of Scorsese's film. In pacing and style it does cometogether rather nicely in spots, but there is never a sense of thecharacters being lived in or the places they occupy seeming as anythingmore than highly stylized sets. The clothes worn are not attire, butcostumes that feel out of vogue with Scorsese's handling of thematerial. Hence, the whole affair comes across as something of agavotte in horse's harness – an impeccably lit and beautifullyphotographed fake of an era, instead of a living snapshot of the worldcirca 1920-1949. To go any further with the plot of this film seemsmoot, since it isn't a very glamorous story – made even less glamorousby its two leads. Best then, to simply state that, although the filmwas generally applauded as Scorsese's most 'accessible work' (a commentI find rather insulting, since it has the faint echo of being talkeddown to or, at the very least, suggesting that Scorsese has sold out bytalking down to his audience), I suspect that Academy voters were notfooled by either the film or its performances – at least not enough togive either the picture or its director statuettes. Now, for the good news. Warner Home Video's widescreen transfer isreference quality. The anamorphic picture is stunning with a sumptuouscolor palette that absolutely jumps off the screen. There are momentswhen the image will almost appear three dimensional for those watchingit on larger projection units. Rich, deep and solid blacks, very cleanwhites and some beautifully rendered night scenes – in which evenextreme background detail is obvious, but never digitally harsh, leavemuch to recommend this film as a visual experience. The audio is 5.1and a marvel to listen to, with even the most subtle clanging of dinnerand flatware evident from various channels of one's surround sound.Extras – too many to get into in this review; the standouts being TheAge of Glamour and The Role of Howard Hughes. Scorsese's commentarytrack for the film is also a highlight not to be missed.

jlennon314 2012-05-25 02:46:16

Not his best, but the best of 2004

There have been few movies that have really "moved" me enough to reallywant to go. However, I have still gone to see many. This one intriguedme, but mostly because it was Scorsese, rather than the subject ofHoward Hughes.I left the theater feeling enlightened, not by moral or plot or anysuch nonsense. Instead, Scorsese had created an almost perfect visualexperience. Through pseudo-colorization, well-integrated computersequences, and a perfect balance between fast- and slower-paced scenes,he had achieved what many movies attempted at this year, but had stillfailed to create - style. Instead of a simple retelling of a story,which is what many directors do to "true story" movies, Scorsesecreates out of it a work of art. Instead of simply creating a platformfor a story to spring from, the director conveys the art, the sound,and the story all simultaneously. This is something I greatlyappreciate from movies. A story can be told through a book, but a trulygood movie should be able to portray itself through beauty of sightsand sounds in addition to the story itself.The acting was superb on all accounts. There was no actor that I wouldhave replaced. It was nice that when I was watching the movie, I wasable to make DiCaprio not be "DiCaprio playing Hughes." In other words,actors were not themselves, but really did seem to become thecharacters themselves. It was easy to get lost in the who's who ofsecondary characters, and though he tried to overcome this drawback tothe subject itself, Scorsese could not completely remedy the situation.So if you have trouble remembering someone's name in the film, just tryto remember at least what their purpose is.The movie was long, and I realize that will turn away many people. Alot of reviewers and critics have complained that the movie feels evenlonger than it is. But to me, it passed by quite briskly. Nothing feltdragged out, and it seemed to end as soon as it began.Overall, I feel like The Aviator deserves more credit than it seems tobe deserving. I would definitely go see it again, just to immersemyself in the sense-exciting experience once- again

fertilecelluloid 2012-05-24 07:03:50

Hard to invest in a fella we care little for

Care factor zero is behind the dramatic failure of Scorsese's latest, avisual essay on aspects of the life of Howard Hughes (Leonardo DeCaprio).The presentation is glossy and too slick; I never felt any sense ofdanger in the dogfight sequence because planes were impacting with thelens and emerging on the other side. It was like watching a cartoon.Hughes, an odd fellow, developed an unhealthy obsession withcleanliness. The movie spends quite a bit of time showing him combatingfilthy things and imagined filthy things. After a while it got boring.Even though Hughes spent millions on projects that never flew, he nevercame close to going bust. His accountant got plenty peed off at himwhen he continued to pour dollars into his epic flop HELL'S ANGELS, butstill, he never faced any visible hardship as a result. It's like I waswatching an extended promo on the life of Hughes The only time the filmarrested my interest was when Hughes was put on trial and went head tohead with crooked politician Alan Alda. We learned something about hismotivations here and enjoyed his underdog status (if only briefly).Immensely disappointing.

