The Aviator

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.

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.

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.

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.

Martin Scorsese's most recent ambitious project does not disappoint.

I just saw this film in a special preview for NYU film students, with Martin Scorsese there to discuss and answer questions after, and I must say, it was pretty phenomenal. It is Martin Scorsese's best work since Goodfellas (this is obvious) and most probably his best work since Raging Bull. DiCaprio's character study of Howard Hughes, and his devotion to this role, is exquisite and reminiscent even of Robert De Niro's in Raging Bull. The film is lengthy, but this compliments it, for the story is riveting and the production is practically flawless (even the combination of computerized processes and more traditional photography was smooth and effective).

The presentation of the film, in an evolving color (from two-tone Technicolor, as Martin explained it to us, to three-tone, to modern by the later sequences) is absolutely stunning, and the cinematography by renowned Robert Richardson, ASC, is some of the best I've seen (and, in my opinion, deserving of an Oscar).

Cate Blanchett was impeccable as Katharine Hepburn, though, at times, I felt that the complexity of her character was never really deeper than a surface analysis.

She did her role flawlessly, but this is not to say that it really Alec Baldwin portrayed one of the flattest villains I've seen in a major motion picture, but, again, this is about Howard Hughes, and DiCaprio's performance is worthy of an Oscar nod at least, and perhaps an Oscar Win (certainly the best performance I've seen all year).

One of my few complaints, though, is the lengthy sequences featuring Howard Hughes as a solo aviator. Though interesting, entertaining even, the film was long enough already, and did not require such an exhaustive analysis of individual flight procedures.

Also, it seems that some of the themes were almost too redundant, such as the ways in which Hughes' psychological problems were performed. Much of the Hollywood history is good, even interesting, but it also sometimes seemed a bit self-indulgent, to the point where you questioned the necessity of ALL of those nightclub sequences in the film.

But, besides those relatively few complaints, it is a spectacular film.

In all: do not miss it.

3.5/4