The Aviator

[tennispunk]

Interference needs a double thumbs down icon.

Am I the only one who thought this movie was total crap? Self-indulgent and utterly unmoving, over-acted by Leonardo DiCaprio, and too damn long.


Can someone explain to me why this movie got 11 Oscar nominations? aside from the obvious that Academy voters are self-indulgent.

 

[IWasBored]

i thought dicaprio finally did a good job. i loved gangs of ny, but really didn't like his performance in it, whereas this time around i finally managed to forget about 'titanic' (now THERE'S a long, over-acted, self-indulgent movie if i've ever seen one).

 

[Saracene]

I absolutely loved the movie and found it enormously entertaining; haven't felt to giddily engrossed in what I was watching since Return of the King last year. Top-notch direction, beautiful cinematography, fantastic supporting cast. And I did doubt at first whether Leo would be convincing in the role, but boy did he prove me wrong.

I know there was a criticism from some reviewers that the film wasn't really about anything apart from telling its story - no BIG IMPORTANT MESSAGE here - but IMO when the story in question is so incredible it doesn't need it.

Haven't seen Ray and Sideways yet, but I sure hope Aviator drops Eastwood's Baby on its head,

 

[AvsGirl41]

I was underwhelmed. I thought the sets, costumes, music were all great. Leonardo DiCaprio was probably the best I've seen him in a long time. (I can't remember much of Gangs of NY.)

But it didn't feel coherent to me. It was like a bunch of loosely connected set pieces. Look, he's going crazy--now he's dating a starlet--now he's building a plane. Going in, I didn't know anything about Howard Hughes, except that he built the Spruce Goose and ended up becoming an isolated germophobe--and I didn't feel like I knew much about him by the end of the film. I hit the Internet for the details. It felt self-indulgent and phony to me, which is why I think it'll sweep the Oscars. But since I haven't seen the other movies, I can't say there's one that should win.

Cate Blanchett as Katherine Hepburn was incredible, but it was *too* much. She had it down, but her introduction scene was too painful. The only line missing was "I prefer pants, not skirts, Howard." As my sister pointed out, she was a real person, not some funny caricature which is how some of the scenes made her out to be. I blame that more on the script than on Cate's performance, which was kept more in check in other scenes of the film.

 

[ABEL]

i thought it was really good. maybe i went in not expecting much since i'm not a huge leo fan, but i thought he did a great job in it. after seeing the aviator, i'm also curious to see the original 'hell's angels' movie if it's out there somewhere.

 

[yertle-the-turtle]

too long

but quite good

 

[ABEL]

of course the highlight of the movie for me was the fact that brent spiner (aka data) was in it and i'd just met him in real life at a convention a couple months before

 

[tennispunk]

sure it was beautiful, but you know the line from "Chicago"--

"razzle dazzle 'em and they'll never catch wise."

 

[HelloAngel]

Glad someone brought this movie up. I feel very about it.

I felt DiCaprio did a susprisingly good job. He's so boyish-looking that it's often hard to take him seriously. Here, he was able to transcend that. Blanchett was awesome, as always.

The direction was incredible and lofty. I'm not a huge Scorsese fan (don't shoot me!!) but here I was consistently saying "wow!" "WOW!!"

The main problem with this movie lies within it's ability to tell the story of Howard Hughes. Full disclosure: I had no bloody clue who Howard Hughes was before this movie. And unfortunately, since the movie starts at the filming of "Hell's Angels," I still didn't know who he was and how he got his money until well into the movie - which was a problem for me.

Secondly, I felt that the movie only concentrated on the heroic part of Hughes' life, and not the part of his life that most in Hollywood whisper about today. Maybe this is to have us remember him "as he was" to quote the film, or maybe it's just the way Martin and Leo chose to tell the story. I for one, feel the movie might have been more popular had the movie delved more into Hughes' burgeoning insanity. But this was about him being The Aviator, not crazy man with world's longest finger nails surrounded by bottles of piss.

 

[nbcrusader]

Howard Hughes is a fascinating character who led a complex life. The movie captured great glimpses of this life and DiCaprio did a great job in the role.

Address the "insanity" phase of his life would have added another hour to the film.

 

[Saracene]

Yeah, Data... sorry, Brent Spiner cameo was great!

I also knew nothing about Hughes, but thought that it was made pretty clear in the opening Hell's Angels scene that Hughes' parents died and left him tons of money that had something to do with oil business back in Texas. Plus in the scene with him as a child his mother washes him in what looks like a very opulent and posh room.