2012-05-20 18:29:25

Someone did miss something......

This film was long, yes. But honestly, I didn't know it was three hours long until it was over and I looked at the clock! Mostly, it is an interesting remake of history, portraying a genius of a man and his love of flying. The best scene: the crash. You have to see the crash. If for no other reason, this scene is the most spectacular scene. Leonardo DeCaprio did an excellent acting job in this film. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but really, if you don't get it, just step off!!! I disagree with anyone who says this movie was the least bit dull. It should have won multiple awards. Here's a suggestion: watch it again!!!!

jasper-rijk 2012-05-20 12:02:13

Disappointing

Martin Scorsese has never really let me down with his films. Also attimes when I was thinking: how are you gonna find your way out of thismassive disaster? it turns out to be a good film (like in 'Gangs of NewYork'). Leonardo DiCaprio has a way of surprising me. When I think: Omy God - not another film ruined by this teen-idol! it actually comesout as a great movie. He sure is a talented actor. But both prominent Hollywood figures did let me down this weekend. Thisweekend I saw The Aviator. It wasn't a bad film, not at all. The storyis interesting and the acting is very well in some parts. Not tomention: John C. Reilly is playing (as always) a great role. But TheAviator never leaves a mediocre level - it's predictable, it babbles onnever really being exciting in any way. The trailer makes us believethat it will be the epic we've always been waiting for. But it isn't atall. It is just a film about a tragic figure and a world that doesn'tunderstand him. That intriguing fact is overlooked by thecinematographic violence and outdated visual effects, so the realtragedy never becomes really visible. For that reason I do notunderstand all the laudatory criticism - it could've been a brilliantmovie if Scorsese had let this habit to overreact at home. The moviewants to be epic full of visual effects and a personal tragedy at thesame time and it doesn't work out! So, I don't want to disappoint allthe people who want to go and see this movie, but please take intoaccount that it could just maybe turn out badly...

ufemizm 2012-05-19 12:29:05

Scorsese is back on top again!

If Gangs of New York (2003) was a tremendous disappointment, from themiscasting of its lead, to the editing, to just about everything else,The Aviator is its polar opposite. The acting is spot on. LeonardoDicaprio truly turns in a tremendous performance as the troubled geniusHoward Hughes. He was wrong for Gangs of New York, but he's perfect forthis. Cate Blanchet delivers a terrifically human Katherine Hepburn.John C. Reilley is great as usual.The film-making is top-notch. Martin Scorsese really understands whatmakes Hollywood pictures great, and this is the proof. The movie is bigand bold, like its subject's life, and really involves you in theaction. The aerial sequence of the filming of Hell's Angels (1930) ismarvelously breathtaking, while never being showy about the specialeffects.And the music - the music is perfectly chosen, matching the times andthe moods of the images on screen in ways that haven't been seen inyears. My favorite choice was Bach's Toccatta in Fugue in D Minor.Scorsese elected to edit out the famous opening and only use the latterhalf, which simultaneously retains the works power, while making itsound new, or at least banishing any thought of Gothic castles that thepiece is often associated with.In short, the best picture of the year.

2012-05-19 06:53:25

Disgustingly Boring! Yawn!

Martin Scorsese has got it all wrong in his old age. The casting is absolutely haywire. Ultra feminine Leonardo plays the brooding Howard, the high cheek boned beauty cum intellectual Katherine Hepburn is played by the Australian Clown Cate Blanchet. I mean this sorry export from Down Under should a play a bag lady or a beggar or some terrorist not a Screen Diva. Poor Hepburn must be turning in her grave. Leonardo is horrible childish and an ugly sight to behold. The girl who played Ava is fat, churlish and downright weird. All are misfits! FBI should investigate why this super duper bore movie got so many Oscars this year. The only saving grace was few Computer enhanced visuals. Performances were mediocre at best and even the usually good characters actors were unusually boring and stiff. Best avoidable. You might as well burn your money! Scorcese has gone senile!

