The Aviator - A

Well, it blew me away. Very very good movie indeed. I was still thinking about his paranoia and strange sense of being clean even when i left the cinema, it bugged me, in a good way. I loved the film, it was visually brilliant. But i think Martin Scorsese should stick to doing gangster films.

After some rethoughts I'll lower my grade to A/A-.

Am I the only one who doesn't think that Leondaro DiCaprio is only an average actor? I didn't think his performance in The Aviator was any different then his performances in Titanic or The Beach. I don't know if I'm rooting for him at the Oscar's, honestly, I forgot who was nominated, I have no clue who I want to win :razz:

Any doubt of Leo's acting skills will be completely erased upon viewing What's Eating Gilbert Grape. One of the best performances ever, by anyone.

Was he spellbounding in The Aviator? I think he did a great job with the material provided.

Coincidentally enough, one cannot help but make parallels between his roles in Aviator and Grape, seeing as how he played someone with disorders in both of them. Grape was excellent, and I think Leo is a better actor than he gets credit for, sadly, I think he deserved more recognition in GONY than he got, purely because he was starring opposite Day Lewis he puts 99.9% of actors to shame with his performance in that movie. Aviator I think he did ok, but as you said, for the material. There wasn't enough meat in this movie which was all marinades. So while he did very well, the role didn't really allow him to demonstrate his true skill. He'll still get Oscar for it I think.

You think he'll beat out Jamie Foxx?

Great post dolce. Agree on everything. DiCaprio is one of the most talented actors out there and he deserves the Oscar more than Foxx (who was awesome too, tough).

just saw the Aviator few days ago, and i found it great. although i still think GoNY better, but i had to say Leonardo diCaprio is having a big improvement in his acting skill. really amazing. John C. Reilly plays well too, sadly Kate Beckinsale scene are too little. she is the biggest reason i went to see this movie. but afterall i didn't dissapointed by the movie as well. Great JOB, Mr. Scorcese. Two Thumbs UP for you!!! =D> =D> =D>

i'll give A- for The Aviator.

I'm going to be really mad if this wins Best Picture at the Oscars... Honestly, all 4 of the other nominees are superior. (I gave all 4 an A- or higher) It is a good movie though, better than Gangs of New York. Leonardo Dicaprio gives a fantastic performance, Cate Blanchett was also outstanding. Overall it's a good movie but nothing I'd watch twice.

- B

First off, this is not my full review...

I was very dissapointed with this offering, perhaps my expectation were too high. Or maybe this film just wasn't all that it was proclaimed to be.

The acting is excellent from the entire cast, but unfortunately, DiCaprio especially, was given far too little material to work with and as such the performance became secondary. The film did not allow us to understand the man that was Howard Hughes but rather gave us a broad spectrum of what he did. In that sense I was dissapointed as the man himself is quite fascinating.

The production quality was also good, but many scenes were quite flashy and then would suddenly change tone into as the character would enter into one of his spells. The problem however was that the gloss of the film soon wore off and left us with a very empty result.

Overall it is a decent film, but definately not worthy of the "Best Picture" or "Best Director" nominations. 6.8/10 (B)

May I just say congradulations to Cate Blanchett! I said she deserved the Oscar and she won!

Indeed.

Cate Blanchett was most certianly the highlight of the film. She has to be one of the best actresses.

And I still stick by my B grade. It was a good movie, yup. Unfortunately, it was too long towards the middle and there was too much style, instead of substance. It's still great as a piece of eye candy, though.

I'm copying my review from bom:
The Aviator
PG-13
2004

"The Aviator" is the story of the famous multi millionaire Howard Hughes. It covers his life and his struggles. Leonardo DiCaprio nominated for his role as Hughes does an excellent job potraying him as he goes through be a germaphobia. Cate Blanchet plays Kathern Hepburn in a role that you would swear was the real one.

Overall this was a good movie, excellent cinemetogrophy, costumes, and sets.
my only problem was its length, I think it could of been shorter.

Grade: A
**** 1/2 out of 5
a 9 out of 10

An american masterpiece and the best film of 2004. I was just blown away. The film is so WATCHABLE. The cinematography, dialogue, music, and acting were all on a level that I can only describe as exquisite.

B-
I thought it was pretty gbood i'm not a huge fan of Leo butr he did do a good job and Kate was very goood nailed her part so well. story for the most part but it was a tad to long and drawn out in parts. Still over all very very good.

Hmmm, I can't help but think this might be the most overrated movie of 2004.

Yes, it's a very good film, great special effects, great cinematography, great performances all around, especially from Blanchett. Leonardo was great, even if I don't think, physically, he was quite right for the role. I even enjoyed the smaller cameos from Jude Law and Gwen Stefani, etc. I wouldn't even mind if 30 years from now this movie was considered a classic.


But...eh...there's something about it that just didn't work enough for me to call it a masterpiece, and I wouldn't for a second consider it for THE best picture of the year over quite a few movies that I easily consider to be better.

