User Reviews (915)

Add a Review

  • I was quite impressed by this portrait of the legendary millionaire eccentric during his Hollywood glamor years, though not shirking the beginning of the darker psychological disintegration that would forever engulf him.. Scorsese directed a dramatic, evocative, beautifully photographed portrait of an eccentric genius, slowly succumbing to his mental demons. As far as his obsessive compulsiveness is concerned, though, I must plead guilt to identifying with him in one scene in the film - that in which he refuses to touch a public washroom door knob. I've been in that position myself any of a number of times.

    The opening scene, showing Hughes with his mother, is short but vital in insinuating that Hughes developed his OCD from his mother - either by listening to and remembering her fanatical anti-germ ravings about how he was never safe, or through strict genetics. It was probably a combination of both. Since his mother died young, she did not live to have the disease take over her life as it did with Howard.

    The first part of the film is the lightest and the most fun, with Hughes spending three years making "Hell's Angels". He's desperate to succeed here because the last thing he wants is to wind up back in Texas making drill bits, the source of the family fortune. This is where anachronism number one appears - Hughes shows his right hand man, Noah Dietrich, the famous part of "The Jazz Singer" where Al Jolson is ad libbing one of the few talking segments of that film, claiming that sound is what audiences want and using that as an excuse to redo Hell's Angels AGAIN, this time with sound. The Jazz Singer would have been considered a museum piece by the time Hughes finished the silent version of Hell's Angels in 1929.

    I thought that Leonardo Di Caprio and Cate Blanchett were both quite splendid in their roles, even thinking that Leo started looking a bit like the real Hughes as the film progressed. Blanchett may not have looked like Kate Hepburn but she certainly captured the actress's manner and vocal mannerisms to an impressive degree, without ever seeming like a caricature. When the new-money unpolitical Hughes meets Hepburn's family, all old-money Democrats living a commune style existence with even Hepburn's ex-husband living on the family compound, Hughes is confounded by their lifestyle. Frances Conroy of "Six Feet Under" does a great job here in a cameo appearance as Hepburn's mother. This section of the film ends with Hepburn leaving Hughes for Spencer Tracy, and is way off base from actual events. Hepburn had been apart from Hughes for several years when she and Tracy actually met.

    Since the film told its story in a, more or less, chronological order of events, the film really does seem to be full of anachronisms, as I mentioned earlier. For example, we see Hughes and Hepburn in a nightclub with Errol Flynn at their table, the millionaire talking about shooting a western, The Outlaw, a film that would begin production in 1941. Yet the next scene had Hughes in what was dated across the screen as 1935, clearly long before any thoughts of The Outlaw or any hell raising with Flynn, the latter not becoming a star until the very end of that year.

    The highlight of the film for me was the spectacular plane crash during a test flight by Hughes, with the plane wheels scratching along a roof top and one of its wings slicing through the wall of a home. This was viewed from the inside of the home. Great special effects, direction, photography and editing of this knockout sequence. I highly recommend this portrait of a man wrestling with madness who also wanted to be a creator of films and pioneer of aviation, whether he made money or not. If Hughes had just wanted money he would have just stuck with the drill bit business.
  • mbhgkmsgg26 November 2020
    A wildly entertaining look at a larger than life character. The Aviator is another success from Scorsese. Although it doesn't follow the usual gangster theme, it still feels like a Scorsese film and manages to have nearly as great of an impact as some of his others.

    Going into this film, I had no idea what it was about. Based on the title and some posters that I had seen, I assumed that it would probably have something to do with aeroplanes (as it turns out, I wasn't wrong). But apart from that, I had no idea what the story would be. I was quite positively surprised, once I realized that it was a biopic, about Howard Hughes. Hughes is the type of character whose name I had heard, but that's where my knowledge ended. As such, I can't say how accurate this film's portrayal of him is. But what I can say is that it didn't feel like he was portrayed only in a good light. Indeed, the film portrays him as a very complex character driven by his obsessions and fears. Doing both good and bad.