FcPoliFan 2012-05-16 23:17:03

The Great American

Needless to say, with Martin Scorsese scribbling his name on thispicture it's granted automatically a statute of epic proportions.However I have this feeling Scorsese has taken a wrong turn, a fewyears ago. I didn't really like "Gangs of New York", but "The Aviator"exceeded my worst expectations. Yeah, it's that bad.There are a few undebatable points of critique. The first is themovie's length. There doesn't exist any cohesion between the materialand the time it takes to present it, so, at some point, it all fallsapart. And the reason for this implosion is that there is practicallynext to not tension in the movie. It's got no grip.The second is Howard Hughes' persona in the film. Now, I don't knowwhy, but I'd call it the Kane syndrome, people keep falling fordemented creeps who appear to have a vision. It is not groundbreakingthat people aren't perfect and it's not that exhilarating, nor dramaticto see a stuttering man getting stuck at this one phrase, repeating itover and over again. It does not penetrate, it blinds in. And theabsolute down point of the film is, paradoxically, the only real scenewhere it shows some guts, at Hughes's hearing. Why? Because the thingshe says are so stupid. Don't interpret stupid as dumb. Consider it outof context and false, trying to dramatically impose a figure upon theviewer.The third reason, and let's say last because three is a magic number,is Scorsese's total lack of inspiration. He is uninspired by insistingto keep Di Caprio as his lead, when Di Caprio can simply not captivatedue to the Titanic syndrome. He is uninspired in his choice of"lirysm", because at some points the visuals don't match the music.Shortly put, he's bland.It wouldn't be fair to omit the few intelligent moments of screenwriting - rare, but nonetheless delightful given the monotony of thiswhole thing. Maybe Blanchett who actually seems to be an actor can gainsome appraisal from me, but not much. I don't really enjoy her. That'sit."The Aviator" is like the Hercule of Hughes' in some regards. It's justtoo damn big and ripped off to fly.

ror_potato 2012-05-16 17:08:18

interesting

After hearing this film was dull from certain people, I was verysurprised! I really found it fascinating and came away thinking - "whatan amazing man." Now seeing Ray and The Aviator, i feel that DiCapriowas robbed at the Oscars, he was clearly better! I also loved theperformances from Cate Blanchet etc, thought they were superb.The only thing i was disappointed with was the fact Errol Flyn andHoward Hughes were very good friends during his movie making years, andthey did not really show this in the film, and i would have loved tohave seen DiCaprio and Law like this.Also, I am hoping for a sequel to show his Vegas years, as that is oneof his interesting parts of his life and would love to see how theywould do it on the screen.

2012-05-15 21:49:09

"Who Doesn't Like %!%$?"

THE AVIATOR is Martin Scorsese's and Leonardo DiCaprio's absolutely gorgeous period piece highlighting the peak of eccentric billionaire Howard Hughes' life through the late 1920s into the late 1940s.Scorsese truly needs to reevaluate his filmmaking. While uniformly well-made, his recent films seem to lack direct relevance to the audience. Still, having purged themselves of the excesses of THE GANGS OF NEW YORK, Scorsese and DiCaprio do a masterful job of capturing the ambience and decadence of Hollywood's golden era. Given the egomaniacal narcissists with whom Hughes was surrounded, it's little wonder he later became a recluse. DiCaprio doesn't resemble the rough-hewn Hughes at all (despite the addition of shoe-polish black hair and a pencil-thin moustache), nor is he powerful enough as an actor to carry the role well, but he does touch the essence of the man. Hughes was a man who never did anything in a small way: In keeping with his obsessive-compulsive nature, he spent millions on what others considered mere details. His World War One flying epic HELL'S ANGELS was the longest, most complex, most expensive film shot circa 1930 (and was totally redone in the middle when Hughes decided to make it a talkie). He quested for aviation speed records (and acquired them by dint of his insistence upon having flush rivets in the fuselage of his plane, a first). He loved some of Hollywood's most amazing women (among them Katharine Hepburn and Ava Gardner). He designed a cleavage-enhancing wonder bra for Jane Russell to wear in his western THE OUTLAW (when he was told that the film would never make it past the censors, he responded rather incredulously, "Who doesn't like %!%$?"). He designed the world's largest flying boat, the behemoth-like Hercules (aka the Spruce Goose) totally out of wood (it flew once, and is now a museum display). Hughes also owned Trans-World Airlines and invented the pressurized cabin and hydraulic controls. In short, anyone who's ever been an airline passenger owes it to Howard Hughes.While DiCaprio doesn't bring all this to the fore (some of it is in the extras in the two CD set, along with much information on Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder), he does show us that, as the price for his brilliance, Hughes was a man who suffered the usual clamor of daily life in intense pain. The pop of flashbulbs, the crunch of broken glass, and the asymmetrical disorder of green peas on a dinner plate were enough to drive Hughes into a frenzy. In colloquial terms he was as crazy as a bedbug. Clinically, he suffered from OCD. Hughes had an irrational fear particularly of contamination. Because of this mental illness, Hughes descended into an isolated darkness where he handwashed till he bled, and lived in a masking-tape bordered world which represented his own fantasy-driven germ-free zone. In the end he lived in a Las Vegas suite with tinted windows and saw no one.Impressive supporting performances are given by Cate Blanchett (as a surprisingly pompous Katharine Hepburn), Kate Beckinsale (who gained twenty pounds to play the voluptuous Ava Gardner), Alec Baldwin (as Pan Am founder Juan Trippe, Hughes' chief business rival, with whom he maintained a cordial hatred), and Alan Alda (as Senator Owen Brewster). Brewster was all but owned by Trippe, and was later the ax-man for Tail Gunner Joe McCarthy. As a trenchant comment on latter-day political trends, Alda's Brewster is a pure special-interests hack, trying to drive Hughes out of business against Trippe with some specious charges of war profiteering. Hughes battles back manfully: "Free junkets down to Peru, Mr. Senator from Maine? They must be buying a lot of lobsters in Lima this year, I guess."A fine film but not a great film. THE AVIATOR definitely keeps you involved. Well worth the time.