B+

I agree with every word you said. That's exactly how I felt about it. I like Leo but I haven't been able to rave about his performance like so many other people did. Blanchett stole every scene she was in.

The best "Oscar" movie of 2004. Better than MDB, better than Hotel Rwanda, and can only be topped by my shear love of SM-2. I always though Leo was an average actor until this movie where he blew me away. The best performance of 2004, better than Jamie Foxx. This movie is incredible.

A+

B+


The movie is a solid, but not great effort by Scorsese. I actually consider it slightly worse than Gangs of New York. Technically it is well-made. Scorsese knows how to represent the Golden Era of Hollywood. The costumes, the make-up and gorgeous art direction...all that is spot on. The visual effects are mostly good, save for a couple of shaky shots.

The ensemble cast is as great as you'd expect it of a Scorsese film. I liked some short appearances, like Jude Law's Errol Flynn. Two performances, however, rule this movie. For one, it's DiCaprio's Howard Hughes. I have never really liked DiCaprio, but I mst admit that he has developed to a very good actor in recent years. The Aviator is definitely the highlight of his career, acting-wise. It is Cate Blanchett who is even more remarkable in this feature, though. She makes a perfect Katherine Hepburn. The way she speaks, the way she expresses herself..all that is just perfect. A very well-deserved Oscar nomination and a well-deserved win. Alan Alda's nomination makes me scratch my head a bit, but he was decent at least.

Now the editing and the story of the movie had some problems. Basically, I wish Scorsese focused more on Howard Hughes' time in Hollywood and on the entire Golden Era, than on his illness. Some parts of the film seemed overdrawn to me and had some uneven pacing. DiCaprio pulled off a performance good enough to keep the viewer engaged even in long ongoing illness attack scenes, but I think it could have done just as well without a couple of them.

It is a good movie, but I really don't think it deserved the awards buzz and the Oscar nominations it got for Best Director and Best Picture. Technical aspects and the acting pretty much made the film, but not direction and screenplay. Sideways and Million Dollar Baby were better films.

this film totally should have won best picture and best directer at the Oscars. It wasnt my favorite of 2004, but I liked it alot more than million dollar baby. anyway The film was great, In my top 5 for 04.

A

The Aviator: Soars!


Enjoyed this movie all the way through it's almost 3 hour length - and I especially loved the flying sequences. In addition to the 'aviation' side of things, the movie covered his relationships (with a special cameo focus on Katherine Hepburn - nicely portrayed by Cate Blanchet (acting goddess)), his movie career (I still gotta see Hell's Angels and his cleavage movies...), then his sickness thing, which seemed a tad overdone, but Leonardo DeCaprio played it probably as good as anyone could. The politics that Howard Hughes faced were enlightening in a 'same as it ever was' kind of way. Supporting actors were uniformly excellent with lots of familiar faces fleshing out this bio-pic (including a couple of old TV favourites!).

Overall, it was sure nice to see a sympathetic story about a super genius for a change. (Perhaps Martin Scorcese will finally get his Academy Award* - what with the sick lead character and Hollywood worship portrayed, this is Oscar bait for sure...)

5 out of 5.

(*Review written when movie released - we all know of the travesty which ensued at the Oscars...)

If I was to look at The Aviator in a cold logical manner I would struggle to find anything of real fault. The sets and cinematography are spot on capturing the time period as well as it possibly could. The supporting ladies all pout and move as expected and DiCaprio captures all the well known Howard ticks and moments as well as he possibly could.

And yet despite all this when the movie is looked on as a cinematic experience all I'm left with is a horrible feeling of boredom I would struggle to replication watching a Wayan's brothers movie. This is a movie completely devoid of soul, a horrific exercise in visual torture that had me contimplating putting a boot thru the DVD player to stop the pain. I knew something was up when I felt absolutely nothing during the big plane/movie/filming sequences. There it is on screen the plane's swooping DiCaprio waving his arms about the struggle to get his massive ego project in the can, I mean I thought it was biologically impossible NOT to get excited during these things and yet it was happening. By now my hopes were dropping rapidly and I was contimplating the thought (very unwanted) that Gangs crown as Scorcese's worst effort was about to be taken. And by the time the film had ended the result was clear. This is easily the worst film Scorcese had ever made. I mean Gangs may have been a bloathed mess but at least it made me feel something (like how the hell DiCaprio had an Irish accent even thou he lived in New York his entire life) but this was like listening to a lecture on the fluid nature of microeconomics in the Republic of Congo, intelligent but utterly suicide inducing. Scorcese lost his soul somewhere between this and Gangs and I'd like to know where the hell he put it.

F

Very good movie, Dicaprio definitely deserved the oscar over Foxx. He completely obsorbed the role. A bit of trivia, Leo used to have huge OCD but eventually overcame it, but worked with people to help get it back, I heard it took him a few months to kick it again afterwards. Now thats an actor.

He is slowly become one of the best actors out there. I agree its long, and it kinda ends right when the truly bizarre part of Howard Hughes Life was beginning to start, it could even be a two parter. Who knows if there is a plan. I thought the acting was superb all around, as was the direction.

A-