    The life that Hughes lived, at least as far as it's portrayed in the movie, was full of emotion, pleasure and difficulty. The movie captures all these feelings well. Watching someone live life to the fullest doing whatever he wants to do is, in many ways, very freeing. This is one of the reasons why this movie is so entertaining at times. But the pleasure and the enjoyment weren't without difficulty. Some of the most harrowing and difficult scenes are the most intimate ones. The scenes, where we get to understand that Hughes was in pain, and struggled internally.

    Something that I must have always know, but somehow never realized, is the reason why Scorsese's films feel so different. It's because there is no clear beginning or ending or highpoint. These films, be it Irishman or this one, are always snippets of time and life. They follow a character from one point in time to another, never giving context on either side. That's why these films always feel so epic in proportion. In a way, they never end or begin. We, as the viewers, are left to wonder what happened before and what will happen after. Of course, if the film is about someone who actually lived, like The Aviator, we can always open up Wikipedia and read those things. But I like to live it open. I like to create the full story in my head while watching the movie and after it has ended.

    It's not exactly a typical Scorsese film, but it feels very much like one. Like his other films, The Aviator is just as much of a spectacle. It's entertaining enough to keep it from ever feeling boring, even though it runs for close to three hours. But, like other Scorsese films, it's also afflictive enough to leave you with more than just entertainment.
  • 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.
  • drplw19 January 2005
    There is no doubt that THE AVIATOR is the masterpiece of both director Martin Scorsese and actor, Leonardo DiCaprio. DiCaprio becomes Howard Hughes. The actor is so profoundly absorbed in the role that the DiCaprio we know from other films cannot be found in this film. It is a bravura performance of great depth and magnitude. DiCaprio richly deserves his first Academy Award.

    I have never know much about Howard Hughes. This film opened my eyes to him as a personality, a businessman, aviator and his lavish lifestyle. DiCaprio no longer is the "pretty boy" from other films. The expressions he takes on are not handsome, the deeply furrowed brow, one could actually watch him, as Hughes' character, think his way through challenging situations, the mark of a highly gifted actor. Watching DiCaprio evolve into the paranoid schizophrenic Hughes in the latter part of the film is a stunning example of pure acting. Leo deserves recognition for recreating a most difficult personality.

    Though the film is long, it never slows down nor gets boring and it commanded my attention from start to finish. It is masterpiece cinema for these two men and for other actors too. Cate Blanchette must be commended for her role as Katherine Hepburn. Every role was played by first rate actors.

    If you want to understand a piece of American history from the 30s through the 1940s, this film will illumine you. It may not be the greatest film ever made but it sure is cinema to the max and worth seeing, without a second thought.
  • hankychan18 November 2019
    Not too long ago I considered Scorsese to be highly overrated. I'd liked a lot of his films but didn't think any aside from Taxi Driver were amazing. When I heard about The Irishman and how it's a culmination of Scorsese's career, I decided to watch/rewatch all his films.

    Now I consider him one of the greatest living filmmakers as many others do. I look forward to checking out the other films of his I fear I underrated.

    As for this film, it's a beautiful epic capturing Hughes life with style and grace.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    This film is about the world famous multi-millionaire Howard Hughes. However, if the only thing you know about Hughes was that he was a recluse who secreted himself inside his hotel in Las Vegas and was obsessed with cleanliness, you may be in for a surprise. The film deals with Hughes' life before all that.

    After a brief prologue showing Hughes as a child with his mother advising him on cleanliness, we move forward to 1927 with an adult Hughes (played by Leonardo DiCaprio) directing his hugely risky film "Hell's Angels". "The Aviator" takes in Hughes' film-making achievements, his romances with some of the most beautiful women of the day (including Katherine Hepburn (a superb Cate Blanchett) and Ava Gardner (Kate Beckinsale)) and his passion for aviation. The picture of Howard Hughes that emerges from the film is of a brilliant man who was a ruthless perfectionist, constantly risking ruin and even death for his goals. This all makes his eventual fate all the more sad.

    The film is brilliantly made, the cast are all very good in their roles (especially, as mentioned earlier, Blanchett as Katherine Hepburn) and despite lasting almost three hours, it is never dull. The main flaw, however, is that you never learn much about Hughes. Some more on his background would certainly have been welcome.

