The movie was pretty good overall. It was kinda fun to watch the first half of it, since it was set in the twenties and thirties. All that jazzy music and colorful parties gave it energy.
It started to drag when Hughes started going nuts. Maybe it's only because I'm fourteen and I prefer movies with more action and less talk.
DiCaprio did a pretty good acting job with this... Actually, everyone did, but I was most impressed with whoever played Katherine Hepburn (I think that was her name...the lady with red hair). That's Cate Blanchett, right?
The part when Hughes's plane crashed scared me more than The Grudge did... I'm serious. I'm weird like that.
Anyway, great movie. I would recommend it... Just make sure you're up to it. It seemed pretty darn long.
First there was the soundtrack -- tinny sounding music from the big band era which seemed to be coming from schoolroom intercom speakers. Then there was Scorcese's constantly moving camera. What's up with that? He actually made me feel seasick. I had to close my eyes quite a lot during the film.
But worst of all was the treatment -- a story totally without soul. It's fair to compare it with Franco Zeffirelli's recent "Callas Forever" which was a touching tribute full of love for the subject matter. There was none of that in Aviator. Scorcese seems not to have liked Hughes very much, which is too bad as it made us uncaring as well.
I gave it a 2 (of 10). Hubby (who was the one who wanted to see it) gave it a 3.
It looks awful, like one of those self-indulgent movies that for one reason or another will win oscars. Like Moulin Rouge, but worse. Leo DiCaprio was washed up as soon as Titanic came out, anyway. Cate Blanchett is only good under the right direction. I just don't trust Martin Scorsese with her. Go see "A Life Aquatic," instead.
Very good film, with excellent performances from Blanchett and Alan Alda (Blanchett would get the Supporting Actress Oscar, as of right now, if it were up to me).
DiCaprio, as usual, is distracting. He's a fine actor, but still looks 12-years-old which makes his love scenes with Blanchett nearly laughable. Still, his acting is fine.
As for being depressing ending, since it's based on Howard Hughes's life, I'm not sure it could end an other way. In fact, had it ended much later in his life, the depression factor would've gone through the roof! 8/10.
This film was well-made: well-staged, well-scripted, well-acted. But I ultimately did not enjoy it because it did not trust the audience enough. I don't like the feeling that the director distrusts me. What I mean is: the audience was told through symbolism, music, and dialogue PRECISELY how to feel about the subject matter at hand. There was no wiggle room & no ambiguity.
Perhaps this in and of itself is not a bad thing; perhaps this is what movies are supposed to do. But I feel there was something almost graceless in the transparency of Scorsese's motives pertaining to the pathos in the film. By the end I felt I was being led around by the wrist and, really, I'd rather think for myself.
Simultaneously, the film had a few scenes so masterfully constructed--such as Hughes' second cash, and his retreat into filthy isolation in his theater--that I cannot call it a Bad Film.
Do you mean did he really have an OCD? Yes, did it run his life as much as the film says? Probably, but it's a Hollywood movie sa it's been quite sensationalised. Was quite good, but a little slow. Very mell made though. ZenKat's comments pretty muchhit the mark.
oh god...what a waste of my money...this film was horrible...and i agree with auntiemame...the camera work made me sick...i was expecting something marvelous, but what i got was sketchy actors,cinematography, and plot...no soul what so ever! I'm so dissappointed...and i think Leo needs to grow more as an actor...it seems as if he is always playing each character the same way..