The Aviator Movie
| Resolution | Size | Download | ||
|
1280x544 | 8135.85 MiB | 720p | |
|
720x280 | 1673.53 MiB | hidivx | |
|
592x232 | 822.36 MiB | divx | |
|
320x124 | 344.56 MiB | hpc | |
Storyline
TAGLINES
For some men, the sky was the limit. For him, it was just the beginning.
Some men dream the future. He built it.
Imagine a life without limits.
Cate Blanchett as Katherine Hepburn the star who stole his heart.
Kate Beckinsale as Ava Gardner the passion he couldn't resist.
Leonardo DiCaprio as Howard Hughes the man who became a legend.
The script begins as a young Hughes directs one of Scorsese's favorite films, Hell's Angels. Hughes was so obsessed with perfection in the aerial sequences that he waits forever for perfect conditions, right down to cloud formations. The Aviator ends in 1946, when Hughes was still a dashing young man and romancing actresses like Ava Gardner and Katharine Hepburn.
| Cate Blanchett | Katharine Hepburn |
| Leonardo DiCaprio | Howard Hughes |
| Kate Beckinsale | Ava Gardner |
| Alec Baldwin | Juan Trippe |
| Gwen Stefani | Jean Harlow |
| John C. Reilly | Noah Dietrich |
| Alan Alda | Senator Ralph Owen Brewster |
| Ian Holm | Professor Fitz |
| Danny Huston | Jack Frye |
| Jude Law | Errol Flynn |
| Adam Scott | Johnny Meyer |
| Matt Ross | Glenn Odekirk |
| Kelli Garner | Faith Domergue |
| Frances Conroy | Mrs. Hepburn |
| Brent Spiner | Robert Gross |
| Martin Scorsese |
7.60 out of 10 (41695 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Brilliantly Directed, Shot, Acted and Made but so, so Long
posted on 26 Aug 2009And so Martin Scorsese remains Oscar less. The members of the academy did not have the large bladders and mind boggling attention spans that were certainly required to see this film. If it hadn't been for its length I would have gladly given the film 10 out of 10. It's brilliantly shot, designed with spectacular direction from Scorsese and brilliant performances from the entire cast, especially DiCaprio, Alda and Blanchett but by the end of the film I half expected Hughes to see off his fears of dirt and disease in a cesspit before finding some new and crazy fear before locking himself in a room, stripping off slowly, drinking copious amounts of milk, taping his room into different sections, being met by Kate Beckinsale, who tells him he needs to get some clothes on before his big court appearance (which comes about because he has been spending ridiculous amounts of public money on planes bigger than the Empire State building which float but haven't actually got into the air yet), and then he, Phoenix like, rises from the ashes of his insanity to challenge the corrupt system and triumph for American freedom against that bastard of a senator, who looks like an older version of that guy from M*A*S*H before managing to get that insanely large plane off the ground and if you are still following this sentence, you've probably got an idea of how long this film seems to be. For those of you who have been paralysed by the, now self-confessed, tedious previous sentence may I suggest you see this film but when he enters that room after the big plane crash, take a ten to twenty minute break because he just acts like a total madman and nothing much happens.
Over-over rated waste of time
posted on 26 Aug 2009This is supposedly about the life of Howard Hughes, a tall thin man who I met a couple of times. There have been better movies made about his life than this. This one is not very accurate and the casting is bad.Leonardo DiCaprio doesn't resemble Howard Hughes in the least and never really captures his character. Even worse is Cate Blanchett playing the part of Katherine Hepburn. Hepburn was a rail thin beauty with a special marvelous voice and Blanchett is just the opposite, unattractive, average build, and with nothing special about her. The way she played Hepburn was a travesty, particularly to Hepburn fans. But then the relationship between Hughes and Hepburn was fictional and never really happened as shown in the movies.The movie focuses on Hughes' foibles but for the most part they are overemphasized or taken out of context or even contrived. Hughes' life was a long and complex story which unfortunately is too abbreviated in the movie, such as omitting his marriage to Jean Peters
Scorsese continues to shine, Still not best director
posted on 22 Aug 2009Leonardo DiCaprio, Cate Blanchett, Kate Beckinsale, John C. Reilly, Alec Baldwin,Ian Holm, Alan Alda,Danny Huston, Gwen Stefani, Jude Law, Matt Ross, Adam Scott, Kelli Garner, Frances Conroy, Willem Dafoe. Directed by Martin Scorsese.Scorsese continues to shine. Still not best director. Sadly Marty didn't make the cut for best director instead Million Dollar Baby won. But in my opinion well it's a close call because Eastwood and Scorsese are two brilliant directors. Aside from the dexterous dialogue which was brilliantly written by John Logan and the crash sequences that featured the star Howard Hughes (DiCaprio) the movie is still fantastic. With the set design, costume and the special effects it just makes a good movie and when you put Martin Scorsese in charge of the movie you better believe it's going to be good. DiCaprio plays the mad man Howard Hughes who was the leader of Aviation in the 1930's-40's. But the best part is how charmingly insane ha was. How he worked non-stop on his planes. My final rating 8/10. Close but so far Scorsese, maybe next year.