    Any film by Scorsese, however, is worth seeing and this is no exception.
  • 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!
  • wumbi18 November 2021
    7/10
    Golly
    From piloting the fastest plane to cruising a carriage, this movie has some serious pacing issue. First half goes by so fast and it was genuinely the most fun I've had in awhile. Then it all got mixed up like crazy, sometimes it's fast and sometime the scene played out way longer than it should. By the time it reaches the third act the pacing slowed down exponentially, it's like riding a carriage. One other thing that bothers me is the editing and CGI, especially in the flight scenes. Everything feel disconnected in the editing, one time it's showing something and in the next scene it shows a shot of the same thing in a completely different manner and the CGI is poorly animated and unconvincing. Besides all that it was great, Cate Blanchett delivers a great performance. She's enthralling and she's one of the source for the movie's great energy. DiCaprio's performance is downright amazing. He succeeds in portraying a man that is rich, reckless, full of ambition and eccentric. Even when Hughes starts to battle his own demons DiCaprio still nailed it. While at times the CGI and sloppy editing distracted me from the movie it was still a great deal of fun.
  • sowowme20526 October 2006
    Leonardo D. was absolutely amazing. He was so accurate in the actions of someone with OCD. I have that disorder and he is so relatable. I know that the movie is about Howard Hughes (who was an absolute genius, even though he was a mad man), but Leo's performance was amazing. This is the movie that made people forget his role in Titanic and respect him as the amazing actor he is. I also really liked the costumes and music. The lipstick, the hair... again, they were right on for the period. Cate Blanchett made a perfect Katherine Hepburn. She was able to become the loud, powerful, intelligent woman that was Katherine Hepburn.

    If you haven't seen the movie yet you are truly missing out.
  • The Aviator is typical Scorsese: chaotic, self-indulgent, grandiose and a film clearly different from the indistinguishable blend of movies. As you can surmise, the film is a mixed bag. The scale and artistry are worth noting as is DiCaprio's performance(although it feels like he only kicks into gear for the latter half), but some other parts are too wild. And many of the supporting roles feel artificial and obnoxious i.e Cate Blanchett.

    Howard Hughes' life is certainly one worth retelling; a pioneer of aviation and film who struggled with severe mental issues and The Aviator does a fair job accomplishing it.
  • mem_ory25 December 2004
    Warning: 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.
  • Leonardo Dicaprio, once again, shows his depth as an artist and his ability to carry a film. He deserves the Golden Globe, and his due as an outstanding actor. Howard Hughes, the man, remains a mystery and the portrayal of his obsessive compulsive disorder was a powerful view into his inner hell. The beginning scene set the pace for a journey into his privileged and dark world. The Aviator showed the torments and gifts of genius. Amazing job by all involved! Wardrobe, music, special effects, direction, acting...all award winning contributions. I left the film moved and disturbed, which shows the power of this film. Wonderful performances by all the cast and the time"flew" by...
  • 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".
  • I was really looking forward to seeing this movie after all the press and favourable ratings. We saw it on opening day in the Detroit area and found the movie to be just OK. I give it a 4 on the scale of 10. Acting was OK, script was so so. I was expecting much more action I guess. The movie was at least 45 minutes too long IMO, most of the people walking out of the large theatre which was about 3/4 empty felt about the same way based on comments that we overheard. The story seemed to ramble on with no progression, little dramatic tension and then ended at what seemed to be an arbitrary point. It seemed that there wasn't a lot of continuity from scene to scene. In short, given the positive press, it was a disappointment.
  • Years ago, Tommy Lee Jones made himself famous for playing Howard Hughes in a made for TV movie called "The Amazing Howard Hughes". The film clocked in at over three and a half hours and was a wonderful look at the man. Now, about 25 years later, Martin Scorsese has created a new biography of the man--though the film is under three hours long--so naturally things had to be omitted. Considering how complex Hughes was, they easily could have made a mini-series out of his life--but the film STILL is very good and worth seeing despite its brevity (and 170 minutes IS brief given the subject matter). It differs from the Jones film because instead of trying to encompass all of Hughes life, it focuses much more specifically on the psychological decline of the man and really builds a wonderful sense of profound sadness in seeing this decline.

