User reviews

Watching this film was torture.

First there was the soundtrack -- tinny sounding music from the big band era which seemed to be coming from schoolroom intercom speakers. Then there was Scorcese's constantly moving camera. What's up with that? He actually made me feel seasick. I had to close my eyes quite a lot during the film.

But worst of all was the treatment -- a story totally without soul. It's fair to compare it with Franco Zeffirelli's recent "Callas Forever" which was a touching tribute full of love for the subject matter. There was none of that in Aviator. Scorcese seems not to have liked Hughes very much, which is too bad as it made us uncaring as well.

I gave it a 2. Hubby (who was the one who wanted to see it) gave it a 3. You might want to give it a miss!

I really wanted to be able to name one redeeming feature about this film. I've thought about it long and hard and I finally realized there was one. It ended!!! Don't go to this film it's long and brush, I actually heard people snoring in the theater. Though Leo did play a very convincing part, the rest of the film really had absolutely no redeeming qualities. No matter how interested you are in Howard Hughes don't I repeat Do Not waste your money or the 3 hours of your life you'll never get back watching this movie. For those interested the film I thought to be even worse than this was monkey-bone. Horrible, Horrible.

I rented this film after hearing a lot of praise for it. However, I had high hopes that were never realised. To be blunt, it was painful to watch.

This film is one of the most boring movies I have ever watched. In fact, I stopped it after less than an hour to take a suddenly-desired nap. After resuming, I kept looking at the clock wondering how much longer I was going to have to sit through the film. I have no problem with lengthy films, as long as the story can maintain the attention span. And, a film doesn't have to be action-packed to do that. "Patton" and "Ray" are great examples of long, biographical films that keep the audience interested.

Granted, I did learn a little about Mr Hughes (as most film biographies intend to do). A lot of his personal issues were presented, but nothing came of them. Most of the film built the background for the Senate Committee hearing, but that hearing itself was shown for about 15 minutes and the outcome was not known. What was the point of even bringing it up? As an aside note, I found it funny how the Maine Senator heading the committee looked a bit like Vice President Dick Cheney. Coincidence? Or did Mr Scorsese try to make another Hollywood political statement? I just couldn't wait until this film was over. But, I was surprised at the abrupt ending. One minute you are watching this guy go through another OCD attack, the next you are watching the credits. I thought "What? It's over just like that?" but reminded myself to be grateful my suffering had ended.

This movie sucked.

I started watching this movie, but I caught myself starting to use 8x fast forward on my DVD player very often, because movie is boring.

Leonardo Di Caprio's acting seems unconvincing.

Colour scheme used on the beginning on the movie: some call it, and praise it as "artistic", but it only annoyed me. (what's the point of using that color scheme, when it looks bad, and also,very few people know how did colors of from the 1930 movies looked alike, so they can't understand why is the grass blue)

There are some Martin Scorceses movies which I like (Casino etc), and also Leonardo Di Caprios (Catch me..), but this one is horrible.

After seeing the ratings and reading some comments on this movie, I find that I must be out of touch (be nice, now). I just couldn't get into this lightweight treatment of the subject...Howard Hughes.

I know that some think DeCaprio is a great actor...Please! He was totally unconvincing, that is if you are old enough to remember the real Hughes.

And Blanchett did an atrocious Hepburn. I at least expect to be drawn into the character, both by physical looks and actions. If you remember Hepburn in her early days, you know she was a striking beauty, not a broad-nosed, wide-faced plain looking gal. Her voice characterizations seemed strained to me.

I was never drawn into this movie, although it had some good special effects, not counting the obvious computer generations. IMO, Scorcese needs to get a new casting director or consider hanging up his track shoes. I have come to expect far better movies from him than this piece of polyester.

A very artfully filmed (visual) and acted film. But, not worth the price for movie tickets, DVD, or pay per view. Wait till it comes on network TV. Do not get me wrong this film is worth seeing for those who remember when Howard Hughes was the richest man in the world. I it just isn't worth paying to see. The story fixated on Howard Hughes decent into madness and only briefly touched on all other aspects of this genius and his life. I don't know just what this film lacked, soul perhaps, but save your money for something, anything, better......

