User reviews

The real-life figures and events are way more exciting. One of the disadvantages of biographical film: can you make film more interesting than already prominent figure or already dramatic affair. However, when the film is well-made with solid storyline, the sense of realism and relatability upgrades the quality exponentially. Howard Hughes is a subject that is worth delving into, such an interesting person. However, Scorsese makes him very boring with elongated and very one-dimensional story and slow pace. Hughes' mental illness can be emphasized in many other ways, and Scorsese does not have to make the movie peculiar as this one to achieve that. In addition, portrayal of Katharine Hepburn.... Cate Blanchett is so peculiar, awkward, and theatrical. Blanchett should act Katharine Hepburn as a person not her characters on the screen.

Weird mixture of poor screenwriting, strange performances, vague ambiance, uncoordinated and unfocused development... just PECULIAR movie.

This film was apparently made to appeal to the lowest common denominator. The most noticeable fault is that much of it is untrue. The movie takes place mostly in the 1940's when Hughes was at the peak of his career. There is very little about his life after that period.

Although much of his private life was personal and not known to the public, this did not stop the film makers from inventing things they didn't know about him. Although there is no reason to think there was anything psychologically wrong with him at that time, the movie makers made him appear as some kind of nut who mumbled to himself and behaved in crazy ways, something that is unsubstantiated and offensive since he was the head of large corporations and did (his company still does) a lot of business with the government, unlikely for a crazy person as he is depicted in this film.

The producers (which include Leonard DiCaprio) apparently took what few bits and pieces of his personal life are known to the public, rearranged them to suit this mostly fictional film, and came up with another trashy Hollywood film.

The acting left much to be desired as well.

I am a genuine lover of films. I write this not to be hateful but to give my honest opinion about a film that is getting hyped by critics but that left me and my friends baffled. Quite frankly, I can't remember a film I despised so much as THE AVIATOR, a beautifully photographed leaden piece of metal with no more heart than a piece of left over scrap metal from the Spruce Goose. Howard Hughes is an admittedly difficult subject matter for a film (perhaps this is why so many announced film projects about the eccentric billionaire have gone by the way side) -- Peculiar to a fault, Scorsese fails to make Hughes sympathetic or understandable to audiences he expect to go on a three hour journey into Hughes madness (which is pretty much the same in the third scene in the film as it is in the last.) DiCaprio does his best, but the character of Hughes has nowhere to go. So he's rich and eccentric and troubled. Why should we care if we can't sympathize or at least empathize? And we are really excepted to believe his life long phobias are the result of a single conversation with his creepy mother during a bath?

The lone bright spot in this film is Cate Blanchett who manages to turn in a richly textured performance of Katherine Hepburn. But her presence ain't worth the boredom you have to wade through the other 2 hours and 45 minutes she's not on film. This is a film critics seem to love, and I'm no critic. But I know when a film leaves me bolting for the exit at the end.

If the site of naked, half mad Howard Hughes lining up rows upon rows of milk bottles filled with urine is your idea of a good time, THE AVIATOR is the film for you.

Suppose Martin Scorsese made a biography of Franklin D. Roosevelt which consisted of three hours of discussion of his affair with Lucy Mercer and his Polio induced disability with only slight attention paid to the Great Depression or WWII. Better yet, suppose the movie ended just after FDR's third inauguration with a Republican foe, played by Alec Baldwin, rising and in two or three sentences, acknowledging defeat and predicting that FDR would end the depression and rid Europe of Nazism and Fascism, making it safe for Socialism.

Substitute Howard Hughes for FDR and change paralysis to OCD and you have, "The Aviator." Scorsese's thesis is that everything Hughes did was the result of an obsession or compulsion. Hughes compulsively chases (and catches) every beautiful Hollywood actress in the 1930's and 40's. Meanwhile, his obsession with airplanes and perfection drives him to design innovative aircraft that enable him to be the first man to circumnavigate the globe in four days and set new air speed records. We are shown a seemingly endless scene (one of many) in which he is trapped in a men's room because he is so obsessed with germs that he is afraid to touch the doorknob. Strangely, this fear of germs doesn't seem to prevent him from touching the private parts of female movie stars. (It should be noted that Hughes's biographers rarely if ever mention his disorder as occurring prior to the late 1950's.) As if in answer to my most fervent prayers, the movie finally concludes in a 1947 scene (after Hughes has defeated the U. S. Senate and several couples have left the theater, but before he has established his business empire) by having Alec Baldwin, as the head of Pan Am, predict Hughes's accomplishments in the 50's and 60's (which should have been shown in scenes replacing those of catch me, catch me with starlets and Hughes suffering from the OCD he had not yet acquired).