    While Leonardo DiCaprio didn't look or sound as much like Hughes as Tommy Lee Jones did, he was quite good in this breakout role--and was nominated for Best Actor. However, the one who managed to earn an Academy Award was Cate Blanchette--who was just wonderful as Katharine Hepburn. Her voice and mannerisms were dead on--and she played the role, at times, in a hilarious fashion. Apart from these two, the other stars of the film are the cinematographers, set designers, director and CGI techs (who managed to create an AMAZING plane crash sequence that blew my mind). Overall, a film that is best seen not as a replacement for the earlier film but an enhancement--and I think seeing BOTH would be a great idea. Well made and well worth seeing.

    By the way, isn't it kind of ironic that Alec Baldwin plays the part of a HUGE airline exec--considering Baldwin's recent relationship with some airlines!
  • jon.h.ochiai13 February 2005
    Martin Scorsese's "The Aviator" is grand spectacle with a reverence for the nostalgic, set in simpler times. As a snapshot of Howard Hughes's life from 1927 to 1947, "The Aviator" is a portrait of a man of genius and unmatched innovation, and also a man debilitated by severe obsessive compulsive disorder and extreme depression. "The Aviator" has an amazing performance by Leonardo DiCaprio as Howard Hughes, and a mesmerizing performance by Cate Blanchett, who seems to inhabit the role of Katherine Hepburn-- the love of Hughes's life. However, the one indelible image I have of the film is the scene in which Hughes is frozen in the men's restroom, because he can't make himself touch the door knob for fear of germs and contamination. Granted this was a time before obsessive compulsive disorder existed as a diagnosis. The scene is intended as a dramatic arc, distinguishing a tragic flaw in Hughes. However, for me it seemed overly indulgent, and was curious regarding the scene length. Much like most of the nearly 3 hour movie, this is an exercise in indulgence, and attention to detail that is only that. Scorsese's balance between Hughes's genius and his great suffering is good melodrama, but not very inspiring. I have a particular affinity for Howard Hughes the man. Had John Lone's (and Michael Mann's) story followed Hughes through the 1950's and beyond, the story would be even sadder. "The Aviator" illustrates the highs of genius, and the abyss of near insanity. This is an accurate depiction of an amazing man's life, but it is skewed toward the broken aspect. So just personally for me, it was frustrating to watch. To Scorsese's credit, one gets that he has immense compassion for Howard Hughes.

    Hughes' life sentence is established in the opening scene. Hughes's mother while bathing the young Hughes, tells him something that perhaps leads to his obsessive compulsive nature. Apparently he is incomplete in his relationship with his mother, and the story surrounding what she said.

    Fast forward to 1927, when Hughes left his father's wealthy drill bit tool company in Texas, to be a maverick film maker in California. Hughes is an ambitious and novice film director, but he is smart and has unmatched drive. However, his real genius is as a pilot and an innovative designer of airplanes. His gifts for fame and fortune are established. Hughes (DiCaprio) then pursues a touching romance with Katherine Hepburn (Blanchett). This is the highlight of "The Aviator", even amidst the spectacular aerial cinematography, because it is just about relationships that move people. There is a wonderful moment when Hughes lets Hepburn take control of his plane as they fly above Los Angeles at night. As great as the chemistry is between Dicaprio and Blanchett, this romance part of the story goes on a little too long in the context of the movie.

    From this point on, the movie becomes increasingly darker. Sure, Hughes has his share of triumphs, but everything is tempered by his spiraling decline into depression and his debilitating obsessive compulsive disorder. The acting is outstanding throughout the picture. This is Leonardo DiCaprio's most mature performance. He truly captures Hughes's intensity, genius, and charm. His suffering also elicits great compassion. Cate Blanchett is outstanding as Kate Hepburn. At first one wonders whether she is doing a caricature of Hepburn. She is not. She is being Hepburn. Blanchett's performance is simply stunning. An unrecognizable Kate Beckinsale is awesome as Ava Gardner. Beckinsale gives surprising layers to Gardner, who is really not all that she appears to be on the surface. John C. Reilly is fabulous as Hughes's CFO. In an understated fashion Reilly's performance anchors the movie. Alec Baldwin as Pan Am CEO, Juan Trippe, and Matt Ross as Hughes's engineer Glenn Odekirk give strong performances.