The acting was superb, Leonardo, Cate and Kate all gave worthy performances. But not enough to save the film.

If you ever saw a biography you would know that this film didn't even mention most of the most fascinating achievements and aspects of Hughes life. Ever wonder what happened to all those billions? They are still around. Every year 100 million are given to support medical research.

as a documentary, it left so many gaps, that only those who had some knowledge of the true story could understand the leaps in the 'plot'. the computer animation is crude!! much below now days standard. the flying boat and the water spray look like films done in the seventies. de caprio is the wrong actor for this part and his appearance does not change in the span of two decades!! he stays young after crashes and madness period to win the hearing. bad films which are short have at least one thing positive - the end is close to the beginning. in this case even that does not apply!!!! the film is too long !!!! save your money.

If there is a worse acted movie recently I haven't seen it. Oh yes I have, it's 'Pearl Harbor'. Even Jude Law was terrible and he's a fine actor with remarkable charm. As for Cate Blanchett.. what was she doing? It was like a high school drama fest. She's not a very good actress but this was an astonishingly bad performance. I kept rewinding the first scene to make sure it really was as terrible as I thought it was. I checked out after about a half hour. Life is too short. And all the nonsense about 'Hell's Angels". That movie is dreck. Harlow is dreadful. There is some good ariel footage but that's about it.

I thought that The Age of Innocence was made by a philistine but it's The Magnificent Ambersons compared to this garbage.

Read a book. Tell a story. Learn how to direct actors. Thank you.

"The Aviator" is tiresomely overlong, anti-climactic, and indeed as purposeless a screen biography as I've ever seen. Further to the film's discredit, Leonardo DiCaprio is overparted in just the way Patty Duke was when she attempted adult roles. Lacking sufficient presence, he too looks annoyingly just like a high school student dressed up to play a grownup. This limitation robs almost all his scenes of any clout. An exception are those in which he debates with a Senate committee and to succeed needs only recite the well written, David Mamet-like lines there given him. Otherwise, he's pretty much a disaster. Even worse, though equally overpraised in the press, is the usually fine actress Cate Blanchett who does not so much act the role of Katherine Hepburn as mimic that great star in the manner of a female impersonator. With her thrust forward jaw and quavering "Howids," she too was impossible to believe for a minute. Two stars to this film for the scenes mentioned, the fine retro ties, and the art deco and forties sets.

I understand that Howard Hughs was a very important person in the history of film making. This "movie" however, was so incredibly long and does not keep you interested. Kate Blanchett did not portray Kathrine Hepburn in a realistic manner at all, It was offensive. You've shown that Howard went insane in your version, but not why. Why would be a good enough reason to possibly keep interest. The "movie" is not worth the Ten Dollars that it cost to see. You're better off waiting for it to come out on Network Television, even then you'd still be paying way too much money on your electric bill for this horrible "movie." The only redeeming part of the "movie" was Leo and Gwen and Kate Beckingsail's acting abilities. They deserve an Oscar just for pulling off the ridiculous script.

Great idea, this, and fairly well executed, but the movie can't seem to make up it's mind about which way to go. Action, drama, psychological drama, storytelling or whatever... di Caprio performs OK, but he is not credible when he's supposed to depict the then 40-tears old Hughes, and no matter what the make-up dept. did to him, he still looks 23. Kate Blanchett and Alan Alda deliver outstanding performances, as does Matt Ross, and also Alec Baldwin does a better-than-average job. Plane crash sequences doesn't work well (most air scenes do, however), and the movie stops just as things get interesting. Many weird camera angles and abrupt cuts, and also quite a few tricks borrowed from Orson Welles (who performed them infinitely better). Not all computer animation works properly, and somehow, this movie is thoroughly clean. True, clean Hollywood scenery, sunsets, beaches, houses, etc. Even the blood and dirt in crash scene looks clean, and everything looks like a cake with too much icing. It just doesn't feel right.