Fly high with this historical gem
posted on 20 Aug 2009Some people say you can't be born a legend, you can only become one. Well, I think in the case of Martin Scorsese, it's a little bit of both. You see, when you're watching a Scorsese film, you're watching movie-making at its best. No detail is left behind in his films which is just one of the many reasons why Scorsese is one of my favorite directors in Hollywood. Over the years Scorsese has put out some masterpieces and although he has won numerous awards for his work, he has yet to hold the coveted Oscar statuette in his hand. A couple years ago when GANGS OF NEW YORK was being promoted, everyone thought it would be the one to give Scorsese his first Oscar, but as most of us saw, that didn't happen. Instead we saw the much acclaimed musical CHICAGO take home the gold. Two years later, we find Martin Scorsese to be in the same exact position, only it's with THE AVIATOR now. Will the same fate hit Scorsese again with Adrew Lloyd Webber's THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA, yet another musical? Or will the academy finally award him for not just his magnificent work on THE AVIATOR, but for everything he has brought to movies over the past 30 years? This film is loosely based on the life of Howard Hughes, one of the first true millionaires of America. Hughes (Leonardo DiCaprio), who was only a teenager when he inherited his family's tool business, had dreams that most of us couldn't even begin to think of. One of his dreams was to make a motion picture, which he did with HELL'S ANGELS, a film that not only introduced Hughes to Hollywood, but introduced him to such movie starlets as Katherine Hepburn (Cate Blanchett) and Ava Gardner (Kate Beckinsale). Having always had a love of aviation, Hughes decided to build the world's fastest plane during the making of HELL's ANGELS, a project that proved to be successful one clear day in 1935. After being dubbed the "world's fastest man," Hughes decided to broaden his spectrum of wealth by purchasing the airline company TWA (TransWorld Airlines). He even began to build a special spy plane for the government, but all was not well in Hughes mind as time passed by. After being dumped by Hepburn, a new enemy arrived for Hughes, Juan Trippe (Alec Baldwin), president and CEO of America's leading airline PanAm. And Trippe, with politicians on his side, set out to destroy not only TWA, but Hughes himself leading the great aviator to fight mental demons he never thought he would have; demons that would eventually leave the pioneer at rock bottom. But, just when you think Hughes has no fight left in him, he picks himself back up and somehow manages to rise to the top again in a fashion that could only be expected from Howard Hughes.Ever since GANGS OF NEW YORK, I had the feeling that we would see Scorsese and DiCaprio team up again, but who would have guessed it would be DiCaprio coming to Scorsese instead of the other way around? As it turns out, DiCaprio is a huge Howard Hughes fan, so when he gave the idea to Scorsese, how could the great director refuse? Well, I'm confident that Scorsese sees something in young Leo, which is probably why he agreed to direct the film. Scorsese allows his young actor to pretty much open up his talents, which couldn't have been a better decision. Going back to WHAT'S EATING GILBERT GRAPE, I could see the endless potential DiCaprio, but I would never expected such a performance like the one he turned in for THE AVIATOR. He truly became Howard Hughes inside and out balancing the true nature of what made Hughes a legendary industrialist and pioneer. But, DiCaprio was not the only star in this film; he had some great talent around him led by Cate Blanchett, who just seems to get better with time. Blanchett, who played Katherine Hepburn, captured the true essence of why Hepburn was a marvel in Hollywood. And then there was Kate Beckinsale, who did a tremendous job in playing Ava Gardner, the new and upcoming star of the times. Beckinsale, who most people will remember from PEARL HARBOR, in my mind, is starting to come into her own as an actress. Only time will tell us how great she actually becomes. But, the one guy that many will forget from this film will be Alec Baldwin, who played the evil PanAm CEO Trippe. Even though Baldwin doesn't occupy much of the films 168 minute running time, his presence is known in every scene in which he appears, reaffirming his talent as being the best among his brothers.Many critics will downplay this film because it drags and it's too long. And, although I do agree that the film felt longer than it was, that's one of the aspects that I come to appreciate with a Martin Scorsese film. I mean, going in I know it will feel like a 6-hour film, but I don't care. In fact, I look forward to it because there's no other director in Hollywood that can do the things that Scorsese does behind the camera, and no other director that can bring in the type of emotion that Marty can bring. He may spend more time on scenes, but every detail is played out which ultimately makes his films complete. And in THE AVIATOR, Scorsese has clearly done just that bringing in all the emotion and features that made Howard Hughes who he was.I don't know what the future holds for THE AVIATOR, but if my predictions are right, it will be covered in gold. Not only did Martin Scorsese capture the true essence of Howard Hughes and what he meant to this country, he allowed Leonardo DiCaprio to run with the character which ultimately left no stone unturned.