    Scorsese's "The Aviator" is spectacular to view, and has a sense of history and tragedy. He offers an interesting portrait of the dichotomy between genius and madness, with an emphasis on the dark. This choice really lost me. "The Aviator" is amazing work, that is not very inspiring, though it was probably not intended to do so. That is a bit of a disappointment.
  • eye327 December 2004
    Warning: 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.
  • nycritic14 December 2005
    Warning: Spoilers
    Not many directors can say that their film-making careers haven't become as predictable as the next day, and for all its ups and downs and questionable choices, Martin Scorcese, with or without an Academy Award for Best Director, can stand proud and say that he is one of those few who have made at least one stellar film per decade since he began making films in the 1970s and continues making high-quality films for the serious moviegoer. Or, as it could be said, he makes the films he wants to make whether they become critical successes or failures.

    Coming out of GANGS OF NEW YORK he decides to film this biopic about media dinosaur Howard Hughes at a time when the average moviegoer is more interested in the likes of Paris Hilton and her increasingly cretinous presence which has nothing to bring to society except smutty videotapes. In a year filled with biopics, THE AVIATOR is an important one, if trivially flawed, because in taking such a character and without sentiment analyzing his truly remarkable but ultimately tragic life he achieves a sharper view. Leonardo diCaprio as Howard Hughes does not have even a remote physical resemblance to the actual man, but there was no doubt in my mind that he was Hughes from head to toe. It's as if he studied Hughes through film reels because he gets him right and that makes his performance multi-dimensional. Watch a short, apparently unimportant scene with a bar-waitress early in the film and see how this establishes who he is in relation to women, what he thinks of them. Watch how diCaprio brings Hughes obsession with perfection and cleanliness to life: in film-making, in building the perfect plane. And watch those testosterone-fuled sequences in which Hughes breaks aviation records (almost killing himself at one point).

    It can be said that THE AVIATOR is divided into two parts: The first half, which focuses on Hughes relationship with screen icon Katharine Hepburn (Cate Blanchett), and the second half which takes off from where she leaves and his obsessive-compulsive disorder, previously kept under control (suggesting she gave him some stability), comes flooding through unmonitored. During the first half of the movie DiCaprio and Blanchett create a perfect pair of social outcasts, and had the film ended there, this would have been a powerfully tragic love story. I got the sense, without reading Kate's autobiography, that these two really loved each other and were each other's complement. Hepburn's mercurial approach to Hughes must have obviously intoxicated him, and I could perceive (through Blanchett's flawless conveyance of Hepburn) that she was intrigued by this odd man, and of course, being so cerebral, she felt compelled to getting to know him. However, their differences could not have been better reflected in the disastrous scene when Hughes meets Hepburns family and though they remained together a bit longer, his womanizing was the cause for her abandonment of him and the gut-wrenching sequence in which be burns his clothes and orders work associate Noah Dietrich (John C. Reilly) to buy him more.

    The second half doesn't lag. It does feel a little episodic, but Scorcese manages to make transitions smooth, while introducing players in the latter part of his life, such as Ava Gardner, Juan Trippe, and Senator Ralph Owen Brewster. As the case with many of Scorcese films, length and editing is an issue, and reducing the inclusion of starlet Faith Domergue would have been preferable, but again, Scorcese is making the film he chooses to make and this is really a quibble in my behalf, because soon later Hughes is back in action defending his usage of his own money during the war against accusations from Senator Brewster (Alan Alda, playing him like a snake). No punches are also thrown when the aforementioned OCD kicks in and Hughes starts to see things and becomes a virtual recluse, urinating into glass jars and watching the same movie over and over again (the movie in question was not THE OUTLAW as seen here, but the usage of this archive footage seems appropriate since it sums up his attitude toward women and a lost love in Kate Hepburn). Here is when DiCaprio really sinks his teeth into his role in making Hughes a broken man unable to cope with his madness and needing to defend himself against Brewster and Trippe.

