Sergio Leone Web Board

Other/Miscellaneous => Off-Topic Discussion => Topic started by: Dust Devil on August 19, 2010, 06:22:03 AM



Title: The Aviator (2004)
Post by: Dust Devil on August 19, 2010, 06:22:03 AM

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0338751/


Okay so I finally watched this: it's not a complete letdown, but it's certainly not a great movie. The main story is, IMO, very poorly connected, it is like a series of (watchable, albeit not dramatically outstanding) episodes going randomly one after another, gravitating mainly around Hughes' war with his OCD. The rest seems phony: he is losing money - but he's got a sea of it (he ain't gonna end up on the street), he's got many women - but he doesn't seem to care (so what's the point?), etc. In short lines: there wasn't one single moment when I felt I'd miss something important if I'd get up and go to the kitchen for 10 minutes, or just turn the TV off. So, this is what it is: you watch it once (although you don't really have to), and never again.


5 (point something) out of 10


Title: Re: The Aviator (2004)
Post by: Dust Devil on August 19, 2010, 06:23:33 AM
Am I being too harsh?


Title: Re: The Aviator (2004)
Post by: stanton on August 19, 2010, 06:37:39 AM
Don't know, I have only seen it once. It really doesn't have much of a connected narrative. And the spectacular scene of the airplane crash is completely out of place in this film.

A 6/10 for me, which will maybe become a 7 when I watch it again. But still, I generally don't like biographies, so I maybe won't watch it again.


Title: Re: The Aviator (2004)
Post by: Groggy on August 19, 2010, 08:15:00 AM
I got about an hour into it before the scratched DVD broke down. I thought it was decent; surprisingly I was enjoying Cate Blanchet's Hepburn impression very much, since I can't stand the real thing.


Title: Re: The Aviator (2004)
Post by: Dust Devil on August 19, 2010, 12:15:21 PM
It really doesn't have much of a connected narrative.

We seem to agree.

since I can't stand the real thing.

Fool.


Title: Re: The Aviator (2004)
Post by: cigar joe on August 19, 2010, 03:28:04 PM
Yea I though Cate Blanchet's Hepburn impression was the highlight too 5/10 probably never have to watch it agin.


Title: Re: The Aviator (2004)
Post by: dave jenkins on August 19, 2010, 03:34:31 PM
This isn't a movie I probably will ever watch unless I happen upon it on TV sometime. My suspicion is that Hughes, for all his money, just wasn't a very interesting man. To get anything worthwhile  out of him as a character you probably have to do something like what Demme did in Melvin and Howard: make him a secondary character.


Title: Re: The Aviator (2004)
Post by: noodles_leone on August 19, 2010, 03:41:33 PM
No connexion with the story and the character. All your criticisms are true.
However, one of the greatest piece of filmmaking/editing ever, if you forget a couple failures (the opening........). From a technical standpoint, it's worth watching once per week, like most Scrosese movies (excluding kundun, new york new york and the last passion of the christ). Once again, Scorsese is now far over 70, and he's still, technically speaking, the most modern director/editor around (he has owned the title since Taxi Driver, actually). But it's long and boring, so... I'll stay with once a year.


Title: Re: The Aviator (2004)
Post by: titoli on August 19, 2010, 03:42:10 PM
My suspicion is that Hughes, for all his money, just wasn't a very interesting man.

 ::)


Title: Re: The Aviator (2004)
Post by: PowerRR on August 19, 2010, 10:49:57 PM
Scorsese is a better director than Sergio Leone


Title: Re: The Aviator (2004)
Post by: Dust Devil on August 20, 2010, 04:04:33 AM
However, one of the greatest piece of filmmaking/editing ever, if you forget a couple failures (the opening........). From a technical standpoint, it's worth watching once per week, like most Scrosese movies (excluding kundun, new york new york and the last passion of the christ). Once again, Scorsese is now far over 70, and he's still, technically speaking, the most modern director/editor around

Aeh now, ''one of the greatest pieces of filmmaking/editing ever'' seems exaggerated.

The crash scene is probably the best scene in the movie, but if you watch it more carefully you can see the stitches when the camera changes angles.


Title: Re: The Aviator (2004)
Post by: dave jenkins on August 20, 2010, 01:05:55 PM
I won't hear anything against New York, New York.


Title: Re: The Aviator (2004)
Post by: Dust Devil on August 20, 2010, 01:24:50 PM
I won't hear anything against New York, New York.

You won't, won't.

This is a message board, not the radio, radio.


Title: Re: The Aviator (2004)
Post by: T.H. on August 21, 2010, 01:51:28 PM
Am I being too harsh?

Not harsh enough, if anything.

New York, New York is not only a better movie, it's definitely more visually appealing. Outside of the crash scene, Aviator is a dull movie for the most part; in all aspects. I'd also say that 'Christ' has better visuals - and is superior as well.

and lol at scorsese being diverse enough to pull off making AFOD and West or America. He's a mediocre director when out of an urban setting.


Title: Re: The Aviator (2004)
Post by: dave jenkins on August 22, 2010, 04:00:16 PM
He's a mediocre director when out of an urban setting.
Perhaps you should qualify that with "modern urban setting." Or do you think that The Age of Innocence is a success?


Title: Re: The Aviator (2004)
Post by: Dust Devil on August 23, 2010, 11:23:18 AM
The biggest problem (besides the all around dullness) is the whole OCD thing. It isn't convincing at all, and it's what the whole movie gravitates around. Has the condition always been there, or is it slowly progressing? I couldn't really tell watching the movie, as if the director and screenwriter weren't sure themselves. I mean we see him having episodes from the start, it all culminates near the end when he closes himself in that room, but then he gets out and you have the feeling he finally jumped over it (he eats with the crooked Senator and appears lucid in court), though obviously without a point as we see him flip out yet again in the very end, for no reason at all (as I see it).

I am by no means an expert, but I do not think many people understood what was his problem, and how it affected his life (what's the connection between his fear of germs and the impulse to repeat sentences?).


Title: Re: The Aviator (2004)
Post by: stanton on August 23, 2010, 12:26:27 PM
Perhaps you should qualify that with "modern urban setting." Or do you think that The Age of Innocence is a success?

For me The Age of Innocence belongs to his best. New York, New York is one I have to watch again, and would like to watch again. My memories are pretty positive. It has at least the enthralling nervousness of all the great Scorsese films.


Title: Re: The Aviator (2004)
Post by: Dust Devil on August 23, 2010, 01:33:42 PM
Tried watching TAOI once... as you can see I didn't die, but I was damn close.


Title: Re: The Aviator (2004)
Post by: PowerRR on August 23, 2010, 04:45:08 PM
and lol at scorsese being diverse enough to pull off making AFOD and West or America. He's a mediocre director when out of an urban setting.
Then couldn't you say Leone is a mediocre director outside of a western setting? Colossus of Rhodes and The Last Days of Pompeii are still his movies, you know, whether people choose to forget them or not. Sure, America is the greatest film ever made in my opinion. But there must be at least one Scorsese film not in a (modern) urban setting which you like. Such as The Last Temptation of Christ. Who's to know that if Leone lived longer, he would have continued striving in non-western filmmaking? Scorsese may have many more weak efforts than most directors, but he has also made many more movies than most modern directors.

Ya, I pretty much only come by here now to suck Marty's cock.