A Contemporary Masterpiece
posted on 20 Aug 2009We've all seen one movie that simply moved us in an extraordinary way. For me, it would have to be The Aviator. I'm not going to argue about how great the movie was or how high it ranks on my "personal movie list" simply because every single person is different. I loved the movie, but I can totally relate, in one way or another, to a person that hated this movie. The fact of the matter is that even the person who thought the movie was lackluster probably acknowledges (somewhere in their consciousness) the fact that the movie was much different than any other they've seen in a while. The movie's best quality, in my opinion, is its originality. The airplane sequences, the lavish Hollywood parties and the way the movie was shot (not with a standard camera but with another type) definitely contributed to its originality. The only thing I didn't like about the movie was how "heavy" it really was at times. From a critics' point of view, this movie ranks among the best of the year, but then again, Fight Club was harshly criticized and it turned out to be what our "lost generation" was lusting for.
The Aviator Soars
posted on 18 Aug 2009Wondered if DiCaprio could pull off a dark, complex role ? Wondered if Scorcese would pull back from the excess and cant which almost ruined "Gangs of New York" ? Wondered if Howard Hughes-rake,megalomaniac and robber baron-could be made to be interesting or compelling ? Well I wondered on all 3 counts before seeing the Aviator, and am pleased to report the answer is yes on all 3 counts. It's not a perfect picture, partly because Scorcese wants to provide a big sweep: huge sets with hundreds of extras, huge "production values". They're fun, provide lots of useful clips for the trailer but don't add much the story. There are a few characters who make an appearance for no particular purpose such as Jude Law playing Errol Flynn. The film is at its best when it hews to its main character. At the end of the day the movie is about the inner demons of Howard Hughes, and everything else is just (very watchable) froth.
A commendable effort
posted on 16 Aug 2009Martin 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 the time, 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, he hires a scientist, Fitz (Ian Holm) to get clouds for him. We see Fitz towards the end of the film, yet he hasn't aged at all.Playing the lead-role, DiCaprio is shockingly good and escapes the pretty boy image cemented when he starred in Titanic. He delivers a multi-layered performance and perfectly handles Hughes' complexities (There's a scene where he is washing his hands in a rest-room, and when a 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, including John C. Reilly, Alan Alda, Cate Blanchett, and Alec Baldwin. However, fault can be found with Gwen Stefani as Jean Harlow and Kate Beckinsale playing Ava Gardner. Scorsese and Cinematographer Robert Richardson (Kill Bill series, Oliver Stone films, Casino) have created a great looking film, and the use of visual effects is done right. At the movie premiere, the use of flash-bulbs from cameras is reminiscent of the technique used in Raging Bull. About half-way through the film, there is plane crash of such intensity it's startling to watch. The film runs close to three hours and covers only twenty years in Hughes life (27-47). This is where the film looses its footing. Some scenes could have been shortened or omitted, and thus created a smoother running time. Despite its faults, there is much to like about The Aviator, although it's far from Scorsese's best work. Rating: *** (out of ****)
Very Good
posted on 16 Aug 2009Martin Scorsese's THE AVIATOR is a lavish spectacle of a motion picture that hearkens back to Hollywoods Golden Era in telling the story of Howard Hughes, on of 20th century Americans most pioneering and influential figures.Starring Leonardo DiCaprio as the eccentric billionaire, Scorsese's biopic concentrates on Hughes's life between the 1920's and 40's when he made some of his most striking contributions to both the film and aviation industries.At 25 years of age, Hughes directed the most expensive film ever made up to the point, HELLS ANGELS, in 1930, which Scorsese gleefully recreates here in all its sprawling, audacious glory.At the same time he became known as an unabashed Playboy, with the likes of Jean Harlow (Gwen Stafani), Ava