The Aviator
reviewed by Brian "The Naked Gun" Felts & Benn "Where's the Humanity?" Farrell

I have to apologize to Leonardo DiCaprio. He has shown me acting ability which I thought he would never achieve. So to you Leo, I prostrate myself before you. He does a fantastic job in yet another of the endless stream of bio-pics this year, starring as Howard Hughes, the eccentric airplane, Hollywood and industrial mogul.

"The Aviator" picks up as Hughes is producing and directing his war epic "Hells Angels." Played by Leonardo DiCaprio (Catch Me If You Can), he is very much a hands on guy and has to be on top of everything not dealing with the family company, inherited from his parents after making their fortune. He hires a man to take over the family industry, Noah Dietrich, played by John C. Reilly (Chicago), who eventually takes over all financial matters. Meanwhile, Hughes spends his time between making movies and flying planes as well as inventing them. This goes on during the great depression, but as it gets closer to war, Hughes wants to trade making movies with his girlfriend Katherine Hepburn, played by Cate Blanchett (Lord of the Rings trilogy), for making military planes. Hughes and Hepburn split up, and he becomes a little more isolated and untrusting of other people. However, he does buy TWA (Trans World Airlines) and becomes in direct competition with Juan Trippe the owner of Pan American Airlines, played by Alec Baldwin (The Cooler). Trippe in turn uses his connections in congress, specifically Senator Ralph Brewster, played by Alan Alda (TV's M.A.S.H.), attempting to frame Hughes into selling TWA to Trippe. There is a lot more to this story, but you get the jist of it.

The acting in this movie was great, particularly Leo. He showed a depth of character which I thought we would never see. He was very convincing in showing how Hughes goes from being quirky, to eccentric, to probably insane. Leo also is very convincing with his accent. It did not sound fake, unlike Cate Blanchett's accent which did very much. She was also annoying as Hepburn, but as my friend pointed out Hepburn was probably annoying in real life, so I won't fault Blanchett for her performance. I would also like to say it was nice seeing Alan Alda in a mainstream movie, even though his portrayal of a corrupt congressman, probably Republican, was uninspiring. He has played so many of those characters in past smaller movies, but I liked seeing him still. I also want to give kudos to John C. Reilly who did a great job as Hughes' manager.

The story is quite good. Even though the movie did not seem to drag, it probably did not need to go three hours. Scenes which showed Hughes going off the deep end were interesting, but seemed to last one second too long. The ending very much seemed to show this problem with Hughes, staring at the camera, just a second too long. Also, I would liked to have seen a little bit more of how Hughes got this phobia of germs. The opening scene is of him being bathed by his mother as a child. As she does this, she warns him about the disease running around their neighborhood, and he is never safe. Obviously, this is used to set up his fear, but I would liked to have seen just a little more for clarification.

The special effects were great. Zooming in and out of the various cockpits which Hughes was in, I could almost not tell when the shot was going from computer generated to live action. The dog fight scene in the beginning of the film is great. Costumes and sets are also great and very detail oriented. Overall, a very nice job by director Martin Scorsese (Casino, Age of Innocence), which this is his second time working with DiCaprio; the first being 2002's "Gangs of New York." To me, the weakest link was the story for above reasons, but John Logan (The Last Samurai, Gladiator) did a nice job of bringing a difficult character to the big screen. His next project should be an even more difficult task, as he is the writer for the 2005-06 "Sweeny Todd."

I had a hard time grading this movie. There has been so much Academy Award buzz, I thought this movie would be great, except for Leo. I left the theater thinking that Leo was great, and the movie was pretty good. So that is why my rating is as it is. "The Aviator" should get nominated, but there may be better out there. I do hope Leo gets a nomination as Best Actor. He deserves it.

Brian - the Naked Gun

Wow. "The Aviator" was such a gripping story about a man with the ability to do anything he wants in the world and suffers from crippling mental handicaps. However, the man is movie and industrial mogul Howard Hughes, and although he marked his place in aviation history, I found it difficult to identify with him on many levels.

First off, I'm always a little biased when it comes to motion pictures depicting the making of other motion pictures, like "RKO 281" and "Postcards from the Edge." So, since Hughes is shown directing his 1930 released picture "Hell's Angels," I was quickly interested in what "Tha Aviator" was going to present.

However, I wish the picture included the fact Hughes produced 26 pictures in over 30 years, since 1926. We were only shown him directing two.

