The Aviator

After the not-so-favorably received (but brilliant in my opinion) Gangs of New York, director Martin Scorsese has ventured into slightly more recent history. He tells the story of an extraordinary person in an extraordinary style. A man who can be perceived as either a genius or a madman. You have to choose whether you will admire Howard Hughes for pushing the boundaries of technological and human capabilities or despise him for his obsessively guarded cleanliness or instability in relationships. Martin Scorsese gives you both sides of the story in a unique trip back to the early 1930s and late 1940s. The atmosphere of parties, bars, women, cigarettes, and unique music breathed so strongly on me that it tousled my hair. And in this environment, Leonardo DiCaprio moves with his characteristic elegance. The acting challenge was truly formidable. DiCaprio picked up the thrown gauntlet and, with a performance more than dignified, proved to everyone that he truly knows how to act. The entire film is full of one famous name after another. While I'm not particularly a fan of Cate Blanchett, neither physically nor as an actress, I must reluctantly praise her. Alan Alda as Hughes' main antagonist is absolutely superb. A lot of people fault the film for the story going nowhere at times. I strongly disagree. I attentively watched the entire three hours to see what was happening. Visually, the film is perfect. Some scenes are indelibly etched in my memory. For example, the filming of Hell's Angels or the plane crash between houses in Beverly Hills. Robert Richardson's brilliant cinematography adds the final touch to everything. Not only the period music but also Howard Shore's orchestration perfectly contributed to creating the (already perfect) atmosphere. Everything I've listed here should be enough to give The Aviator four stars, but the film has something that makes me want to give it no less than five. It has soul. The soul that allowed it to live and tell. Thank you, Master. (12/02/2005)

If The Aviator is anything to go by, it's a perfect example of top Hollywood, the Hollywood that Hughes helped build in the 1920s with his bold visions. It's a precisely-fulfilled genre scheme that offers both a breathtaking spectacle and great dramatic filmmaking. You can't help but praise the famous camera, the well-incorporated tricks, and the perfect period music that gives everything style and atmosphere. The story of Howard Hughes is not only a personal drama, but also a spectacular and epic spectacle in which some scenes bolt you to your seat in a "Hollywood" manner and don't let you breathe (the superbly shot aerial sequences are really worth it). More importantly, each part serves a monumental whole, and the monumentality of the whole does not overshadow the personal and not-very-idealized personal plane. Hughes' personality is the centerpiece around which everything spectacularly turns, not the other way around. That's what I appreciate about Martin Scorsese. He didn't succumb to a big topic and tried to go under the surface. He did not idealize, but he tried to tell the story of one of the fascinating carriers of human imagination and the desire to fly (figuratively and literally) in all shades. From where I was sitting, it clearly seemed that he had succeeded. The Aviator is a truly wonderful specimen of a biographical major film in all its dazzling sheen. There's no room for misery this time... The few extra minutes the film has can be considered a hereditary disease. And Scorsese was able to richly balance Logan's weaker script with his precise direction. (11/02/2005)

The Aviator is not Martin Scorsese’s best film and, in my opinion, it doesn't even belong among the best ones. It is beautifully shot, but that's about it. There are plenty of unforgettable scenes, shots, and dialogues, but the end result doesn't have such a strong impact, and there is no deeper emotional experience. Surprisingly, technically, the movie is quite uneven, and sometimes it seems like a farce or an overly theatrical costume drama. Sometimes, I even feel a sense of theater. It's an interesting retro film, but definitely not aiming for an Oscar. (10/02/2005)

Paradoxically, the most interesting stages of Hughes’ life are merely mentioned in passing or completely ignored, while there is also a lot of needless filler (albeit excellently filmed). The actors are excellent, Scorsese’s still got it - it’s just that the screenplay isn’t one of the best ever written. Which is really a great shame and it knocks The Aviator out of the sky before it has the chance to take off. (06/11/2005)

This is the second time I have seen this Scorsese film, as I couldn't endure it all the way to the end the first time due to its length and my lack of interest, and I was missing about 40 minutes to settle the score with The Aviator. I was able to erase it from my memory practically perfectly in record time, and that already proves that this time Martin and I didn't see eye to eye. Honestly, it's probably the film I most could not get into from this famous American filmmaker in the last two decades. While his recent films managed to impress me, The Aviator only bored and disinterested me. Despite being undoubtedly a blockbuster with everything that belongs to it - a multitude of stars, a high budget, a script overflowing with ambition, and a charismatic hero - something doesn't work in it, and it's not just because the theme didn't appeal to me. Scorsese describes his hero in a way that is very different from the reality that could resemble how Costa Gavras settles accounts with capitalism in his film Capital. The real Howard Hughes was such a scoundrel that even Belfort, the main character of The Wolf of Wall Street could be considered a good buddy from Sunday school and Mother Teresa's secretary. Even an American like Leacock noticed the typical characteristic of Americans - admiring successful people regardless of how they came to wealth and how they handled it and made fun of it in his book "Literary Lapses." In the United States, Howard Hughes is considered a legend, even though his real behavior, actions, and impacts were very problematic. In the movie, there is one scene where Howard is visiting Katharine Hepburn's family, which represents that typical inward-looking snobbish liberal society that drowns in wealth while prattling about socialism. When the lady of the house says that they never talk about money in their house, Howard responds, "That's because you have plenty of it." Howard Hughes was the last person who could pass any judgments. He inherited the money and then enjoyed it and lived the typical life of a playboy and celebrity. He treated his employees thoughtlessly, manipulated, blackmailed and lobbied in the worst imaginable way, which meant nothing other than mass corruption. Even his illness is highly debatable; in the 1940s, he certainly didn't suffer from any mental illness, and, typically, he was able to manage his companies so skillfully until the end of his life that he never paid a penny in taxes while being one of the five richest people on this planet. I'll give it three stars thanks to several great scenes, such as the crash of the airplane and its impressive flight through a residential area, where Scorsese presents himself in the best possible form. But it's just barely three stars... Overall impression: 50%. (14/04/2014)