Gardner (Kate Beckinsale), and Katherine Hepburn (Portreyd brilliantly by Cate Blanchett).In the mid 30's he turned his attention to the aviation industry, where he quickly became a world - renowned celebrity for shattering speed and distance records.He also continued to test the limits of flight technology, building bigger, faster, and stronger aircrafts.All the while he suffered from a Obsessive Compulsive Disorder that sent him into a full-fledged tailspin after a near-fatal plane crash.The film concludes with Hughes being called to the Senate in 1947 to defend himself against the nefarious Senator Owen Brewster (Alan Alda), who accused Hughes of taking money from the United States Government during a time of war.This film was nominated for 11 Oscars at the 2005 Academy Award ceremony.Martin Scorsese color tinted some of his scenes to add authenticity to the era represented in the film and in keeping with Technicolor at the time.You may notice a lack of color green in some scenes as well. This was done deliberately.
Flying high in the sky!
posted on 12 Aug 2009A great film! It does have its faults but they are few and far between. After working with Martin Scoresse on Gangs Of New York I was a little skeptical on whether this would be the same fare, Leo being out acted and not really achieving much of a sensible story, but here it all comes together and why Leo never got that Oscar is beyond me, the boy is marvelous!Playing Howard Hughes, an aviator and film director/producer and rampant womanizer with a passion and obsession leo pulls it off and truly shows he is not just a pretty face!Direction is what truly makes this film and Scoresse shows his love of the old days and their films, its like watching a fan of golden oldies talk about the old films and industry. Fulid camera work, a mesmerizing score and nods the stars of old and still telling a story of obstacles and victory, of happiness and sadness and with tragic under tones makes the Aviator a film not only to watch but to own!
Well executed, but poorly told
posted on 06 Aug 2009Unlike Oliver Stone and Taylor Hackford, the directors, respectively, of "Alexander" and "Ray," Martin Scorcese didn't have the convenience of using a household name on which to base his own epic biopic. Concluding 2004's unusual run of biographies on the screen is Leo DiCaprio's portrayal of Howard Hughes, an airline magnate and occasional Hollywood director.At the start of "The Aviator," DiCaprio's Hughes is something of a stock character. The single-minded, failure-free nature of the young Hughes is something movie-goers have been seeing since Citizen Kane (1941), but the type is so endearing that it's hard not to fall in love with the guy. Then Cate Blanchett enters in a startlingly fun portrayal of Katherine Hepburn, and the movie is off. It's inevitable enough, without knowing beforehand Hughes' personal history, that the two will fall in love, and it's even more obvious that Hughes will bungle it. When Katherine does move out, though, she takes not just her baggage and Hughes' heart, but the life of the film as well.It's hard to tell if this departure is the cause for the chaos that ensues - business failure, unscrupulous political pressure, and delirium intensify for Hughes as the movie goes on. Once Blanchett's bounciness leaves, the film gets darker and more obsessive by the minute, something that is executed with absolute technical precision. Scorcese doesn't give in, as Hackford did in "Ray," to literal hallucinations; reality just gets sharper - louder, brighter, closer up. Regardless, it doesn't really add up by the end. The difficulty of the biopic is the filmmaker's obligation to the truth, which is something that never exists in favorable narrative patterns. Scorcese and screenwriter John Logan carefully choose what parts of Hughes' life are screen worthy, and do their best to make art out of it. They're only successful on occasion; the picture, while never lacking conviction, lacks form. There isn't really anything they can do about it, and one gets the impression that Scorcese was constantly convincing himself that climaxes existed in places where they never did. His vision for the epic is strong, but the problem is that it doesn't conform to the real thing. It's hard to imagine what Hughes might have thought of his film - particularly since one leaves the theater without a genuine impression of who he was.
