IMDb user comments for
The Aviator (2004)

Page 1 of 29:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

159 out of 206 people found the following comment useful :-
Falling Short of Greatness...Again, 21 December 2004
Author: Rathko from Los Angeles

Scorsese has such an encyclopedic knowledge and understanding of cinema that every shot, however inventive and daring, is effortlessly composed. The direction, editing and cinematography are all the first-rate work by individuals who are clearly masters of their profession and the production design, costumes and makeup are the best you'll see all year. Their efforts combine to create a world of rich and lavish color, of excitement and glamour. Who wouldn't want to visit THIS Cotton Club in 1935? It's hard to imagine who could trump the technical team for Oscars this year.

With such a perfectly realized world in which to perform, the actors universally do an outstanding job. Despite the criticism of the hardcore DiCaprio-haters, the unprejudiced will observe an excellent performance that takes genuine risks and convincingly conveys the passing of more than twenty years. Importantly, DiCaprio more than holds his own when paired with Cate Blanchett and especially Alan Alda, who both give equally note worthy performances. Blanchett's interpretation of Katherine Hepburn seems spot on, and anyone familiar with the late actresses mannerisms will appreciate the hard work that clearly went into the recreation. Alda, one of the most consistently underrated actors around, delivers another masterclass in restrained character building as he oozes ambition and political dishonesty from every pore.

And yet, despite the obvious talent of all those involved and Scorsese's ability to effortlessly fill three hours, something about The Aviator fails to completely satisfy. Without wanting to sound like a film student, movies should, ultimately, be ABOUT something; love, honor, courage, redemption, the BIG ideas and themes that are the fuel of the plot. What was the drive of The Aviator? A rich guy recklessly spends lots of money to indulge his personal obsessions and gets away with it. We're never told how his experiences change him, and without change there's no journey. Considering the screenplay was written by John Logan, who usually displays a keen interest in showing the emotional evolution of his characters, the oversight is inexplicable. Ultimately then, much like Gangs of New York, The Aviator is simply the sum of it's parts, and however brilliantly those parts are realized, there doesn't seem to be a bigger theme to underpin and drive them.

The Aviator is a perfectly realized recreation of the era and one well worth experiencing. But the lack of a real emotional journey suggests 'all gloss and no substance', and ultimately prevents the movie from being truly great.

136 out of 205 people found the following comment useful :-
A GREAT American TRAGEDY, 17 December 2004
Author: Mister1045 from Los Angeles, CA

This is an astonishingly beautiful and moving film. Martin Scorcese has created a seminal work -- one that brings the harrowing, big-studio, adult movie making of the 1970's and totally reinvents and reinvigorates it for today's audience.

The story traces the rise and demise of billionaire Howard Hughes as he struggles to find meaning and purpose in a life unfettered by concerns of money, talent or opportunity. Whether trying to get a plane off the ground or a young starlet into bed, Hughes attacks life with a fierce gusto -- plagued and prodded by obsessive compulsive germphobia that constantly threatens to consume and defeat him.

DiCaprio is amazing! It's the performance no one thought he was capable of. It is a dynamic, smart, funny, articulate, intense, mature and ultimately harrowing performance that relaunches his career as one of American's finest actors. At the end of the film, you just want to take him in your arms and sob. It's really that good.

Cate Blanchett is incredible as Katherine Hepburn. At first, I was a little thrown by how bravely she attacked the Hepburn trademark voice, but I was completely won over by the second line. It is a tender, funny, incredibly convincing star turn that supplies the heart for the first half of the film. The scene where she takes Howard home "for dinner" with the family is a classic! Kate Beckinsale does a surprisingly fine job with Eva Gardner -- conveying the slow burning passion of this Hollywood icon without ever lapsing into mere mimicry.

But, in the end, this isn't a love story -- it's a war story -- a war between Howard's unstoppable will and his fierce inner demons battling for Howard's soul. It is the major relationship in the movie and the true heart of the film -- one that fuels his eccentric genius and yet constantly threatens to rip his life apart. He tries to ignore it by sleeping with every beauty in town. He tries to outrun it, building faster and faster airplanes. Yet, it is his one constant companion from early childhood to his ultimate, inescapable end. And it is this relationship that leaves you devastated at the end of the film.