russem31 2012-05-15 10:23:52

Nice job Scorcese!

The Aviator, one of the newer films by Martin Scorcese, is a knock outclassic film by the directing genius. Starring Leonardo DiCaprio, whobefore this movie I haven't really taken seriously (I mean, he was okayin Titanic, but I never considered him a great actor) - but in thisfilm, he really authentically portrayed Howard Hughes and his variousticks that is was amazing. A very well done performance. Cate Blanchettalso deserves kudos for a realistic portrayal of Katherine Hepburn(RIP). The score by Howard Shore also deserves special mention - hecreated another classic musical theme (as he did repeatedly with theLord of the Rings trilogy) - I look forward to this composer's futureventures. Overall, with a strong script, beautiful production design,and the aforementioned pluses, this is a must see - 8 out of 10.

Cardinalnem 2012-05-13 13:14:42

Pretty Much A Movie In Search Of A Purpose

"The Aviator" is tiresomely overlong, anti-climactic, and indeed aspurposeless a screen biography as I've ever seen. Further to the film'sdiscredit, Leonardo DiCaprio is overparted in just the way Patty Dukewas when she attempted adult roles. Lacking sufficient presence, he toolooks annoyingly just like a high school student dressed up to play agrownup. This limitation robs almost all his scenes of any clout. Anexception are those in which he debates with a Senate committee and tosucceed needs only recite the well written, David Mamet-like linesthere given him. Otherwise, he's pretty much a disaster. Even worse,though equally overpraised in the press, is the usually fine actressCate Blanchett who does not so much act the role of Katherine Hepburnas mimic that great star in the manner of a female impersonator. Withher thrust forward jaw and quavering "Howids," she too was impossibleto believe for a minute. Two stars to this film for the scenesmentioned, the fine retro ties, and the art deco and forties sets.

2012-05-13 04:05:24

I LOVE IT!!!!!

I bought this movie before I saw it, and when I saw it I was so glad that I owned it. I really think Leonardo DiCaprio did a great job as Howard Hughes. He really showed how much of a great man Howard was and how he could have done many more great things had he lived in an era where his OCD could have been treated.Million Dollar Baby definately deservered to win best picture last year, but if it didn't win this movie would've.

Boba_Fett1138 2012-05-11 05:16:59

Good biopic but not really fully worthy of all the Oscars and nominations.