A movie of proportions befitting Howard Hughes
posted on 06 Aug 2009This is one of the few movies of recent times that I came out of wanting to see again. While in no way a thorough docudrama of Howard Hughes' life (I recommend viewers at least read the IMDb biographic details of him before seeing the movie) we get a good insight into his complex nature, aspirations and mental problems. His two most most extravagant projects, the movie "Hells Angels" and the Hercules aircraft get the major attention as we would expect, but it is a pity that his role in producing "Scarface" receives only passing mention. Unfortunately I agree with those who say Leonardo di Caprio was the wrong person to cast as Hughes, but he does put in a good performance, while everyone else is superb; I particularly liked Alec Baldwin. Gorgeous sets, costumes and cinematography make it all a sumptuous visual delight which at no time becomes tedious. A must see.
Great DiCaprio, good movie
posted on 02 Aug 2009I've never liked DiCaprio before, but this film has changed my mind. Here he's excellent and the main pillar of this quite long movie.The story is OK, but photography is a piece of art. Sometimes the camera reminded me of the famous scenes in Taxi Driver, the music did anyway.For me, the most impressing thing about this film how DiCaprio displays the paranoid side of his character. He must have studied persons suffering from this disease before.Even if you're not a particular fan of aviation, Dicaprio or Scorsese, you cannot go wrong watching this movie. Enjoy!
Sad for Marty on Oscar night...
posted on 31 Jul 2009Scorsese's best film. Ever. Tour de force and bravura film-making that stays true to the subject and milieu of late 1920s-1940s Hollywood. Keep watching the film and realize the faithfulness Scorsese pays to Hughes' vision, as if it were one of the mogul's pictures. It's not as though Scorsese is like Howard Hughes (like some critics have stated), but one can still be memorized by his genius-- and seems as though it caught Scorsese to make the picture. I wish things worked out better for Hughes, but he left us with paving the "way of the future." Hats off to DiCaprio (as I also thought was under-appreciated in This Boys Life; Canton-Jones, 1993), who assiduously perfects Hughes unusual behavior. I admire that Scorsese left us with as a positive, albeit complex portrayal of a 20th Century wonder. Way to go Marty. Total highway robbery at the Oscars; without saying, it deserved best directing and best picture.I'm still trying to understand Hollywood politics; what do they have against Marty? Could be that he's so independent like Hepburn, yet she won 4 awards? Or maybe because he sympathized with Hughes? Or maybe because it was the evening commemorating Lumet, and that would be insulting to him? Wrong, that's all I could say. I just don't know! Very wrong the film was not acknowledged. But you know what, neither was Apocalypse Now! In 50 years, we'll still be talking about The Aviator. 10 Stars; not Million Dollar Baby.
Fun to watch - Lacks purpose
posted on 25 Jul 2009If you enjoy modern films that depict Hollywood fiction and lore, this is a must see. It's dazzling cast of characters is a wonder to behold. From Ava Gardner to Errol Flynn this movie gives you a glimpse of what Hollywood's golden age might have looked like from within. It contains some enjoyable air sequences and Leonardo does a good job with his role. I would've like to have seen more done with the main character as well as with Hepburn. Their interactions were the most entertaining in the film: Blanchett nails the accent. I just felt like we were watching a heavily editing version of the film. Perhaps the DVD will contain an extended version that will leave you feeling more satisfied.
