I was looking forward to this movie probably more than any other this year. After all, I love aviation, aviation history, the 1930's, the 1940's, and am a fan of biopics. Based on the early reviews for it, I was not going to be disappointed. But regardless of the acclaim that this film gets or the awards that it may receive, "The Aviator" is pretty much a mess.
To be fair, although I have always found him interesting, I am not very knowledgeable on Howard Hughes' life. I knew that he had contributed much to aviation, that he was very rich and successful, about the "Spruce Goose" fiasco, about his reclusive end, and I had loved "Hell's Angels." It's tough not to admire a pilot pioneer whose main passions appeared to have been flying, making films, and hot women. But all of these elements failed to live up to those things on screen.
"Hell's Angels" is one of the most interesting and unusual films that can be seen today. It wasn't a dramatic masterpiece; it was more of a guilty pleasure. Today we marvel at the incredible stunt work and visuals from that film, as well as a zeppelin attack that resembles campy science fiction, a silly love triangle with over-the-top acting, and images that have been colored by hand, long before movies were in color. The stories behind the making of that film are equally interesting; it is rumored that three pilots died while making it, and that Hughes himself performed a stunt that nobody else would. These things are only mentioned as an afterthought at the movie's premiere.
Then there is Hughes' "womanizing." Leonardo Dicaprio is too boyish, and just not believable when it comes to this. Since we know that Hughes had every major starlet at some point, we are just supposed to accept that Hughes had the charm and wit to get them. But what is his charm, other than that he's a hot-shot pilot with lots of money (ahem... did I just answer my own question?) A scene where HH seduces a cigarette girl (added at Leo DiCaprio's request) is poorly written and flat-out unconvincing--he's doing a poor man's imitation of Trent seducing the cocktail waitress in "Swingers," at best. Leo never has much chemistry with the women who come and go throughout his life. Why did they stay (if, only briefly) with him? A scene with Catherine Hepburn's family makes us believe that she was his most important connection, yet the scene really doesn't fit in with the rest of the story--it is a plant with no payoff.
Many other scenes are just there, yet provide no drive or momentum for the film; why do we need to see Jude Law play Errol Flynn (also unconvincingly) in one scene? What was the point of the (suppossedly hilarious) scene in which Ian Holm tries to convince the ratings board with calipers that the cleavage presented in "The Outlaw" is acceptable? What I was most disappointed with in "The Aviator" were HH's achievements in aviation. We all know that he was an important pioneer in aviation, but after seeing this film, I can't exactly say why. The dream of expanding the airlines is mostly dealt with by depicting the rivalries of Pan-Am and TWA--not very interesting. Most of his daring exploits are, again, poor imitations, this time of the daring exploits from "The Right Stuff"--a far superior film. Great emphasis is placed on the "Spruce Goose," which is probably not something that HH should be too proud of. The film really loses steam in its last third; by the time he made it to the hearings, I really didn't care whether HH won or lost.
Howard Hughes was a lot of things, but I can't tell what was most important about him after watching "The Aviator." Grade: C+
To be fair, although I have always found him interesting, I am not very knowledgeable on Howard Hughes' life. I knew that he had contributed much to aviation, that he was very rich and successful, about the "Spruce Goose" fiasco, about his reclusive end, and I had loved "Hell's Angels." It's tough not to admire a pilot pioneer whose main passions appeared to have been flying, making films, and hot women. But all of these elements failed to live up to those things on screen.
"Hell's Angels" is one of the most interesting and unusual films that can be seen today. It wasn't a dramatic masterpiece; it was more of a guilty pleasure. Today we marvel at the incredible stunt work and visuals from that film, as well as a zeppelin attack that resembles campy science fiction, a silly love triangle with over-the-top acting, and images that have been colored by hand, long before movies were in color. The stories behind the making of that film are equally interesting; it is rumored that three pilots died while making it, and that Hughes himself performed a stunt that nobody else would. These things are only mentioned as an afterthought at the movie's premiere.
Then there is Hughes' "womanizing." Leonardo Dicaprio is too boyish, and just not believable when it comes to this. Since we know that Hughes had every major starlet at some point, we are just supposed to accept that Hughes had the charm and wit to get them. But what is his charm, other than that he's a hot-shot pilot with lots of money (ahem... did I just answer my own question?) A scene where HH seduces a cigarette girl (added at Leo DiCaprio's request) is poorly written and flat-out unconvincing--he's doing a poor man's imitation of Trent seducing the cocktail waitress in "Swingers," at best. Leo never has much chemistry with the women who come and go throughout his life. Why did they stay (if, only briefly) with him? A scene with Catherine Hepburn's family makes us believe that she was his most important connection, yet the scene really doesn't fit in with the rest of the story--it is a plant with no payoff.
Many other scenes are just there, yet provide no drive or momentum for the film; why do we need to see Jude Law play Errol Flynn (also unconvincingly) in one scene? What was the point of the (suppossedly hilarious) scene in which Ian Holm tries to convince the ratings board with calipers that the cleavage presented in "The Outlaw" is acceptable? What I was most disappointed with in "The Aviator" were HH's achievements in aviation. We all know that he was an important pioneer in aviation, but after seeing this film, I can't exactly say why. The dream of expanding the airlines is mostly dealt with by depicting the rivalries of Pan-Am and TWA--not very interesting. Most of his daring exploits are, again, poor imitations, this time of the daring exploits from "The Right Stuff"--a far superior film. Great emphasis is placed on the "Spruce Goose," which is probably not something that HH should be too proud of. The film really loses steam in its last third; by the time he made it to the hearings, I really didn't care whether HH won or lost.
Howard Hughes was a lot of things, but I can't tell what was most important about him after watching "The Aviator." Grade: C+