Cate Blanchett, currently the best actress in Hollywood, is outstanding as Kate Hepburne. Leo DeCaprio is not credible as a giant like Howard Hughes. He isn't helped by having to spend the duration of the movie displaying a facial expression which seems to say, "I have to find a men's room, fast." For this atrocity, Scorsese should be exiled to movie hell in Northern Minnesota making movies about female iron workers filing sexual harassment law suits.

Knowing quite a bit about Howard Hughes, I expected to see a movie chronicling his minimal exploits in movie-making and his greater exploits as an aviator and a capitalist who built an airline and an aircraft corporation, took on a senate investigating committee and won, and, oh yes, bedded the most beautiful actresses in Hollywood. (NOTE: I was amazed to see that in casting this movie they could find no actresses who could do justice to the beauty of Jean Harlow, Ava Gardner, or even Faith Domergue. That may sound shallow, but beauty is what it was all about. I'll give a grudging pass to Cate Blanchett because of her superb acting. Besides, who ever had the regal beauty of Katherine Hepburne). Back to Hughes: the other interesting fact about Hughes is that at the end of his life he was destroyed by a mental illness we now refer to as obsessive/compulsive disorder. However, few of Hughes' biographers mention the OCD as a significant factor in Hughes' life prior to the late 1950's which is well beyond the time frame of this movie.

To my surprise, the movie was about little other than his OCD which, according to Scorsese, was the driving force behind almost everything Hughes did. I could have lived with that, except for the way it was presented. Poor Leo DeCaprio was forced to spend most of the movie looking as if he had just eaten something nasty. I guess that's what OCD does to you according to Scorsese. In painfully long scenes, DeCaprio would stand unable to function while the camera allowed us to stare at him. It was like watching a turtle on its back trying desperately to right itself.

People all over the theater were holding up their arms, apparently trying to check their watches as we passed the two-hour mark, and a few gave up and left early. Unfortunately, my curiosity overcame my discomfort and I stayed to the bitter end.

Howard Hughes was a much more interesting and complex man than this movie reveals, and his accomplishments were much greater than one would realize from the manner in which they are presented in "The Aviator".

Leo is not the right man for this role – he just isn't able to radiate the power, self-confidence, and even arrogance of Howard Hughes. Scorsese's Hughes comes off as a victim taking apparently stupid risks because of a mental affliction which in real life he had not yet acquired.

I don't know...there was so much hype about this before it came out. I fell asleep in the first half hour and fought to stay awake for the remainder of the movie. I thought Leo and Cate were great however...I do believe that there were more "impersonations" rather than acting? The story line was very choppy.

I always love Leo movies...I think he's an excellent actor. And there isn't one movie that Cate's been in that I haven't enjoyed...until now:(

The costume department did an awesome job. Most of Leo's costumes

were identical to what Hughes wore.

It's ashame; I was really disappointed and if anyone asks me, I'll tell them to save their money and see something else. Sorry, fans:(

Leanardo DeCaprio was entirely the wrong person to play Howard Hughes DeCaprio is a pipsqueak while HH was 6'3 . Also HH had dark eyes not brilliant blue . Gwen Stefani should stick to warbling trash and stay away from acting entirely, her brief turn as Jean Harlow is grating like fingernails on a chalkboard . There is precious little of where HH got his money.He inherited a million on his 21st birthday .Nor is there ample explanation of how or what caused HH to disassociate from the world .His mother bathing him well past the age that it is necessary and her going on about germs and such hardly seems to be enough . It was said during HH's father's day "Sure you can still drill for oil without a Hughes bit, as long as you don't mind using a pick and shovel ". HH's father was the real genius of the family having invented the rotary drill bit for oil exploration . By the way HH's Inheritance in todays dollars is the equivalent of ten million .Plenty for a young man to reinvent the world in his image . Much is made of HH's flying exploits but not much time is given to the 'Spruce Goose' that only managed to reach 70,feet of altitude and only flew for a mile ,hardly impressive stats .Yet Hughes was convinced this aircraft was the salvation the armed forces were looking for . Not much is said about HH's contacts with the CIA and his involvement in many shady deals perpetrated by that agency . Jude Laws cameo as Errol Flynn is alright I suppose as they are both effete in nature . As HH has very little connection to todays generation(movie buying public) this film will flounder and die in a relatively short time . Michael Mann was right to walk away from this project as there just isn't anything new or revealing to say about HH . The script is no revelation nor is the direction . 2 of 5 stars for the 'Aviator' And bye the way all these people debating'Aviator's' opening grosses are missing the fact that only half of the actual gross accrues to the studio the other 50/60% is eaten up by the theaters . So on that scale'Aviator' is without a doubt a bomb . It will be extremely lucky to gross thirty million domestically and will probably do the same over seas . The only thing that can save it is an unprecedented run on DVD .