Hughes in his flight for perfection
posted on 23 Jul 2009The Aviator delivers on what it promises: a movie about Howard Hughes and his passion for flying. This movie is based on the illustrious billionaire Hughes and his obsession to better aviation while romancing many of Hollywood's leading ladies. Hughes had a great deal of vision and a great deal of drive and many interesting ideas such as flying above the stratosphere. He also enjoyed injecting large sums of money into his privately funded projects. The sky was the limit for this guy. But the line between genius and insanity become extremely fine for this billionaire. Leonardo DiCaprio boldly portrays Hughes in the movie, from the accent to the eccentricities. Hughes many quirks from his childhood only escalated in his adulthood and brought a halt to his own ideology.DiCaprio was very convincing in his portrayal of the zealous Howard Hughes and his need to succeed in both Hollywood and Aviation while being consumed by his own mental illness. It seems DiCaprio came up with the goods and delivered a performance worth recognition.The movie commences with Hughes producing a privately financed movie. It is nice to get to watch Perfectionist Hughes make and remake, edit and re-edit his movie and enjoyable to see it done in a fresh and buzzing Hollywood. During production of a movie he pursues the headstrong Katherine Hepburn (Cate Blanchett), the most prominent actress around at the time, who engages in a stormy relationship with Hughes. A heart stopping moment in the movie is when Howard takes Katherine up in the plane for some flying lessons.One track minded Howard becomes relentless in pursuit to own an airline that flies internationally. Of course the competition is sour grapes and Hughes is backed into a corner by Juan Tripp, Pan American Airlines (Alec Baldwin) and a Senator's attempts to bully Howard into a corner.All in all, the movie portrayed Howard Hughes in his flight for perfection; from his ingenious engineering to his relentless vision as a director and ultimately his demise.
The Aviator: Fact or Fiction ?
posted on 21 Jul 2009"The Aviator" has all the great elements of a great film yet its still a typical Hollywood movie. There is a great scene when Katherine Hepburn tells Hughes: "we are not like others, are we Howard?...don't let them(publicity) in because they will make you into a freak". I think Scorsese did exactly that, he doesn't let you into the real life of Howard Hughes. He feeds you what you have heard or read in tabloids over so many years and there is nothing new you will discover in this film. I don't know why but Aviator didn't feel like Scorsese's film? it looks and feels more like Spielberg or Ron Howard film?. Then again Scorsese's last few films are a far cry from his "Raging Bull" days and this is where I was kind of disappointed because Scorsese use to push the envelope and didn't conform so much to the Hollywoood formula. This film with all its great photography and cast yet it remains an empty film and not the work of a great film maker like Martin Scorsese.Aviator got a lot of great reviews and nominated for many Oscars and I admit I did enjoy watching it for its masterful film craft but at the same I think there was so much more about the elusive life of the great Howard Hughes that some how this film refused to even make a hint of it. For example its true that Hughes was a great womanizer but its also true that he also liked to sleep with Men; he lived bisexual life for many years, he had many affairs with stars like "Cary Grant" and "Guy Maddison", and even "Gary Cooper", etc,this is all documented in Darwin Porter's book "Howard Hugues: Hell's Angel". This is why again I find the similarities of Spielberg/Ron Howard childish eye candy style of film making, whom both made their own version of books like "Color Purple" and "Beautiful Mind" and decided to omit that dirty little secret. I just think if you are going to make a film about someone's life why not be more honest; sure Hughes was depicted as being as arrogant with a huge ego but in this day and age to make a film and depict someone so one dimensional which adheres to all myths and tabloids its just playing it too safe for someone like Martin Scorsese. Oliver Stone's film of "Alexandra" may have not gotten such great reviews maybe because he debunked how history had depicted Alexandra, but yet he stated the truth written in History about the Greek way of life at that time and Alexandra's relationships with both men and woman; his sexuality didn't make him less of a man and the same would apply to Hughes. However, Stone refused to compromise his integrity as a film maker and I am really sorry to see Scorsese has in the Aviator, and please don't think I am saying because I some some GAY advocate, because I am not, the truth about Howard Hughes has been well known for years in Hollywood.I was impressed with De Caprio's performance mostly in the second half of the film; but I still felt he was too young for this role. If you see any photos of Hughes even in his twenties he looked very mature and even older; he was big man, brisk in stature, 6"4 in height and well built. I once saw a TV mini series called "The Great Howard Hughes" played by Tommy Lee Jones and I must say to this day I have yet to see anyone match that performance; because Tommy Lee Jones comes from Texas and even looked like Hughes and he really nailed it, De Caprio doesn't even come close to how Hughes looks or to that performance of Tommy Lee Jones, but for today's young audience they wouldn't even know the difference; De Caprio is picked because he is liked and well known by a wide audience regardless he fit this part or not.Overall this is a good and entertaining film about a fictional version of Howard Hughes but one really has to question how much is fact and how much is fiction?. Perhaps the court hearing are the high point of the whole film, one has to admire and respect Hughes for his integrity fighting for his beliefs and love of Aviation, I hope one day Mr Scorsese does the same when it comes to making films the way he use to.