That the film doesn't fully "explain" Hughes is a fair comment I guess, but on the other hand the problem I often have with biopics or films based on real-life people in general is that they often tend to give too-neat, simplistic explanations of why people were like that and why they did what they did. I find that films are generally not the best source when you want to get full knowledge about a real-life person, because of the inevitable limitations the medium poses. I loved "Elizabeth" with Cate Blanchett, but the film only really gives you a tiny fraction of Queen Elizabeth's personality.

 

[A_Wanderer]

The Aviator eh?

# "Now to the plant. We'll take the Spruce Moose, hop in..."

Burns: Ah, my beloved plant. How I miss her... Bah! To hell with this! Get my razors! Draw a bath! Get these Kleenex boxes off my feet!
Smithers: Certainly, sir. And, uh, the jars of urine?
Burns: Oh, we'll hang onto those.

 

[anitram]

It's better than Ray but worse than all other nominees in the category.

I enjoyed it enough for the cinematography and Cate Blanchette and the largeness of it.

But a great movie? No way. Totally, totally overrated.

 

[HelloAngel]

I find that films are generally not the best source when you want to get full knowledge about a real-life person, because of the inevitable limitations the medium poses.

Obviously. Just like Cliff's Notes cannot possibly give you the full texture of a great novel.

The Aviator, while very well made, might have been a more successful film had they given us a little more background on Hughes other than the sentence you mentioned. Even a reasonable person can miss one sentence contextual clues with all the planes zipping around and loud noises.

I feel the film concentrated too much on certain areas, and too little on others. We see sparks of his manic OCD, his love of beautiful starlets and his love of planes. Yes, the man was an enigma, and I'm definitely interested in him now, but I feel that the film became more about "show" than about "know."

"A Beautiful Mind" and "Pollock" are examples that come to mind of biopics that gave me what I felt was a fuller picture than "The Aviator" did. But, from what I understand, Scorsese has been criticized in the press for not being as great a storyteller as he is a director.

 

[AvsGirl41]

I loved "Elizabeth" with Cate Blanchett, but the film only really gives you a tiny fraction of Queen Elizabeth's personality.

And was possibly one of the most inaccurate biopics ever put on film. The director even forbid anyone from actually reading any books on Elizabeth I.

Cate Blanchett was great and certainly conveyed the power and personality of Elizabeth--wonderful actors and great costumes meant that could have been a truly amazing film, but they didn't even bother to try. I hate that.

 

[anitram]

I also knew nothing about Hughes, but thought that it was made pretty clear in the opening Hell's Angels scene that Hughes' parents died and left him tons of money that had something to do with oil business back in Texas. Plus in the scene with him as a child his mother washes him in what looks like a very opulent and posh room.

That scene was a rip off of Citizen Kane, a movie which was considerably better at examining the life, beginning to end, of a great, but complicated man.

To me, it didn't help that The Aviator felt like "The little Citizen Kane that could" but didn't.

 

[Saracene]

You gotta remember though that Charles Foster Kane was a fictional character (although loosely based on a real-life person). With the character existing only within the confines of a film, there is no agonizing with what events from his life to include or not include in the film.

 

[anitram]

But that's what makes a great storyteller - choosing the right things to emphasize.

I always felt Scorsese was good but not great. There was that *something* lacking and his characters were never three-dimensional, warm, understandable to me.

 

[Saracene]

But that's what makes a great storyteller - choosing the right things to emphasize.

Oh, for sure. I just wanted to say that when a real-life person is concerned, different people are going to disagree on what things are right to emphasize.

 

[Lancemc]

I feel Scorcese truely deserves the Oscar this year for this movie. Jamie Fox on the other hand deserves to win for best actor. I only bring this up because I just finished watching Ray, and it totally blew me away....the performances were just stunning. I even came withing seconds of crying at the end.

Anyway, up until I saw Ray not 5 mintues ago I really thought DiCaprio shoudl win the Acadamy Award. He was phenominal in The Aviator. If he wins, I certainly won't be disappointed.

 

[Saracene]

There's certainly a lot of talk about Jamie Fox... maybe too much talk. Remember how a couple of years ago everyone was certain that Daniel Day-Lewis would win Best Actor for "Gangs of New York", and then Adrien Brody ended up with gold?

 

[Kieran McConville]

Can't speak on the new movie but if Scorcese gets some oscars it will probably be in belated recognition for the REALLY great stuff he's been responsible for, like:

Goodfellas
Casino
King of Comedy

etc etc etc.

 

[Lancemc]

There's certainly a lot of talk about Jamie Fox... maybe too much talk. Remember how a couple of years ago everyone was certain that Daniel Day-Lewis would win Best Actor for "Gangs of New York", and then Adrien Brody ended up with gold?

Yes, and I still think Daniel Day-Lewis SHOULD have won for that performance. It was one of the best film performances I have ever seen.