I went to see this with a friend, and to be quite honest, I would rather watch grass grow. I walked out of the movie before it was over because I was so bored that I just didn't care to find out how it ended. There is something horribly wrong when one wishes that the hero of the movie would die in a plane crash halfway through the movie just to end the torture.

Like others have said, the cinematography was brilliant and Cate Blanchett did a great job, but other than that, there isn't much to see in this. Go read a book about Howard Hughes instead. Or beat your skull against a brick wall, even. It will be far more entertaining.

I swear every time a Miramax picture comes out in December I hear things like "masterpiece","genius","Oscar-worthy". Well, guess what! AVIATOR IS NONE OF THESE THINGS.Hype, hype and more hype, more like. Just because you spent 100 million dollars on making it and advertising doesn't mean it's any good. I know that guys try so hard to sell us the idea of Leo DiCaprio being the best actor this year but I just found the whole experience embarrassing beyond belief.He is HOPELESSLY miscast as Hughes.

Scorcese could be the biggest sell -out in history for all I know. In fact I don't even feel like watching any of his great films again after this disaster. Now go get your f..... Oscar, Marty!

I went and saw The Aviator with 45 other people, all who like different films and were in need of a good movie, any movie, to relax with after a stressful day. All were drawn in by the glow of Oscar nominations, wondering whether any film could compete with Lord Of The Rings: The Return Of The King sweeping the boards last year. During the film, nearly twenty of the people in my group went out half-way through and never came back to watch the rest of the film. Seven people admitted to falling asleep. After the film had finished, only two people said they liked it and even they would give it only 6/10. I personally lost the will to live. Leonardo DiCaprio, who shined in Romeo + Juliet, was irritating and uninteresting. I even found myself growing annoyed with Cate Blanchette, who is a wonderful actress, because of the fact she was in this film. The story advanced slowly and tediously. I didn't really care about the characters as they had little depth to them. Huges obsessive compulsive disorder was never really explained and there was no humour to balance out his repetitive breakdowns. Had the film been created with some black comedy and some in-depth character explorations then this may have been able to do what all films should - entertain. Don't see this movie and don't let it get a single Oscar, please!

He looks like a little boy trying to play the role of a grownup. Has there ever been a worse casting mistake? With his baby face looks, his high pitch voice, his phony Texas twang, and his forced mannerisms, DiCaprio not only is the wrong actor for the role, he is so distracting as to ruin the entire film.

That's the main problem. Another problem is the part of the plot that deals with the tedious technicalities of early aviation. I found it to be totally not interesting. Maybe it would be of interest to an aviation historian.

In addition, the film gushes with busy hubbub and lots of non-substantive chatter. The screenplay must have weighed a ton. Despite all the dialogue, the film's script lacks an emotional spine, making the film seem shallow, superficial, and insincere.

At a cost of over $100 million and a runtime of nearly three hours, the film conveys an air of superiority. It is very, very impressed with itself. It spews implied bravado. I cringe when I consider that the filmmakers could have made five very good films, costing $20 million each. Those are five films we will never see.

However, if you like DiCaprio, the Hollywood "star", you will no doubt like this film. After all, "The Aviator" is mostly just a flashy cinematic vehicle to enhance his star status. Viewers looking for an honest and in-depth study of the life of Howard Hughes will need to look elsewhere.

