O Aviador

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.