Brilliant!

99 out of 167 people found the following comment useful :-
Ambitious, Impeccably-Acted, DELIVERS, 6 December 2004
Author: gmorgan-4 from New York, New York

Martin Scorsese's most recent ambitious project does not disappoint.

I just saw this film in a special preview for NYU film students, with Martin Scorsese there to discuss and answer questions after, and I must say, it was pretty phenomenal. It is Martin Scorsese's best work since Goodfellas (this is obvious) and most probably his best work since Raging Bull. DiCaprio's character study of Howard Hughes, and his devotion to this role, is exquisite and reminiscent even of Robert De Niro's in Raging Bull. The film is lengthy, but this compliments it, for the story is riveting and the production is practically flawless (even the combination of computerized processes and more traditional photography was smooth and effective).

The presentation of the film, in an evolving color (from two-tone Technicolor, as Martin explained it to us, to three-tone, to modern by the later sequences) is absolutely stunning, and the cinematography by renowned Robert Richardson, ASC, is some of the best I've seen (and, in my opinion, deserving of an Oscar).

Cate Blanchett was impeccable as Katharine Hepburn, though, at times, I felt that the complexity of her character was never really deeper than a surface analysis.

She did her role flawlessly, but this is not to say that it really Alec Baldwin portrayed one of the flattest villains I've seen in a major motion picture, but, again, this is about Howard Hughes, and DiCaprio's performance is worthy of an Oscar nod at least, and perhaps an Oscar Win (certainly the best performance I've seen all year).

One of my few complaints, though, is the lengthy sequences featuring Howard Hughes as a solo aviator. Though interesting, entertaining even, the film was long enough already, and did not require such an exhaustive analysis of individual flight procedures.

Also, it seems that some of the themes were almost too redundant, such as the ways in which Hughes' psychological problems were performed. Much of the Hollywood history is good, even interesting, but it also sometimes seemed a bit self-indulgent, to the point where you questioned the necessity of ALL of those nightclub sequences in the film.

But, besides those relatively few complaints, it is a spectacular film.

In all: do not miss it.

3.5/4

44 out of 65 people found the following comment useful :-
Like the Platte River ...Too long...Too Shallow, 3 January 2005
Author: brusso from Milwaukee, Wisconsin

 The Aviator is about aviation innovator Howard Hughes. It is about womanizer Howard Hughes. It is about psychopath Howard Hughes. Any one of these would have made an interesting film. Altogether they resulted in a shallow portrayal over too long a period of time to retain my interest. In short, I was bored.

Let's look at the love affairs. The bit about Jean Harlow was so minuscule it could easily have been cut with no harm to the biography. The same could be said about the scenes with Faith Domergue. The Ava Gardner story could have been interesting, but it was too fragmented to be of interest. Only the Kate Hepburn story was truly compelling, mostly because of the exceptional performance of Cate Blanchett. Still, even this episode – which could have been developed into a two-hour story – left me wanting.

Then, there's the psycho-pathological element. Who was his mother and why did she treat him like she did? We don't know. Was this a sexually abusive relationship? The opening bath scene leaned in that direction, but we don't know. If Hughes was so horrendously phobic, why did the phobia take so long to emerge and wreck his life? We don't know. It's a shame the writer and director did not reveal the answers to these questions. Perhaps no one knows the answers; we just know he was psychopathic.

Finally, let's talk about aviation. I love airplanes. I could relate to Hughes' passion. I could thrill with his gallivanting around the skies – racing, filming, testing, wooing Hepburn. I didn't even mind the fact that nothing in the air was real – just computer generated images. I wanted to stand by his side when he faced off with greedy Juan Trippe and sleazy Senator Owen Brewster. I wanted to fight with him and fight for him. But even this was shallowly presented. The evidence is readily apparent: major characters, identified by labels as if this were a documentary, enter the story without the viewer being prepared for who they are, why they are there, and why we should care about them. I just couldn't get hooked. I didn't care.

Interesting note: when I was first out of college, I worked as a technical writer with a man who was nearly at the end of his career. He had been with Hughes Aircraft and had the dubious honor, along with three or four others, of pulling Hughes from one of his many plane crashes. My fellow employee told tales of Hughes and of the rescue for which Howard ensured him of employment for as long as he wanted to stay on.