    Regardless to minor character inconsistencies and half-told story lines and that many of the actors look nothing like their real-life counterparts (i.e. Gwen Stefani as Jean Harlow, Jude Law as Errol Flynn, and a glaringly miscast Kate Beckinsale as Ava Gardner), THE AVIATOR is solid entertainment and highly recommended to anyone who loves old movies and old Hollywood.
  • tedg4 January 2005
    We all live in our own movies, and particularly like movies of people who do so more literally. Here are three in one film:

    Martin Scorsese: My regular readers know that I have been very critical of his films. Sure, they are crafted well enough, but the world he created was not one worth visiting. His films until recently were of the Italian storytelling school which focuses on characters. Those characters do not inhabit their worlds as much as create them. Scorsese's camera, therefore, was affixed to people, almost by a visible thread.

    But those of us who watch film seriously know that there is nothing but empty darkness just outside the camera's eye. There's no world, so there can be no God, or fate, or luck or whatever material you imagine fills the river of life. He knows it is a cheat as well and has said so. Just like many other fabulously successful filmmakers who know their work is hollow, in his later years he's tried to mature... to master a greater notion of creation.

    "Gangs" was a success in this regard though an unfinished film because the Weinsteins pulled the plug. It marked a completely different approach to space and context, and I applauded it. Now he actually finishes a movie in the new style. Though this is a story of a man, it is no longer anchored to the man. The camera is now Orson Welles' camera with shots of the space with people in it. So obvious is some of this that when Hughes first retreats, he stays out a room that inexplicably (and unhistorically) has strings tied from hither and yon from objects. Take another look at that room and see all of Scorsese's old camera angles. I think we can welcome Scorsese now as the best new filmmaker of the year. This is as much his story as Hughes'.

    Cate Blanchett: Cate is one of three actresses alive who can fold her acting, meaning that she can simultaneously deliver two characters in the same motions. She's at the top of her game here (while Julianne is devolving with an apparently thick husband). Hepburn was an amazing actress, deeply untalented in the conventional measures but capable of engineering her surroundings to suit. Her engineering of the "Philadelphia Story" persona is Hollywood legend. She engineered a character that worked, then stepped into it. The old Scorsese would have hired someone like Streep to play Hepburn and lumbered around after her.

    The new Scorsese allows Cate to flower and willingly supports the folding: an actress (Cate) playing a character (Kate) who is playing a character. You can see all the conduits of control, all the taught strings at two levels. God, what a great time to be alive!

    Howard Hughes: The movie gave the impression that Howard simply inherited his money. No so. He was a brilliant engineer who famously codesigned systems and the engineering organizations to support them. While most of us were barfing at frat parties, he designed a drill bit (often credited to his father) that is still the standard in the industry, together with a set of screw connections that has since become the international standard. That's where the money came from. And though he went loopy toward the end, he ensured that 100% of his wealth (yes, all assets were sold) went to endow the world's largest private research institute.

    This was a passionate engineer in a world of monopolistic thugs (Gates take notice), truly what we like to think the "free market" is all about. The movie also ignores a key movie connection: He always intended the "Spruce Goose" to be made of wood, and because all US manufacturing assets were committed, he designed a production system that allowed small businesses, even backyard groups, to make pieces that would be floated down rivers and successively be glued into larger parts. This (what he called the "packet production system") was the first serious research into what we today call "virtual enterprises."

    When the war ended, he sent his virtual enterprise experts into his film business where they used the system (freely giving away details) to destroy the vertically integrated studio system. Nearly all movies today use his virtual enterprise approach and the Weinsteins (producers of this very film) are the current masters of the system.

    Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.
  • Vash200130 December 2004
    Warning: Spoilers
    I went to see this movie with very high expectations. It was supposed to be a certain Best Picture nominee that would finally get Scorcese his Best Director Oscar, and possibly the best picture Oscar too. Given the history of the Oscars, it will not surprise me if Scorcese wins the Oscar for his not so good effort. IMO neither the movie nor the direction lives upto the hype. Half way through the movie, I was bored to death. When it finally ended, with DiCaprio saying the same sentence 20+ times (it was quite irritating), I heaved a sigh of relief. There is too much detail, not enough pace, and the screenplay is nothing to write home about. There is some good acting, which may be the only saving grace of this movie. Dicaprio brings out the eccentricity of the main character quite well, but the story never really takes off. One good scene in the movie is when the Howard Hughes character has to defend himself. Leo carried that scene well. Overall, a HUGE disappointment.
  • "The Aviator"--a biopic of Howard Hughes-- is clearly one of Scorsese's lesser works. Still, a lesser work from Scorsese is far superior to the greatest work of your average director. Here's the rundown:

    The first quarter of the film is a total triumph, showing the young Hughes' bold endeavors in film when he produced what was at the time the most expensive and lavish film ever made. Scorsese tipping his hat to old Hollywood is the most fun he has had since "Goodfellas." The costumes, set designs, and pacing of this portion of the film are stunning and suck the viewer in.