This is a good movie but really not worthy of all that Oscarnominations. It's not among the best of 2004 and also certainly notamong the best biopics of all time. But you have to give credit wherecredit is due. "The Aviator" is a good movie about an interesting manand an even more interesting life. With every other normal otherdirector at the helm, more people would had been satisfied with the endresult but since this movie was directed by Martin Scorsese, peopleexpected more. What a pressure this must be for him. In the endScorsese doesn't really delivers and his movie is lacking in moments oftrue greatness. This movie proofs that Scorsese's best years are behindhim and that he is lacking in true creativeness in his recent movies."The Aviator" feels as a formulaic done movie that follows all therules by the book. It's wonderfully done but also because of this themovie doesn't ever really become a remarkable or very memorable one.Even though the movie is almost 3 hours long, it never drags. Leave itup to Scorsese to make a long, consistent movie, that never losesfocus. The story is told with lots of pace and flows well, perhaps evena bit too fast at times. Some sequences don't feel complete and leavean unsatisfying feeling. At times I wanted to know more about a certainevent or character. This is unfortunately often the case with biopics.Movies like this, often tell the life of one single person. How is itpossible to put everything that happened in a lifetime, in a just underthree hours movie. Of course the pace has to be fast and certain eventshave to be cut down, in order to achieve everything with the story.Still I feel kind of cheated afterward by the story. While watchingthis movie it becomes obvious that Scorsese admires Howard Hughes. Heglorifies him as a movie-maker and aviator. The movie mainly focuses onhis best years and too often too little on the negative aspects of thecharacter. The movie also ends when Hughes was at his prime, when hestarts to fall back again, the movie ends. Even though we all know howHughes eventually ended up, I'm still of opinion that the movie shouldhad shown this, in AT LEAST a prologue before the end credits.The movie also leaves lots of things unclear, regarding the maincharacter. It's never explained why he was the way he was and how hegot so mentally ill. The movie made it seem that he could be normalwhen he wanted and had to. It makes the character a sort of aninconsistent one, that we never fully get to understand.Leonardo DiCaprio does well as Howard Hughes, the main character. Heproofs that he is not only a great actor but also can handle big rolesand can carry a movie. Other actors that were really great in thismovie were Alec Baldwin and a surprising Alan Alda. The rest of theactors feel a little miss cast. They all seemed to have been castbecause of their names. This goes for Ian Holm and Willem Dafoe whoplay some very uninteresting roles. And Cate Blanchett seemed to hadbeen cast because she's Cate Blanchett, not because she looks likeKatharine Hepburn and Kate Beckinsale seemed to had been cast becauseshe's Kate Beckinsale, not because she looks like Ava Gardner. Thisalso goes for actors such as; Jude Law and Gwen Stefani. But sure on the other hand the movie is technically near perfect. It'swell looking and has convincing looking sets and costumes and itmanages to recreate the atmosphere mainly of the '20's and '30's. Alsogreat was the cinematography by Robert Richardson but I did notparticularly liked the color use, for which this movie received so muchtechnical praise. The special effects were also a big letdown. Whydon't I ever hear anyone complaining about this? The flight sequences,which are some of the most significant moments in the movie, looked farfrom convincing.The movie is compelling enough to make you keep watching it till theend, since its basically in the end still a very well made one. The endresult won't disappoint you but it will probably still leaves a sort ofa bad aftertaste, considering that the movie is not entirely asatisfying one.I don't think that "The Aviator" will ever grow into becoming a classicScorsese movie over the next years, such as with his previous movie"Taxi Driver" was the case. The movie is too formulaic made for thatand it too often choices the simple path. It lacks true creativeness.Still of course the movie is a great one, that is well made and is farbetter than any other average biopic/drama. But worthy of all itsOscars and nominations? Sorry, I really don't think so. It makes youwonder, would this movie even had been nominated for that many awardsif it was directed by a different director?8/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

eckhouse24 2012-05-10 20:56:16

The Aviator Soars

The Aviator is a great film that does two things. Gives LeonardoDeCaprio his best performance since What's Eating Gilbert Grape andbecomes Martin Scorsese's best film since Goodfellas.DeCaprio puts on a fine performance as Howard Hughes and is welldeserved of any awards he may get for this film. He molds himself intothis role to the point where you forget that your watching Luke fromGrowing Pains on the big screen. He plays Hughes with a sentimentaltouch that we feel bad for any unfortunate events that happens to him.Hughes was an over achiever sometimes cocky in the way he had donethings. But it was his cockiness that got him where he was. And hismoney. The film shows the mental problems that Hughes had to deal withincluding his OCD and his longing for someone to love and take care ofhim.Scorsese does a great job putting this film together. He tells a greatstory filled with emotion and suspense while adding some comedic tonesthat fit right in. The film is almost 3 hours but you never notice thetime go by.I give this film **** out of ****