Episodic bio-pic never really adds up
posted on 19 Jul 2009Over 2000 years ago Aristotle observed that a selection of true incidents from someone's life doesn't necessarily add up to an effective story. THE AVIATOR proves Aristotle's point.Here's a movie that takes a lot of really interesting people and makes them -- not very interesting. The weakness is mainly the superficial script, which covers Hughes the aviation pioneer (much of this is quite exciting), Hughes the Hollywood producer (this is sketchy and disjointed), Hughes the womanizer (sketchy and uninvolving), and Hughes the obsessive-compulsive eccentric -- but never quite succeeds in pulling all these elements into a persuasive whole.At the end of this very, very long film, I didn't really *feel* anything about Hughes, either positive or negative. He seems as cold and remote at the end as at the beginning and the last hour drags.What Scorcese needed was a screenplay that would make us care about Hughes -- either love him or hate him -- the way CITIZEN KANE does. But THE AVIATOR is no KANE. It tries to cover too much, and you never really know why some things were included and others omitted; the result is the incidents covered seem shallow, obvious, and quickly glossed-over.Still, there are a number of excellent scenes in the film. My favorite is Hughes' visit to Katherine Hepburn's family, where her relations -- as headstrong and self-involved as she is -- treat him with hilarious rudeness.I should confess I have a problem with DiCaprio: I have trouble accepting him as a grown-up. He always seems to me like a 14 year-old boy playing an adult in a junior High School play. He's a pretty good actor; he applies himself and he's quite talented. I don't know why that boyish thing bothers me, just as it did in TITANIC, where Kate Winslett seemed more like his aunt than his lover.Even Scorcese's period mise en scene fails to persuade. The sets and costumes are all so colorful, so squeaky-clean, they seem made for a musical comedy rather than a serious period drama. And Scorcese makes too many obvious choices, such as the movie Hughes watches that convinces him the public now wants sound films. Of course it's THE JAZZ SINGER.As in NEW YORK, NEW YORK, there's a ton of painstaking period detail, but it doesn't ring true. You don't feel you're really in the 1930s and 40s, any more than you believe Gwen Stefani as Jean Harlow. Cate Blanchett tries a little too hard as Katherine Hepburn, though it's basically an intelligent and effective performance. Her strenuous efforts to imitate Hepburn's well-known vocal mannerisms are distracting at times.So I can see why THE AVIATOR lit no fires either at the box office or at the Oscars. A huge amount of work and money went into a film that is frequently interesting, but finally not all that compelling.
Not Scorsese's best, but better than most films...
posted on 17 Jul 2009Although this movie is not Scorsese's best film, it would be Steven Spielberg's. Hughes is portrayed objectively and the picture allows us to come to our own conclusions about the character. Dicaprio plays him with real brio and this is by far the best performance of his career. As a matter of fact, there wasn't one bad performance in the movie, and all of the cameos, though a bit distracting, are effective.Many have brought up the lack of a plot in the movie, but it's funny how easily they forget that some of Scorsese's other (and greater) films didn't have conventional plots either. Raging Bull and Goodfellas come immediately to mind, but both are praised while this is stoned. The fact is: this movie is a basically a glamorous, big-budget version of a character study, and this is easily one of the top five movies of the year.
Interesting story, but too long and rather dull
posted on 11 Jul 2009A story about a rich guy, who invests all his money in flight, and fights his way among politicians and competitors. Interesting story, with full of animation and emotions, but too long and rather dull. It's not a love story, neither a drama, nor an adventure. It wants to be everything and comes to be nothing. I've been expecting a much more better movie from Scorsese, however I think the problem lies in the script. DiCaprio brings an excellent performance, but all the other talented and illustrious actors are just puppets on the stage. Recommendation: If you don't have anything else to do, you can watch it. Otherwise it's not worth giving money for it.
Bored to death
posted on 26 Aug 2009I am giving just 3 for this movie. I watched it 45 minutes and it was in one word..boring. Leonardo is acting quite well, but I could not get off the feeling that characters are not authentic - they do not touch your soul really. To be honest I expected more , when I have heard how many nominations for Oscar it has. Anyway I am glad that I did not sponsor this movie by buying cinema ticket. I have seen much better biographies, but I cannot help myself this is simply average movie. I think will be soon forgotten in the history like many other movies of this type. Ony good think in the movie is music from twenties and thirties, old airplanes.