The Aviator

P

PurposeDriven

Well-known member
Just to get the ball rolling. It was only playing in 40 screens across the country and one was next to my house. So, many of you will not have an opinion until next week sometime.

The Aviator was well directed and shot. The acting, I thought, was top notch by all leads. Production design gets an A+. I did feel however that the film ran long, or at least, I was made aware of how long I was sitting in my chair. I don't think this should really have a huge impact on my opinion, but it just dragged me along. The film was amazing, hands down, one of the year's best. I think Marty is going to win Best Director at the Oscars, and that's that. Good film, runs kinda long, but well worth your money.
 
Re: The Aviator

I agree.  Just saw it last night, and all I can say is wow... I didn't mind the length one bit. Big time hollywood just doesn't make em like that anymore.  The best I've seen all year.
 
Re: The Aviator

I think it doesn't matter how brilliant it is (and I'm sure it's gonna be A**) I don't think Marty will get a gong. He's never won an oscar, though deserved to sooo many times (Raging Bull, Gangs og New York). This, sadly I feel, might be the case again. When he's a bit older, he might get a 'lifetime achievement award'.

But who cares? I can't wait to see this... :D
 
Re: The Aviator

I too was fortunate enough to live next to a theatre showing what could be the worst film concieved by our most cherished director Marty Scorcese.

I feel that the film was only a shadow of what it could have been. What struck me most was the lack of attention to production design. However, it may have been Marty's intention to place props from different era's to further weave the audience into Hughs' madness.

I was hoping the movie was called the Aviator because of the films abillity to take us (audience) to new cinamatic heights. However, I feel the film should be retitled : Das Boot 4, for its ability to leave me only with a sinking feeling.

I was dissapointed.
 
Re: The Aviator

Hmmm, sorry to hear that. I'm still looking forward to it though!!! ;)
 
Re: The Aviator

I saw it last night, I thought it is a pretty good film at all. The reconstitution of the époque, costumes, props, locations, film colors etc...were very well done. I'm not a fan of DiCaprio, but he is pretty good in this one.

I didn't feel it was too long, you can't recreated a story like that in 90 minutes.
 
Re: The Aviator

I agree with -USC_pummler- I went to the aviator last night, and just felt like it could have been a great story. Some of the actors in the film were amazing, but the direction and editing was a little weak. And for the average movie go'er it didn't wrap up with what happens to hugh's for the last part of his life? what the hell.
 
Re: The Aviator

[quote author=Nick Adams link=board=movies;num=1103579815;start=0#7 date=01/06/05 at 09:47:33] it didn't wrap up with what happens to hugh's for the last part of his life?  what the hell.    [/quote]

Doesn't show him decaying away into insanity in Vegas?
 
Re: The Aviator

Shadow, The hole focus is on how great he is while struggling through his metal anguish, the point is there wasn't an end to the film it didn't go into the last part of his life, not even a writen bio of his last years, and most don't know jack about Hugh's it Just ended with Directed by Martin Scorsese. I didn't say the film sucked, It just wasn't the greatest thing I've seen from Scorsese. or the writer John logan, John logan's last film the Last Samurai was epic.

Final note, they could of done something more that adding a pencil mustache for aging leo 25 years
 
Re: The Aviator

I must agree, DiCaprio look very young and they should have said what happen at the end of is life. I agree, The Last Samourai was a pretty good movie, but not a Chef-d'oeuvre.
 
Re: The Aviator

Just caught this. The cinematography was outstanding. Eye candy! My biggest problem was DiCaprio as well. Don't get me wrong he did a good job (Hell , he did an excellent job! - And I'm not a fan)

He just looks way to young.

Be pretty cool if Marty got the Oscar...
 
Re: The Aviator

IMO, this is the Oscar winner for best pic. The second crash scene was so intense. This is my favorite Marty picture since Goodfellas.
 
I'm a dad of three so I'm always late to the party, but I wanted to chime-in on Aviator.

I thought DiCaprio did good work, though I think they left him a little too young make-up wise. The Katherine Hepburn stuff was well done by Cate Blanchett - she really sold it.

I'm all for artistic interpretation, but what was with the vegetation throughout the picture? I've accidentally "created" that look in Photoshop enough times to really hate the bluish tinge so prominently displayed on the golf course and in the beet field crash sequences. Gross. If they were trying to establish period, then I'm living under really weird assumptions about how colors rendered in the 1930's and 40's!

I was surprised where the film stopped, though I think Scorsese exposed enough of his mental collapse for people to fill in the rest.