Sky_Captain_Joe_Sullivan 2012-05-10 06:33:22

A commendable effort

Martin Scorsese's latest film, The Aviator, is a commendable effort.It's a good movie, but it really can't compare to his previous films.Following a very brief glimpse of Howard Hughes' (Leonardo DiCaprio)childhood, the film begins in 1927 on the set of Hell's Angels. At thetime, it was the most expensive movie ever made and show's Hughes'problem with using vast amounts of money and his eccentricity, i.e.holding up production and waiting until clouds show up. For that, hehires a scientist, Fitz (Ian Holm) to get clouds for him. We see Fitztowards the end of the film, yet he hasn't aged at all.Playing the lead-role, DiCaprio is shockingly good and escapes thepretty boy image cemented when he starred in Titanic. He delivers amulti-layered performance and perfectly handles Hughes' complexities(There's a scene where he is washing his hands in a rest-room, and whena crippled man asks to hand him a towel, he just can't do it) As well,Scorsese gets strong performances out of his supporting cast, includingJohn C. Reilly, Alan Alda, Cate Blanchett, and Alec Baldwin. However,fault can be found with Gwen Stefani as Jean Harlow and Kate Beckinsaleplaying Ava Gardner. Scorsese and Cinematographer Robert Richardson(Kill Bill series, Oliver Stone films, Casino) have created a greatlooking film, and the use of visual effects is done right. At the moviepremiere, the use of flash-bulbs from cameras is reminiscent of thetechnique used in Raging Bull. About half-way through the film, thereis plane crash of such intensity it's startling to watch. The film runsclose to three hours and covers only twenty years in Hughes life(27-47). This is where the film looses its footing. Some scenes couldhave been shortened or omitted, and thus created a smoother runningtime. Despite its faults, there is much to like about The Aviator,although it's far from Scorsese's best work. Rating: *** (out of ****)

2012-05-09 18:51:48

A great life - a mediocre movie

I desperately wanted to like this movie. In the end, I cam away unsatisfied.Martin Scorcese is an interesting filmmaker. I would love to rave at his brilliance, but I have always found his movies since the late 80's to be stilted, stylized and extremely violent.Yet, I loved Gangs of New York - perhaps more for the history involved. The Age of Innocence is simply a lovely and very good movie. The Aviator is just mediocre. My first impression is that the film crew knew nothing about aviation whatsoever. In an early scene, Hughes flies the famous H-1 at 350 miles per hour in an open cockpit without goggles. Unless there is direct evidence that this happened, I find it hard to believe. The CG graphics look very fake to me as well. The scenes of filming Hells Angels are clearly what I call digital masturbation. Just not as great as the real thing. The planes look clearly fake. The scene where Hughes is filming from the plane seems more incredible then reality.As far as the acting, the actors seem stilted. I frankly didn't think very much of Cate Blanchet's portrayal of Hepburn. I know it is a stylized version of Hepburn, but it just didn't grab me. Alec Baldwin makes Juan Trippe (the founder of the now defunct Pan American, and an incredible and far more important figure in aviation who deserves his own movie) is made out to be a egomaniacal freak by Baldwin. Baldwin seems to be miscast in Pearl Harbor as Doolittle, and hear he brings a evil patina to Trippe. Was Trippe evil because he wanted to use everything in his power to stop other airlines? To me DiCaprio seems unconvincing in this role. He is a very good actor, but this role required someone with a more menacing and rugged personality. To me, DiCaprio seems like a little kid in this role. He doesn't even resemble Hughes at all. My other peeve with this movie is the subtle portrayal and foreshadowing of Hughes upcoming mental breakdown - it is a shock - shock! - to see him lose his mind. NOT. Here the entry of Hughes social phobia is so thick you would need to be a moron not to see it. It just distracts from the movie. Hughes was making decisions and running his business until the mid 70's. In this movie Hughes seems to become Jekyll - paralyzed by madness one moment, and Hyde in another moment fighting for his business interests or whatever else without any hint of real madness. Somehow it seems very iffy. And this film offers no real answers. For crying out loud, my mother told me about germs and I drink milk, I am not living in a Vegas hotel naked and refusing to cut my nails!! Can we have some subtle suggestion of why he was so paranoid about disease? Also, the scene of Hughes as a child with his mother seems to have incestual implications from the suggestive way its filmed. There are other very odd suggestions in this movie as well that I felt really bogged the movie down with a strange quality. Is Scorcese putting these things here on purpose, or does he not realize they are there through his overly thick eyebrows? Yeeesh.In short, this movie is worth seeing on several levels. It is not a bad movie by any means despite my two stars. However, I wouldn't say that beyond some terrific costuming and recreation of scenes in the 30's and 40's will you be given any idea of Hughes contributions to aviation (rivets - that was it Martin? A monoplane?), filmmaking or anything else. You are left with a lot of thoughts of themes that may or may not be there, undeveloped characters, and a whole lot of weirdness. For a real descent into weirdness, may I recommend this movie and Howard and Me? I still laugh at the weirdness possible - Howard, would you like my used Kleenex to use? How about an open bottle of milk?Frankly, the movie made me curious about the real Hughes. Having seen Hells Angels, it seems Hughes was not such a bad filmmaker. In fact, Hells Angels is a very entertaing movie! The Outlaw seems tame now, because of Jane Russell's ahem overdeveloped breathing ability, but in the 1940's it was smutty as smutty can be. I think the movie would have been better if Hughes had been remembering the different episodes of his life all while lying in his bed in Vegas wondering how he ended up there. It would have been a much more effective device for telling a very wothwhile story. But, hey who am I? I don't have an American Express commercial nor a constant blather on TCM about letterboxing. If there is any cosmic justice however, Martin will end up in heaven with Howard blabbering about the tiny tv screens and the lack of letterboxing. Well, my sick thought, but frankly, you may some sick thoughts too after watching a movie that doesn't live up to the potential of it's very worthwhile subject matter.