Not quite a complete waste of time, but close.

There was nothing about the film that interested me besides the production design. Leonardo was nothing like what Hughes was, who was over six feet tall. And to ignore the fact that Hepburn was a Lesbian only goes to show what a cowardly director he is. For some reason Hollywood is in love with everything this director does, and the film going public just goes along. I personally hated, Cape Fear, loved the original, Hugo, Shudder Island, Gangs of New York, Age of Innocence. With the sort of budgets he can command, there is no reason they should not look good. His best film IMO is WOLF OF WALL STREET. That being a huge surprise for me.

Sorry but i was very disappointed watching this movie. I know the story of this great man called Howard Hughes and this movie doesn't tell the right story of this very special and complex character. Di Caprio is not the right man to perform this movie. There are better actors out there who could do it much better... There is a big leak in fact about the real live of Howard Hughes. The movie doesn't tell absolutely nothing about whats happening after he was test flying the plane, that he went into the Helicopter business etc, etc. This movie likes a typical Hollywood action stuff for teenagers. Scorsese, you can do much better!! I am a fan of Skorsese but this thing is not worth to watch. I hope some day somebody will make a real biography of this great man with real fact! Why the movie does not show nothing about his flight to Europe and round the world?? Instead watching how he is cleaning his hands over and over again, pissing in milk bottles, stupid nude scenes etc.. I can't understand why so many Oscars??

I am disappointed by this movie. It shows us something we are supposed to understand, but not all of us are aviators and producers, so I think it is high expectation. It is some complicated business. Could not watch the whole movie. Talk and negativity dominates in form of arguing, divorce, revenge, bids. Also do not like these genres and old times. I expected less talk, more action, and more positivity. Leonardo is not my favorite actor, I think he is better suited for older folks who understand him and such times. And worst of all, movie is too long, wastes our time too much. Not worth it. No lesson, no motivation, nothing to like. Just shows some disordered lifestyle, spending too much money, lack of morality and responsibility. This makes not only this movie uninteresting, but also the original person movie is about. Similar to Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (2019) which is just as boring, but at least that one is saved by Brad Pitt, who showed some fun and action. These are worst movies - movies about movies.

...it has not 'aged' well. DeCaprio gives a decent performance but the scenes reminded me of Beatty's mess 'Reds'. Ex. the scene in the nightclub with Jude Law (Errol Flynn) acting foolish - there was no editing to a script from scene to scene.

The Aviator was possibly the biggest waste of my life. It was a really long film in which nothing memorable or even vaguely interesting happened. If I had paid for the movie I would have left the cinema half way through, however as it was a friend's money I stayed and had to watch a man trying to open a door after his little black stone fell in a trash can. Frankly that is where the film should have been instead of on the screen. If there is anything more that I can say to you to dissuade you from seeing this abomination of a film I wish that I'd said it. This is the biggest waste of money since McDonald's salad menu.

Anyone who has read any of the numerous biographies on the life of Howard Hughes, particularly Noah Dietrich's own best-seller, will do well to avoid this Hollywood pot-boiler because they will be mightily disappointed. The chutzpah of the makers in omitting huge chunks of the Hughes' story and the host of interesting and historical characters who impinged on Hughes' life, whilst embellishing relatively minor incidents is little short of breathtaking. The casting of the baby-faced DiCaprio as the central character is laughable - at no time does he even come close to close to capturing the essence of a man who was a giant of his times. About the only good thing that can be said about this film is that the few flying scenes are well done. But as an accurate portrayal of an American titan, forget about it - the earlier version starring Tommy Lee Jones is far superior.

