The Aviator

[Whyme]

Thought it was an excellent movie. I wouldn't really consider it a TRUE biopic, much like Ray, as many of the things that happened in the movie is mostly hearsay in real life, but it was still brilliantly directed, and acted. Cate Blanchette especially, did a wonderful job as Hepburn.

My only gripe with the movie (besides that it goes on a smidge too long) was the casting of Leo DiCaprio as Hughes... I dunno, I just couldn't really see it. Every time I looked at him, I knew I was just looking at some scrawny kid, not some iconic, legendary figure. Meh, just a small gripe though.

[Millie]

I didn't mind Leo as Howard Hughes. If you Google Howard Hughes and look at some photos of him in his youth, you'll notice he looks quite a bit like Leo in the movie. DiCaprio also sounds a lot like Huges, captures his mannerisms well, etc. Howard Hughes was a scrawny, squirrely type of guy, and he is perhaps best portrayed by someone of DiCaprio's physical stature.

My issue with this film was with its structure. The movie was entirely too long, and felt as much -- not so much because the film was long, per se, but because it was paced so awkwardly (This is actually my gripe with most, if not all of Scorsese's films). Scenes that could have been cut were drawn out unnecessarily. Important scenes, by contrast, were condensed and glossed over.

As a minor gripe: Howard's OCD/descent into insanity was treated like a simple tic he could overcome at will. In reality, Hughes spent the last few years of his life in his Las Vegas penthouse, unwashed and unshaven, refusing to leave for fear of contamination. In the film, this incident lasts no more than a few weeks, and Hughes returns to "normal" the minute he has to leave the apartment. I understand that Scorsese wanted to focus on "visionary Howard" as opposed to "crazy Howard." But you can't take one without the other and still be faithful to the historical Hughes.

[Iannis]

"Ah, my nuclear power plant. I miss her so...let's go smithers! get these boxes off my feet.

and the jar of urine, sir?

...better keep that."

comes to my mind when i think of 'crazy howard'

[Millie]

Originally posted by Iannis
"Ah, my nuclear power plant. I miss her so...let's go smithers! get these boxes off my feet.

and the jar of urine, sir?

...better keep that."

comes to my mind when i think of 'crazy howard'

You forgot the best part:

Burns: (holding up a small model plane) Quickly, Smithers. Hop into the Spruce Moose!

Smithers: But sir, that's just a model...

Burns: (holding a gun to Smithers' head) I said, hop in!

[Zinke]

I was severely dissappointed in this movie. With the amount of talent involved in this film, I expected at least a truly engaging drama.

It wasn't outright BAD, but I was just let down. I expected better from Scorcese. Leonardo did a good job as Hughes, he handled the descent into madness well, I have no problem there.

My main gripe is that the length of the film was unnecessary. I'm all for long movies, I own and love all the extended LotR editions, but only if there is a reason for it. It just felt like Aviator was long for the sake of being long, not because they were giving important story points in each scene.

[Belefuu]

I honestly went into it fearing that the length would entail too many uninteresting scenes, but surprisingly I found my interest held in all but 1 or 2. My only gripes were the corny childhood scenes, Gwen Stefani, and maybe a scene or two were I actually felt genuinely bored by the length... yes, I'll agree that the film could have at least been streamlined somewhat, but somehow it managed to hold my interest over the whole damn long thing. Then again (while I love them) I personally was bored by quite a few scenes in LotR (and I've read the damn books). So I suppose it comes down to opinion.

Anybody see the trailer for the new Ridley Scott movie Kingdom of Heaven? Orlando Bloom be damned if that didn't look potentially awesome. He uttered a clever line or two in it so maybe Scott plus a good script can make him tolerable. Also haven't been many movies focused on the Crusades.

That and Sin City have me pretty excited.

[Zinke]

Originally posted by Belefuu
yes, I'll agree that the film could have at least been streamlined somewhat, but somehow it managed to hold my interest over the whole damn long thing. Then again (while I love them) I personally was bored by quite a few scenes in LotR (and I've read the damn books). So I suppose it comes down to opinion.

I'm not gonna argue about each person's opinion of LotR, I agree there were certain boring parts even, but with those films the boring parts generally had some significance to other parts later on. The books were such a massive, sprawling, and complicated epic, that it's hard to leave out parts and have other parts still make sense. Characters that have to be introduced early on, because they play a major role later, for example.