Sadly, The Aviator added nothing to my knowledge of Howard Hughes and, although it had great potential to tell a fabulous story about one of aviation's most celebrated innovators, it failed.

48 out of 75 people found the following comment useful :-
The Katharine Hepburn Show., 26 December 2004
Author: Admiral_Forrest from Charlottetown, Canada

Before Howard Hughes was a recluse so reclusive as to out-Salinger J.D. Salinger, he was a big time stud, who made big movies, flew fast planes, and courted gorgeous ladies; so say Martin Scorsese and John Logan, architects of this latest Hollywood biopic.' Leonardo DiCaprio continues his trend of turning in great performances with great directors, playing Howard Hughes between 1927 and 1947, the years where Hughes conquered the worlds of film and aviation, making room for romance with Katharine Hepburn (Cate Blanchett) and Ava Gardner (Kate Beckinsale). In later years, Hughes's mental problems would become legendary; at this stage in the game, he suffers only from pronounced germ phobia and mild obsessive-compulsive disorder. This is all expertly depicted by Scorsese, Logan, and DiCaprio. Stealing all her scenes is Cate Blanchett, who should start making room on her mantle for her Best Supporting Actress Oscar. It couldn't have been easy to play an iconic movie star like Katharine Hepburn, but Blanchett aces it. Kate Beckinsale, Kelli Garner (Faith Demorgue), and Gwen Stefani (Jean Harlow) are the other women in Howard's life, although none are as clearly defined as Blanchett/Hepburn. The villains of the piece are Alec Baldwin and Alan Alda, playing, respectively, Pan-American Airways CEO Juan Trippe and Trippe's bought-and-paid-for politician, Senator Ralph Owen Brewster. Both excel, with Alda coming off as both slimy and goofy at the same time. Alec Baldwin, like Cate Blanchett, steals every scene he has, playing Trippe as a delightfully suave villain. In his final scene he delivers a wonderful monologue on the future of Hughes's Trans-World Airline, and caps it off with the most hysterical use of the F word in many years. Also appearing: the dependable John C. Reilly as Hughes's business manager Noah Dietrich; Jude Law, who apparently can't go two weeks without seeing himself in a different movie, as movie legend Errol Flynn; Brent Spiner (yay!) as airplane executive Robert Gross; and Willem Dafoe as a photographer. "The Aviator" is overlong, and drags in places, but it is a great movie. I rate it a 9/10.

22 out of 25 people found the following comment useful :-
A pointless movie that dragged on..., 2 January 2005
Author: katie-35 from New Orleans, LA

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

I can never see Leonardo DiCaprio as a man. He will always look like a scrawny, little guy. He just does not come across as an adult in this film any more than he did in Titanic. Young girls like him, which is why Titanic made so much money since all those young girls went to see him over and over. I wonder if it will happen here. Leo, please keep your clothes on. It only makes you look more like a kid. The cinematography is wonderful and very controlled as the film progresses. The Howard Hughes character is not delved into enough in order for the viewer to see the mental breakdown of a very eccentric man. Three hours and his disturbing actions did not seem credible. He is crazed and living behind locked doors. Then he is cleaned up and very lucid before all the flash bulbs at the Senate hearings. For someone who was in such poor emotional condition, it was difficult to buy the transformation. Cate Blanchette was wonderful as Hepburn. She nailed that role with her own 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 recognized for her great talent. Ian Holmes is always good and made a wonderful professor. Kate Bechinsale did a fine piece tender, yet tough, acting the part of Ava Gardner. She didn't mimic the iconic late star, but took on the role in her own tempered manner. Scorcese is a wonderful filmmaker whom I greatly admire. However, this attempt at a very long film led nowhere. I kept wanting the film to give me more depth of the Hughes character and felt squirmy in my seat. Possibly the miscasting of DiCaprio was part of the problem, but the back story and the slow progression into mental illness needed to be explored more deeply. Again, I can't say enough about the cinematography. I do hope that brings in an Oscar.