    The rest of the film, despite Scorsese's amazing and vivid attention to detail, is a muddled mess, giving us glimpses into Hughes' obsessive (and compulsive) ways, his womanizing, his ambitious foray into aviation and the early days of commercial flight, his fight against Congress at the end of WWII, and the notorious plight and ultimately single flight of his infamous "Spruce Goose." It's all semi-educational and semi-entertaining, but in the end I think the complicated life of Hughes remains a mystery.

    As for the performances, they are amazing (thanks in most part to Scorsese, the ultimate actor's director). Leonardo Dicaprio in the title role gives yet another performance that goes against my natural loathing of him, and although he seems a bit too boyish playing Hughes in the latter years (and the film really suffers for it), he's impeccable for the better part of the film. Cate Blanchett as Katherine Hepburn is simply stunning and steals every moment she is on screen. Her look, her mannerisms, and her speech perfectly match the screen legend to a haunting degree. Alan Alda and Alec Baldwin in supporting quasi-villain roles are methodically perfect. And the nicest surprise was Kate Beckinsale, a normally flaccid actress, playing Ava Gardner. She came across as gorgeous, intelligent, and maximized her minimal screen time without ever overtly stealing her scenes. Like Sharon Stone in "Casino" and Cameron Diaz in "Gangs of New York" Scorsese once again coaxes a great performance out of an otherwise unremarkable pretty face.

    In the end, "The Aviator" flies high thanks to Scorsese and the acting, even if the real person it depicts remains lost in a muddle of half truths and speculation.
  • My father worked for Hughes Aircraft for over 30 years, so our family was especially interested in seeing this film about Howard Hughes. I enjoyed seeing the cinematography in this film. It was very nicely shot, especially the night scenes. However, I felt that the film's shots were overall too long. Confrontation scenes between Howard Hughes and Katherine Hepburn went on too long as did scenes showing Howard Hughes' neurosis (hand washing, being distracted by camera flashes and lens changes). I felt that to see a little bit of this was enough, but each scene seemed to be played out much longer than was needed to bring home the point. I also felt that too much time was spent with Howard Hughes' relationships with women (especially Katherine Hepburn) and not enough time showing each of the successes that Howard Hughes had in his career, especially aviation. I think that the prologue should have started out with his father inventing the oil drill bit that was patented. This would have been a better visual explanation of how the family got it's money. It's only alluded to in the film, but it would have been better to have shown this to create a foundation for the family money. I found myself squirming at times because I wanted the film to move more rapidly out of scenes.
  • bkoganbing18 July 2012
    Switching from gangsters to one of the most colorful tycoons of industry Martin Scorsese took the first step in making The Aviator a success when he cast Leonardo DiCaprio as Howard Hughes. As he did as J. Edgar Hoover, DiCaprio has the spirit of the man invade his body as he portrays the Texas based industrialist, aviator, and movie producer. He had all those careers at the same time and dealt with a lot demons besides.

    The Hughes fortune comes from Howard Hughes, Sr. who patented a drill bit that is the foundation of all oil drilling on planet Earth. If you don't use that drill bit, you can dig for oil with a pick and shovel for however long it takes. It is one of the most profitable patents in the world and it was the foundation of the Hughes wealth.

    Which allowed Howard Hughes to indulge himself in two passions which were to all intents and purposes, hobbies. Aviation and movie producing were what drove him. And when we meet him he's shooting and reshooting and reshooting Hell's Angels. A lot of his own money went into the film which eventually was a success and gave Hughes the first of many perks as a Hollywood tycoon, Jean Harlow as played here by Gwen Stefani.