Aviator was just one man's story. They could have seriously cut down on the 'Hell's Angels' and 'Outlaw' parts and still told Hughs story well. We don't need 30 minutes of the film devoted to him producing Hell's Angels, seriously. The same way they didn't go into detail about him making Scarface, they could have done more of that for Outlaw, and cut back on Hell's Angels.


*pseudo spoiler alert*



The ending really irked me at first, because I couldn't comprehend why he ended it there. I still think it was an awkward ending, but I get the idea now. He's trying to romanticize Hughs insanity, to say that he had accomplished what he wanted, so he gave up trying to fight it.

[Awanka]

The length of the LoTR movies have less to do the length of the books than they have to do with Peter Jackson's ego getting the best of him. RoTK should have been a 2 hour movie.

But we've aleady been over this.

[Injektilo]

RoTK should have been a 2 hour movie.

You're insane.

[Iannis]

Fellowship could've done with a smidge less heli shots, but most of them got better when pushed to EE length rather than worse. RoTK wasn't 50 minutes of battle scene and then 50 minutes of goodbye scenes in the EE

[Zinke]

Originally posted by Iannis
Fellowship could've done with a smidge less heli shots, but most of them got better when pushed to EE length rather than worse. RoTK wasn't 50 minutes of battle scene and then 50 minutes of goodbye scenes in the EE

agreed.

I still think he could have ended RotK 15 minutes earlier then he did. Either when they all got back to the shire, or when Frodo gets on the boat.. Otherwise, I agree with the length of the movies.

But, Awanka, I gotta disagree on Peter Jackson's ego. I've listened to the commentary from him, his wife, and the other writer. If anything, his wife and the other writer wanted more included then he did. They were bigger fans of the book then he was.

Also, hearing them discuss it and the things they left/changed to fit the time constraints, you really understand how hard it was. I don't know if you've read the books or not, but I'm amazed they got so much of the story even in 11 hours worth of movie (EE versions). There's easily 40+ hours worth of story you could film.

[Moontayle]

Not really. I mean, yeah, they could have had so much more take place but the reality of it is that the books weren't geared towards the events. Case in point: Faramir. When Frodo meets him they essentially sit down for a cup of tea and a chat. If I remember correctly they talked about the region they were in and some other things. That's why it's completely different in the film. Because, as Phillipa Boyens said, it would have been death on film.

Tolkein was creating a world. The fact that there was a story tying it all together didn't really mean that much to him in the long run. And even then, he takes so many detours and side trips that I had to force myself to keep reading at times. Hell, I even wall-thumped FOTR three times between the Shire and the Inn of the Dancing Pony. And this is coming from someone who routinely devours books in just a couple of days.

[Zinke]

Oh yea, there is definitely passages of sprawling descriptive text, and superfluous events that you could never film. If you tried to film the books word for word, it'd be hundreds of hours.

But, I'm talking about things like Tom Bombadil, Elrond's sons, the Dunedin, and the Scourging of the shire. I'm saying that PJ and co. did a great job of capturing the essence of the books. If I had been given the same task, I would have no clue which parts to cut out, or how to fill in the plot holes left by some of those cuts.

I hadn't read them for maybe 6 years before I watched the movies, and I didn't notice many of the differences. All of the significant scenes that stood out in my mind from the book, were included. That's good as anyone would ever get for an epic trilogy like that.
But, to say each of them could have been done in 2 hours, is not giving enough credit to the novels.

[Bralkan]

so how'bout The Aviator?

[dak]

Well worth the price of a ticket.

Some parts could have been trimmed down a bit. Hughes wallowing in his illness to sad music for extended periods gave some scenes a "Beautiful Mind" feel, which is not a good thing. They are trying too hard draw emotion and it seems a bit forced.

While watching the film some scenes seemed like Deja Vu from other movies but that may just be due to the style it was filmed.

Other then that though, the atmosphere is great, the acting is done well, the style is stimulating.

If you want to see a movie watch this. Meet the Fockers and Oceans 13 are typical Hollywood shlock. Aviator is an experience. By far the best thing in theatres right now.

It is a god damn shame this movie has only grossed as much as
Fat Albert.

8.5 out of 10.