Best scenes hands down where the filming of Hell's Angels over Oakland and the post-war federal hearings with Alan Alda in his best turn since... well, uh... MASH! Not really kidding here.

e
 
I thought it was a really good movie. Scorcese did awesome job as usually, cinematography was gorgeus, DiCaprio was superb and the supporting cast was great aswell. Music, decorations, vfx, everything was top notch. However, something doesn't let me call Aviator a masterpiece or put it in my Top 10 or 20. It just felt somewhat artificial, if you know what I mean. Once I watched it in the cinema, I expected it to get Best Picture Oscar, if not all 11. And I was really disappointed to see Million Dollar Baby steal the award ("What? Rocky in skirt? Huh? Get the fk outta here...").
But... a few days later I actually watched MDB and I gave up. Yes, it's win over Aviator was totally deserved. Morgan Freeman said during ceremony somethign along the lines of: The production of this movie was not a work, it was a result of Love. Something like that, anyway. And that was what I saw in the theatre watching it. It had life, feelings, emotions flowing throughout, everyone involved was just sooo into it. That's where Aviator is unfortunately lacking.
That's not to say, that I didn't watch it on sattelite tv 2 times this weekend, when it was on. Hell, I'll probably see it a couple of times more, if not full movie, then at least first and last 30 minutes.
 
The cinematography was good, but not . . . epic. I agree with overland that the Turner-style coloration in some scenes was ineffective and too inconsistent to be meaningful.

I thought they dealt too much with his disorder. There’s so much to say about Hughes that it takes up too much screen time. It’s an important part of his story, but not more important than so many other things.

That having been said, I enjoyed it. It’s about two of my biggest loves – movie-making and aviation, and a pioneer of both. I love period pieces and biopics.
 
xl70e3,

If that page describes the reasoning behind digitally reinventing a three-strip color process long-since-abandoned in favor of realistically-rendered tones, well, I missed it after two full readings.

That's terrific that someone figured it out, but the "technology" didn't appear to have been applied throughout the picture. The interiors looked as if they were lit conventionally, with great art direction and deco support abandoned and neglected - accidentally included merely as secondhand wallpaper.

I would say that 95% of the picture screamed "properly telecined modern Kodak Vision2 second generation tabular-grain" while the odd scene here or there had some hand-painted vomit-on-celluloid-sorry-the-regular-colorist-called-in-sick-today look going on. It's like they spent more time explaining their "process" on the link you sent than actually employing it throughout the show.

Continuing on the wasted set pieces and claustrophobic editing choices - take the PanAm headquarters tower office set for instance. That spectacular room didn't get half the coverage it deserved, with frescoed ceilings, period deco furniture throughout and views? (never saw those!) over Manhattan.

The gravity and enormity of the congressional hearings montage was almost lost because they were framed in CU and MCUs. It is almost a sidenote in the movie that Hughes pulled himself out of his formidable doldrums to even show up. Like I said, Alda was great, but I had no sense of scale, because the daring wide, static or crane coverage is on the cutting room floor or was never shot at all.

More time was lavished on stock and standard ballroom scenes and close-ups of the principals and supporting actors. The flight sequences were very interesting over Oakland, while the 2nd crash sequence seemed exceedingly slow - what would Hughes have thought about the plane crash occuring at 52mph?! Damn, at least shake the camera if you can't get the effect for real or hire Michael Bay to direct that one sequence.

Now that I'm back on the look of this otherwise interesting film, there were other devices that didn't seem to have or make a consistent point throughout. Take for instance the "fade-in" lighting effects, where DiCaprio is standing in front of a large set piece which is gradually revealed by striking fixtures.

What did this do? Was the "light going on" in the mind of Hughes? Did Scorsese think his Art Direction was spectacular enough to justify a theatrical reveal? Was my TV not refreshing fast enough? I don't get it, and it wasn't employed consistently or was too subtle to be worth the trouble.

Sunshine of the Spotless Mind revealed and confined its characters and their emotional state effectively through theatrical lighting schemes - Aviator failed here.

I'm not arguing that the film is a bad film, but it isn't Raging Bull by any stretch of the imagination.
 
I finally saw this and it was an ironic disappointment. Ironic because I am no Leo fan but thought he did great. He's never been my favorite part of anything. I've studied Hughes' life for years, which was why I put off seeing this, and Leo, while a bit young for some of the era's of Hughes' life depicted, nailed his mannerisms, and did a damn fine job with his vocal inflectiuons as well. You can't get around the age thing, but the film covered about 12-15 years of time. Nobody could fit all of those, and Leo is actually older (I believe) then Hughes was when he shot Hell's Angels"

That being said, also adding props for good (not great) cinematography and wonderful supporting performances all around, I was disappointed. Here you have a very talented director working with a great cast telling a story about one of the most interesting and influential people of the 20th century, and somehow he made it trivial and boring.

My guess is that Marty was exploring Hughes' illness and romances to explain the man, but no explanation was forthcoming. So the focus was on something that is scattered and never comes to fruition (except mildly when Ava Gardner comes back to help him) and the parts of his life that would interest most people are dealt with as a sideline...or maybe more accurately, included to give the film a pseudo epic scale, and inject action into a flagging plot. At the end, as interested as I am in Hughes the man, all I did was shrug and say "who cares?"

Howard would have shown more explosions and cleavage and made a better film.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top