Considering that this is an attempt to tell the story of just part of the life of one of the most enigmatic people who ever lived, it was a mistake to have even considered it in the first place. The cast, generally speaking, is excellent. The production values and art direction are extremely high. The script, in a word, stinks. This movie should have never been made. First of all, this film deals with only a small part of Howard Hughes' life. It seems fragmented and disjointed. There is no "beginning" to the story, we're just thrown into his life in the late 1920's and not given any background as to who this is and where he's from. The movie ends pretty much the same way. As what apparently is not said anymore in the movie business, what's the motivation? There doesn't seem to be any. We are treated to a somewhat clinical observation of a multi-millionaire and his various psychological exploits. This makes the character flat and a non-person. Some of the other characters such as Katherine Hepburn are given the same consideration. They are merely names and dates in history without personalities and depth. Is this what Mr. Scorsese actually intended? Is he tearing down these people or is he actually not aware of what was happening? On some level it could appear that he has a personal grudge against Howard Hughes and most of the rest of the characters because he doesn't bring out any dimension or humanity in these people. That's for minds more qualified than mine in psychology to delve into. I'm only writing my opinion about what I saw. Dramatic presentations about historical events and people are never accurate and so don't go into this film expecting the absolute truth. As is usual, they got the names and dates right but not the story. Howard Hughes was extremely complex, not normal by societal convention, and much more than just a megalomaniac womanizer as portrayed here by the inept, incredulous performance of DiCaprio. Rent this if you have the time to waste.

This movie is not good story telling. First, the entire feel of it was like an overdone parody. Second, some of the performances were lacking in depth.

The two worst performances came from the sorely miscast DiCaprio (Hughes) and Blanchett (Hepburn). Both gave cringe-worthy performances - just caricatures that no one can possibly buy into - and those kind of performances carried throughout making this movie nearly unwatchable. The only reason I gave it a 2 is because some of the other supporting cast did an excellent job in their roles.

I'm not a big fan of DiCaprio. I actually find him unappealing to watch but wanted to give his work another try since Hughes' life story is an interesting one, but he yet again failed to impress me. I recommend watching Tommy Lee Jones' version of Hughes in the movie, "The Amazing Howard Hughes". He gave a much superior performance.

The over done production values, terrible script, and bizarre performances really don't make this movie watchable to the end. I finally shut it off about half-way through.

This movie is great fun, but it fails audiences - abysmally. It is completely silent about the most dramatic scenes of Howard Hughes' love life. It would have been far more accurate and more interesting if it had left out Hepburn altogether. Nothing of importance occurred in Howard's romantic interlude with Hepburn and in fact he dumped her just as soon as his love interest became available. Yet this film doesn't just skim over the main point, it misses it entirely.

The actress that entranced Howard Hughes was immensely more powerful and far more renowned than Katharine Hepburn. Courteous, professional, polite, straight as an arrow, tremendously active and wildly fun-loving, she was Hepburn's polar opposite in personality and a far superior athlete. Where Hepburn lived on the family wealth that bought her a career, this scintillating actress was a fiercely hard working, self-made woman. For years, her films paid for Hepburn's endless stream of flops. Probably the greatest triple threat in history, she had by far the widest range of talent of any celebrity that lived during Howard Hughes' lifetime and he absolutely adored her.

There can only be one valid reason why Scorcese failed so flagrantly to tell this far more fascinating story and that is, that no actress could portray her. Certainly beyond Cate Blanchett.

Her home in the skies saw an endless stream of some of the most famous people in film, art, and sport. Hughes courted her with an Old Southern gallantry that was completely at odds with how he treated women like Harlow and Hepburn, Russell and Gardner. He called upon her mother for permission to see her, and that courtship is unquestionably the high point of Howard Hughes' love life.

The story of their relationship would have been perfect for 'The Aviator.' It touches the main point of the movie as it reveals Hughes' descent into what he became later; the spying and phone tapping and secretive plotting for which he became notorious first appeared during their affair. The scenes of romance and glittering fame, and the stupendous emerald engagement ring that was the talk of the entire country. The frantic desperation of Hughes' attempted suicide when she caught him in his philandering. The breakup in his hospital room. Howard's lifelong attorney recalled Howard's devastation when she made her final exit. It was the only time his attorney and closest friend ever saw the billionaire playboy in tears. Howard Hughes never recovered from the heartbreak he received from Ginger Rogers.

When he guts a story like he did with 'The Aviator,' Scorcese has a lot to answer for.