I just got back from this movie, and it was freakin fantastic. All 3 hours of it were completely incredible. I am a sucker for character driven films, and this is one of the most well acted movies I've ever seen. Leo is unreal, as is Kate Blanchett... both would be snubbed of an Oscar if they don't win.
Ok snob... give him a fucking chance, he's brilliant in the movie. If that's your justification for not seeing it then you are probably worried about someone thinking you're gay... well, no now your just dumb... go see it, or get a better reason
It just opened here in Houston today and the theaters were absolutely jammed (surprise.), so it'll have to wait until the day after tomorrow or so for me to catch it; The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou is higher up on my list at the moment. With any luck it won't be an absolute bore like the last time DiCaprio and Scorcese paired up, that being in The Gangs of New York.
Here's to hoping for a good three hours this go around.
DiCaprio gets a bad rap as some pretty boy actor. The guys got decent skills, its not like he's Ben Affleck or Freddie Prinze for crissakes. Im gonna have to check this out. Besides, its Scorcese!
Guys, I forgot to mention how much this movie reminded me of the best movie ever made, Citizen Kane. Hughes and Kane are similar as well as the major conflicts the two are faced
I believe the NYTimes review mentioned obvious nods towards Citizen Kane on Scorcese's part, despite a generally negative review from them. The review should be on their site if that interests anyone. I'd get the link save that I'm on dial-up at the moment, which is two steps away from communicating via telegrams.
I like the story of Howard Hughes, based on what I've read of him and of his kickin' rad fictionalization of him in the Rocketeer movie. Will be seeing this eventually
Just opened here in Florida (where I'm on vacation), but I'm waiting until I get back to New Jersey to see it, so that I can watch it on a decent screen.
As for DiCaprio--good in Catch Me If You Can; otherwise, meh.
Damn right. Far too many people talk shit about Tom Cruise, which in turn means far too many people haven't seen Born On the Fourth Of July or Collateral.
Just came back; great film. Utterly incredible acting really helped drive this. Decaprio is brilliant. Go see it, please. Wonderful cinematography, which aids in a well made and understandable plot line and series of characterization. Go see it.
Just got back from a sold-out showing and yes this will win Best Picture and Cate Blanchett will win Best Actress.
Jude Law was also awesome as Errol Flynn even though he was only there for one short scene.
I also really liked how they introduced Spencer Tracyby not naming him. You just needed to have a little bit of information about the people in the story to know who it was. That part was cool because when he was introduced you could hear people in the audience whispering his name.
Guys, I forgot to mention how much this movie reminded me of the best movie ever made, Citizen Kane. Hughes and Kane are similar as well as the major conflicts the two are faced
Yep, everyone knows it was Hearst... that was a large part of the controversy. Anyway, Im glad to see that people are enjoying this unreal movie. I saw it two days ago and am still thinking about the acting, just Superb!
Dicaprio used to be a pretty good actor, nothing spectacular, but he started to suck recently. He's good in this though. Brad Pitt is fuckin mediocre. If he looked like Paul Giamatti he wouldn't be working at all. As far as Cruise, I love where his career is right now, anything he did pre Magnolia I hated. Born on the fourth of July was an anomaly for him.
DiCaprio is a great actor. The whole teen beat thing is behind him, but some can't seem to get past it. Regardless, he was fantastic in "Catch Me If You Can" -- terrific role and film.
I'm so glad to hear good things about this film, 2004 hasn't been that great a year for Western films, I've only really liked The Incredibles, Eternal Sunshine and to a lesser extent Garden State.
And I need this to give me more faith in DiCaprio and Scorcese's next project, The Departed, remake of Infernal Affairs. I loved the HK original so much, I really don't want them to mess this up. Can't see DiCaprio matching Tony Leung's performance though.
DiCaprio is a great actor. The whole teen beat thing is behind him, but some can't seem to get past it. Regardless, he was fantastic in "Catch Me If You Can" -- terrific role and film.
You have to give him some credit too, since he actively hated and tried to avoid that whole teen sensation shit. Too many guys just have this idiotic knee-jerk reaction to him because of Titanic. I think he's been a pretty great actor in what I've seen him in.