katie-35 2012-05-07 01:24:45

A pointless movie that dragged on...

I can never see Leonardo DiCaprio as a man. He will always look like ascrawny, little guy. He just does not come across as an adult in thisfilm any more than he did in Titanic. Young girls like him, which iswhy Titanic made so much money since all those young girls went to seehim over and over. I wonder if it will happen here. Leo, please keepyour clothes on. It only makes you look more like a kid. Thecinematography is wonderful and very controlled as the film progresses.The Howard Hughes character is not delved into enough in order for theviewer to see the mental breakdown of a very eccentric man. Three hoursand his disturbing actions did not seem credible. He is crazed andliving behind locked doors. Then he is cleaned up and very lucid beforeall the flash bulbs at the Senate hearings. For someone who was in suchpoor emotional condition, it was difficult to buy the transformation.Cate Blanchette was wonderful as Hepburn. She nailed that role with herown twist to it. As an Aussie playing the varied roles she has chosen,she always seems to rise to each. I hope one day she will be recognizedfor her great talent. Ian Holmes is always good and made a wonderfulprofessor. Kate Bechinsale did a fine piece tender, yet tough, actingthe part of Ava Gardner. She didn't mimic the iconic late star, buttook on the role in her own tempered manner. Scorcese is a wonderfulfilmmaker whom I greatly admire. However, this attempt at a very longfilm led nowhere. I kept wanting the film to give me more depth of theHughes character and felt squirmy in my seat. Possibly the miscastingof DiCaprio was part of the problem, but the back story and the slowprogression into mental illness needed to be explored more deeply.Again, I can't say enough about the cinematography. I do hope thatbrings in an Oscar.

dawson-boyd 2012-05-06 09:35:38

Howard Hughes as a child and then through what appears to be adulthood. It is hard to tell because DeCaprio looks like a teenager trying to act like an adult.

I was thoroughly disappointed by this very, very long exercise inLeonardo-watching. DeCaprio has never delivered on the promise that hemade in the underrated What's Eating Gilbert Grape". A terrific cast iswasted in this tedious and uneven film. How Allen Alda was somehowsingled out for a Best Supporting Actor Oscar is completely beyondcomprehension. The finest work is done by the always stunning CateBlanchet. Director Scorsese has done some many great films previously,except of course the horribly miscast, Gangs of New York (perhaps areal brawling tough Irish actor like Colin Farrel might have done thetrick as a tough brawling Irish immigrant rather than the ratherfeminine DeCaprio)so it is particularly unsatisfying to endure thisnon-epic. Eleven nominations for this laughable inconsistent mess istestimony to the ludicrous nature of the Academy Awards. Avoid thismovie and go to The Very Long Engagement instead.