This was the longest, dumbest movie I've seen in years. There was no plot worth mentioning and whoever cast a very young 20 year old as the mature Howard Hughes without providing any aging makeup was an idiot. The entire cast (excepting Alan Alda) reminded me of little kids dressed up in their parents clothes playing 'adult' (badly). The 'special effects' were noteworthy for being totally unrealistic and the acting was non-existent in most cases. Alan Alda was the only adult in a featured role with all the rest of the older cast portrayed by a very youthful cast. This movie was made for teeny-boppers with a crush on DiCapprio, who should be limited to only those movies requiring a pretty face: preferably without any dialog required.

I was more or less sure that I would'not like this movie and alas I did not!! None of the characters were believable. The casting was about as bad as you could get. When a movie goes out and gets all of the available stars--one should know, it's probably not a very good film!! While maybe the Howard Hughes story is worth while telling, this attempt was way off the mark. So assuming it could have been, not only a passable movie, but maybe even an award winning piece of work. One would have to start totally over--DIRECTOR-WRITER-AND FOR SURE THE CAST!!!!! If this movie wins any serious award, I'll be surprised and even more so wonder did they see the same thing I saw.

Okay, I was lucky enough to see The Aviator in Hollywood, along with half of the world celebrities. With all of the hype of this movie, you would think that Christmas is coming early.

This three hour film starts off well enough but seriously loses steam after it's first hour with Hughe's funding of his big project, Hell's Angels, by the end of the film, with the Spuce Goose, barely anyone in the audience was noticing. Blame it on the slow moving script by John Logan which just skims over Hughes life.

Sorry to disappoint you, but, Marty Scorsese strikes out again, with a lackluster script and terrible performances by Leo and Gwen Stafani.

This movie putters along like a tortoise, with an occasional brief appearance from some of Hollywood's greatest early actresses.

However, one of the main problems, is that Leo DiCaprio just is not believable at all as Howard Hughes in the least. He looks, acts, talks, and dresses like Leo DiCaprio. Every time he spoke I thought he was the drifter from Titanic trying unsuccessfully to imitate Howard Hughes, as well as Russell Crowe in A Beautiful Mind.

There are great performances from Jude Law as Errol Flynn, and Cate Blanchett as Kathrin Heppern.

However, my advice to No Doubt lead singer Gwen Stafani is to keep your day job, because you seriously need acting lessons. You make look like Jean Harlow, but you sure don't act like her in the least. Also, Kate Beckinsale looks strikingly close to Ava Gardner, but, she basically sleepwalks through her role.

Also, I don't think that Marty Scorsese was up to the task of directing the biography of Howard Hughes, I think that Michael Mann should have kept the project, as he is more suited to successfully direct compelling biographies.

I think that Michael Mann and Marty Scorsese should have traded projects this year, with Mann directing The Aviator and Scorsese directing Collateral. I think the results would have been much better.

All in all, not a total disaster, but far from the best film of the year.

Two stars out of four, not worthy of a best picture award in the least.

Far from Scorsese's best work.

If you take all of the bad moments from a mans life and remove the amazing stuff and you are talking about Howard Hughes then this is the movie you would end up with. I feel like I just watched a hit piece on the poor guy. Yes he suffered from mental illness and I'm sure this is important but I just spent far too much of my time in the lowest parts of his life. Frankly I would have loved to focus on the life of his party and not his decline. Money seemed to for some reason come out of thin air. no mention of what he was doing right. Also he was an innovator and very little time was spent on this. Come on Martin this guy's whole life was about innovation. Shame on you Martin what did you have against the guy...

You'd better take a pillow. This film is so dull it's unreal. It goes from bore to bore. Yes, we knew Howard Hughes was a recluse. So they blame it all on his mother, very Freudian. The descent into madness is very quick, the whole "hygiene" plot isn't very well explained at all. I was just bored almost all the time. Even the plane sequences weren't particularly inspiring. basically it's the story of a rich kid left money by his parents and he decides to use it to make films and build planes. More power to him I say. I'd have liked to have seen more of Howard's life explored instead of just concentrating on the Hollywood bit. Jane Russell and Jean Harlow (played by the stunning Gwen Stefani who really looked amazing on screen) could have been used a lot more. Leonardo Di Caprio isn't very watchable at all as Howard Hughes, i think they hired him so the woman would flock in for his nude scenes. A very very very very very very very BORING film. Go see something else.

Just another example of DiCapprio's lack of acting abilities. Not to mention mis-casting of the actresses. Shallow performances all around.