54 out of 89 people found the following comment useful :-
Gorgeous but emotionally empty, 26 December 2004
Author: tadeo38 from Omaha NE

A curious film in so many ways; it is a truly gorgeous film, great cinematography and editing to keep it as tight as possible but there is something missing at his very heart! It will obviously win Oscars, this is just the niche that the Academy voters are looking for, and I'll bet that it makes a pretty penny....but it sort of reminds me of "The Last Emperor" which I have never felt deserved a "Best Picture" Oscar in that there is minimal involvement asked of the viewer and a feeling of Who cares??? I disagree that it is a "must-see" depending on how much time and energy is available to you, the viewer. I found the other major's of 2004 to be much more involving, particularly "Finding Neverland", Spanglish, Sideways and Closer. As James Berardinelli reports, Scorcese would seem to have lost something since "Goodfellows".

47 out of 77 people found the following comment useful :-
Disappointing, 25 December 2004
Author: mem_ory

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

The Aviator like the Spruce Goose itself only takes flight briefly and is an overall disappointment. The thrills to be had are in the flight sequences. However they are done digitally and in the editor's suite. Scorsese's hand is rather flat on the throttle and the script plays too broadly. You get the feeling that Scorsese himself is not quite in love with his subject, Howard Hughes. The scenes that should work such as Hughes caressing the rivets of a plane are seen through a cynical eye. DiCaprio portray's Hughes as a nut and sociopath. Maybe he was in real life but it's as if they want you to not like this guy. Not exactly the right approach to making an audience friendly picture. We also have a poor sense of continuity. After suffering massive wounds from a plane crash, Howard Hughes heals up amazingly well and quickly. Totally glanced over is the fact that he became addicted to morphine after this event. If 75% of your body is burned and your heart has been dislocated to the other side of your chest cavity I think you're going to care more about killing the pain instead of washing your hands.

I can't help but think that James Cameron would of been a more apt choice to make this film. I believe his sensibilities are more in line with Howard Hughes. He would of portrayed Hughes as more of a Ayn Rand type character than a tragically flawed anti-hero.

25 out of 38 people found the following comment useful :-
Seemed like a TV movie re-hash, 9 January 2005
Author: yessdanc from NORTHRIDGE, CA.

For all the 'Oscar buzz' one hears about this film, I came away rather disappointed. Why? 1. DiCaprio is a fine actor, granted. He does NOT possess the physical intensity that Hughes had, not to mention almost being the physical opposite. It'd be like Steve Martin playing James Dean. It's just WRONG. 2. For all the accolades Blanchett gets as Hepburn, she's somewhat of a caricature. Her accent was too over the top. What, did Scorcese think we wouldn't know who she was supposed to be? 3.I think an unknown as Hughes would have been a better idea, but then it might not have gotten the big box office receipts we're hearing about. And that's what's really at the bottom of this. I'll take the Tommy Lee Jones TV version any day!

43 out of 75 people found the following comment useful :-
A bitter disappointment, 27 December 2004
Author: eye3

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

I loved it for the acting, especially Cate Blanchett (qv) as Katherine Hepburn (qv), but otherwise I was left wondering if it was ever going to develop a story line on his personal life. There's absolutely no mention that Hughes gave Hepburn the money to buy the movie rights to the Broadway hit "The Philadelphia Story," which turned her career around for good. Blanchett may well be the first actor or actress to win an Oscar for playing another Oscar winner, and would well deserve it.

Kate Beckinsale (qv) as Ava Gardner (qv) is as radiant as the real thing but if this part of Hughes' life wasn't in the movie as written I would never have missed it.

Leonardo DiCaprio (qv) fills the screen like he always does, but not even his star quality and his talent don't make up for the movies meanderings from the plot. His gives and takes with Alan Alda (qv) as Senator Harry Reid are well enough, but it's like watching a rehearsal instead of a finished product. Alec Baldwin (qv) as Juan Trippe, the boss at Pan AM, seems to be grateful to phone in his character from GlenGarry Glen Ross (1992) _(qv)_.

The airplane scenes, whether flying, building or even just talking technicals, held me in place. In fact, these were the only scenes which did. A movie shouldn't let me wander. This one did, and I hold Martin Scorsese (qv) responsible. He should listen to his film editors much more as well as his writers.

Page 1 of 29:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Add another comment