    Faith Domergue, Ava Gardner, and most importantly Katharine Hepburn and there were many others follow in the Hughes story. Cate Blanchett won a Best Supporting Actress Oscar for becoming Katharine Hepburn. With some of the liberties taken I don't think it's an accident that The Aviator came out a year after Hepburn died at 96. The movie also missed Jean Peters whom Hughes actually married and Terry Moore who is still alive and who claims she did marry him. Jane Russell and The Outlaw and the famous brassiere personally designed by Hughes also get a passing mention.

    As for aviation which was his real love, Hughes had a decades rivalry with Alec Baldwin as Juan Trippe of Pan American Airlines. Trippe had more friends in Congress, particularly a rightwing Republican Senator named Ralph Owen Brewster played by Alan Alda. Alda got an Oscar nomination himself playing the smarmy Brewster who threatens to destroy Hughes by Congressional investigation. Hughes who was hardly a liberal in his politics totally turned the tables on the Brewster committee and the Senator himself. Not shown in the film but in 1952 Hughes made it his business to defeat Brewster going for a third term and did.

    Besides Blanchett's Oscar The Aviator won several others and was nominated for several more including Best Picture and Best Actor for Leonardo DiCaprio.

    In my memory Howard Hughes was the eccentric billionaire who stayed in seclusion and ran his enterprises through a network of underlings. DiCaprio does a wonderful job in showing how Hughes became what he was, his mania against germs instilled by his mother. To have all that money and be living in the largest plastic bubble one could create. Hughes made himself a prisoner in his own mind before he became a prisoner of the jail he personally designed.

    The Aviator is a marvelous insight into one of the most eccentric and colorful people of the last century.
  • Since this got a lot of award nominations, I thought it would be better. It was OK, but too long. There is so much to tell about Howard Hughes; you can't do it in one film. And this movie stops when he was still fairly young. We don't see him in his later years when he was really nuts.

    The lesson to this movie, if you let unstable people have a bunch of money, then they are going to do some crazy things. Hughes throws money around to build his dream planes and to make movies that aren't very good. According to this movie, his biggest enemy was Pan-Am, who was trying to keep TWA from flying overseas.

    Also, the movie shows a lot of his girlfriends, many of whom were famous actresses. It never dwells to deep into his personal relationships though. I'm sure there were many more interesting things about them.

    FINAL VEDICT: It was OK, not great. And we learn Hughes sure loved his bar of soap. If you're into biographies then you'd probably like it; otherwise, I would skip it. Also Leo is sort of hot in this, but they have to make him look crazy in some parts. So, it isn't the best film to Leo watch.
  • Martin Scorsese's Howard Hughes biography flies high and mighty when it does indeed fly--down on the ground, it's aloof, cold and a little slow...and yet, one gets the impression Scorsese doesn't notice. He's an extremely self-satisfied filmmaker who doesn't bother to pick up the pace. When Hughes begins to deteriorate, the movie gets bogged down in the same red-tinged psychological muddle that doomed the entire midsection of "New York, New York". The period flavor--as with "New York"--is careful but unsatisfying, and Leonardo DiCaprio is serviceable in the lead but nothing grander, nothing more than workman-like (his little boy voice strains throughout, cussing like a kid playing grown-up; his height doesn't detract, however, and his weight and demeanor seem correct). Cate Blanchett playing Katharine Hepburn is too fast at the beginning, but finds a more appropriate style; unfortunately, there's too much of her. Thelma Schoonmaker's lightning-fast editing fails her and Scorsese in this instance. We don't need to see Hepburn arriving at the movie studio, turning the lights on and meeting a handsome admirer. Whose story is this? The sequence around the Hepburn family dinner table is, however, a smash, and Blanchett is lovely in her period wardrobe. I didn't believe for a second the impersonations of Jean Harlow (very minor) or Ava Gardner (a big problem) ...and what happened to the "Outlaw" controversy? It seems to take place off-screen. The editing also slips up in the final third, allowing scenes to run on too long and letting shots get ahead of themselves (as with DiCaprio behind the wheel of the Hercules, seeming to turn the plane too early). Howard Shore's score is great, Robert Richardson's cinematography is terrific, but "The Aviator" is overall a disappointment; an expensive and good-looking lump of coal. ** from ****
An error has occured. Please try again.