Here is what I really enjoyed about the picture. I really enjoyed watching Leonardo DiCaprio (Gangs of New York) come one step closer to being the kind of actor who can tackle anything. I gained a lot of respect for him with "Catch Me If You Can," and now I have more respect for him with "The Aviator."

In the second half of this picture, it was obvious DiCaprio was elbows thick into this true life character. I really enjoyed watching him.

I also enjoyed Cate Blanchett (Elizabeth) as Katherine Hepburn. At no time did I see Hepburn in this performance, only Blanchett as Hepburn. However, the character she created using Hepburn as inspiration was very vivid and good for some amusement through the picture's second hour.

Alec Baldwin (The Cooler) as Juan Trippe shows he is again able to focus on his physical character, and not just his vocal delivery. Overall, I think "The Aviator" is one of the best pictures released in 2004.

That being said, I have a couple problems with the film. There were a lot of non-essential scenes. For example, after Kate Hepburn dumps Hughes for Spencer Tracy, Hughes hires a 15 year old hooker, named Faith, to be his escort at a variety of Hollywood functions. He states clearly their relationship would be contracted, and she would be an employee of his. When we see Hughes trotting around with this girl, he is rude to her, like a father talking down to his daughter.

Then, Hughes has a couple dates with Ava Gardner, played by Kate Beckinsale (Pearl Harbor). All of a sudden, while on a date with Gardner, Faith shows up ramming her car into Hughes' vehicle. Faith is upset and screaming about Hughes cheating on her. I thought she was just an employee?

The filmmakers never showed us a FRAME of Faith having ACTUAL feelings for Hughes. All of a sudden, there she is, and she's pissed. Why? To make matters worse, Hughes runs to her and tries to explain Gardner means nothing to him. Why is he justifying himself to that 15 year old employee? Why does Hughes care what his date with Gardner looks like to her? This whole sequence was useless by that point in the movie. It should have been a deleted scene for the DVD.

Also, even though I really dig director Martin Scorsese's body of work, this picture has good and bad choices from behind the camera. His good choices refer to his shot selection during scenes where Hughes was in the air. The crash sequence of the HX-11 was flipping awesome and intense.

However, his use of two color film processing was very unusual for the scenes selected. I spent most of the night, after seeing the picture, thinking what connection these scenes could have, to require this processing trick, but I simply couldn't. There's no reason for it, except Scorsese decided to do it, and he's a genius, so there. I'm not going to argue, but I am confused.

I REALLY liked methods from Scorsese and writer John Logan (Gladiator, The Last Samurai) in showing Hughes' schizophrenia. Particularly, one scene where Hepburn suddenly shows up at his office, to say thanks for buying up some tabloid material, protecting her and Tracy, was very out of place. I thought to myself, "This is very sudden. What gives?"

What gave was, Hepburn wasn't actually there. She was a part of his mental illness. The same goes for Ava Gardner coming to the rescue, to pull Hughes together and prepare him for the congressional hearing. Again, after the last time we saw Gardner, I would've figured she'd have nothing to do with Hughes ever again. Again, Gardner wasn't actually there in that scene. She was only a figment of his ailment. I loved that. It was very subtle, and stayed clear of "A Beautiful Mind," the last hit movie I saw with a schizophrenic main character.

My final criticism is the aging, or lack thereof, on the part of the Hughes' character. The picture's story begins in 1927, when Hughes is 22 years old. The picture ends when Hughes is age 42. DiCaprio did NOT look 42 at the end of the picture. The lack of aging from Scorsese and the makeup department left me unclear of the timeline in the picture's series of events. If it weren't for posting the dates of certain events on the screen, I'd be almost completely lost.

I feel DiCaprio, again, did his very best to age HIMSELF to 42, but the director didn't keep up with him.

I think "The Aviator" is more than worth seeing. However, it gets a little too enveloped in the life of a man who had everything handed to him through life.

At one point in the picture, he criticizes Hepburn's rich mother and proclaims himself to be a man who works for a living. Yes, Howard Hughes went to work everyday, but I--being a blue collar baby--was almost insulted to hear Hughes talk about himself as if he represented the "working man."

At the end of the month, the "working man" wonders where he's going to come up with the money for his heart medicine again. I doubt Hughes EVER experience THOSE kind of worries.

See "The Aviator," period.

Benn - Where's the Humanity?