Story is decent, but overshadowed by the lack of skill of the cast.

I was hoping for a better bio-pic, but it seems to be a skill that Hollywood is now lacking. Gone are the days of great character actors playing roles in good films, they weren't always historically accurate, but at least they were viewable.

By the end of The Aviator I wanted my money back. It's so tiring to keep seeing the same group of actors who, because of too much media hype, think they are great acting talents. It would be interesting to see what Jim Carey would have done with the part.

So where do i start ..hmm . film is really uninteresting i had watch the movie until end only cause my girlfriend push me to it..for her only reason why film is good cause Di Caprio is in it !! So i would agree with other users that was one big TORTURE !!And the end of the film also what happened with with Howard and when did he died ,or did he finished in hospital , the film was only about before-war years and war years and i don't know what to say anymore but for me this film was one big disappointment..

And yet, despite the obvious talent of all those involved and Scorsese's ability to effortlessly fill three hours, something about The Aviator fails to completely satisfy. Without wanting to sound like a film student, movies should, ultimately, be ABOUT something; love, honor, courage, redemption, the BIG ideas and themes that are the fuel of the plot. What was the drive of The Aviator? A rich guy recklessly spends lots of money to indulge his personal obsessions and gets away with it.That is all point of the movie and i don't know how can that be interesting for the viewers ... So here is my vote ..1 (awful) >>!!

OK this is my first review, sorry it had to be this way, but i had to comment on it. Hughes was a very interesting person. I was interested in this movie for this reason and direction from friends. I am an avid movie watcher with my own home theater and 112" TV! I've tried to watch this movie three times now and this movie is so freaking drab and boring and long. I guess people that comment and enjoyed this movie must parallel in this demeanor, because thus far...it sucks. p.s. so does DeCaprio (poor actor). OK, I had to amend this comment three times because this stupid database doesn't allow for you to post slag or anything of the like and likewise the comments have to be ten lines long. This sucks arseholes also.

Let's see,I found the movie boring and much too long. I watched six people walk out before the movie ended. I am only glad I paid the early show price. After 3 hours of watching my life waste away I had plenty of time to think about this, save your money! If you are thinking of going to the theater and watching this and you think I'm wrong thats fine, just please wait until it comes out on VHS or DVD. As an Oscar contender, this movie flops in every sense of the word. DiCaprio fails miserably in his portrayal of the late great Howard Hughes. Don't waste your money on this bomb. If I was not with two other people I would have walked out after the first hour. There was,however, one good part about the movie... The end credits!

The Emperor's New Clothes is a Hans Christian Anderson fable about tailors who convince everyone that only a fool wouldn't be able to see the suit they make for the Emperor. One small boy has the guts to speak out that there is no suit, the Emperor is naked. This sums up this film perfectly: A-list stars, A-list Director, A-list budget = fabulous outfit, but there's nothing there. It is a con.

The Problem: the actors behave as if it's a talent show to be the best impressionist, thus focus on themselves resulting in an inability to accommodate interaction with other actors. The characters are separate, exaggerated caricatures of memories. The only actors to mimic effectively and have awareness of others were Jude Law and Kate Beckinsale, who gave connected performances. Watching Di Caprio manically overtly acting a tortured soul, who was upstaged by the make-up department, was not only soullessly stupid to watch, but embarrassing for him because he thinks he is being different from his usual roles. He had not built any humanity into the previous scenes, hence there was nothing for the audience to grasp and care about when he was ill. His performance makes Russell Crowe look like a genius in Beautiful Mind and Martin Scorsese's directing makes Ron Howard look like the master of biopics. This film is a completely disjointed, arrogant, pretentious pile of meaningless images with no depth, understanding, feeling, narrative direction, believability, nor entertainment value. Knowledge and interest in aeroplane technology did not help me like this film, because it did not show any passion or insight into this subject matter! The film is so boring it hurts.

Question: why is this film nominated for 14 Oscars? My Rating: 1/10. The worst three hours incarcerated in a cinema ever. I was boiling with anger at being conned into watching such rubbish. Of the thousands of films I have seen (of all Nationalities and eras), this was the worst at all levels. The interesting musical score was the only reason I sometimes stayed awake.

Why see this film: because you are in love Leo Di Caprio and Martin Scorsese, or because you can see the Emperor's New Clothes.