That said, The Aviator doesn't interest me in the least, even with the acting talent involved and Scorsese. It just looks way too over-produced for my tastes and I'm not sure why I should care about the womanizing and the flying pursuits in relation to Hughes' life. I don't even care enough to see if the movie can make me care. Maybe I'll rent it, but otherwise I'll be waiting for The Departed to return to Scorsese's work.
I'm so glad to hear good things about this film, 2004 hasn't been that great a year for Western films, I've only really liked The Incredibles, Eternal Sunshine and to a lesser extent Garden State.
And I need this to give me more faith in DiCaprio and Scorcese's next project, The Departed, remake of Infernal Affairs. I loved the HK original so much, I really don't want them to mess this up. Can't see DiCaprio matching Tony Leung's performance though.
But then, I saw The Beach and it completely changed me. Then, after watching The Beach a few times over the course of a few years, I started to develop an admiration for him. I wanted to see all of his movies. I already had Romeo + Juliet, but then I bought Catch Me If You Can and Gangs Of New York. I think he is a fairly good actor. And he's very handsome. Oh lordy, does this mean I'm turning gay?
Saw this movie this morning. Not Scorsese's best (GoodFellas, Casino), but not his worst (Bringing Out the Dead), and better than average for one of his "hired-gun" movies.
DiCaprio is very good, and Blanchett is awesome. But John Logan, the screenwriter, is a fucking hack. Between this screenplay and Star Trek: Nemesis, he is the new Akiva Goldsman. Notice that almost every time you see the real Martin Scorsese come out and start directing (
like the opening shot, or the extended sequence with Hughes trapped in the screening room, or when he's in the restroom at the club and he can't get out
), it's during a set piece in which there's little dialogue. Otherwise, we're stuck with leaden dialogue that does little more than dump information on the viewer, and a sloppy plot structure (
one minute Hughes is so crippled by OCD that he can't leave his screening room, and the next he's cheery and smiley again, taking photographs and flying planes and shaking hands with dozens of strangers: what the fuck?
) that ends up being jack of all trades and master of none: the movie should have been about either Hughes's film career, or his love affair with Hepburn, or his aviation career, but not all of these.
Oh--and it didn't help that the audience I was with apparently thought that OCD was a fucking occasion for laughter. "Oh, look, he's repeating himself and he can't stop! Ah ha ha! Look--now he's collecting his urine in milk bottles and rolling in his own filth! Hee ho!"
one minute Hughes is so crippled by OCD that he can't leave his screening room, and the next he's cheery and smiley again, taking photographs and flying planes and shaking hands with dozens of strangers: what the fuck?
It's like he was in better health then than he was at the beginning of the movie! Why didn't Scorsese or somebody else do a rewrite of that screenplay? One of the best things about Scorsese as a director is that he's one of the few who can actually write as well.
Looking at IMDb, it looks like every Logan screenplay for a film that's worth a damn has gotten a rewrite--he wrote the second draft of three for Gladiator, the first draft of two for The Last Samurai, and the first draft of two for Any Given Sunday. Leave the guy to work on his own and you get crap like Star Trek: Nemesis and that remake of The Time Machine with Guy Pearce. What a hack.
Just saw this today after returning from the holidays and I agree wholeheartedly with Prospero. The movie was painfully bland and drawn out, despite some good performances by the actors, and the script certainly seems to be at fault in large part here. The dialogue was so stiff and information-laden, as Prospero pointed out, that it was hard to even fathom real conversations were occurring. Of course, I have to lay some fault with Scorscese as well, as the movie never really seemed to fully deliver on anything, despite some briefly interesting sequences, but, much like Gangs of New York, the movie just seem to shuffle and drag its feet along until it ultimately just plopped into an ending. The movie is certainly well done, but I couldn't rally behind it for the life of me and I briefly considered just walking out an hour into it, but that's something I rarely do and I thought it'd be unfair to do so....particularly to Ms. Blanchett; even if I loathed that Hepburn accent with a passion.
Next up, Beyond the Sea. After being disappointed with both The Life Aquatic and The Aviator (although I did like a good chunk of elements and moments from The Life Aquatic), I'm hoping this one proves to be more enjoyable.
Saw it. Good-to-great flick. Great direction, sometimes so-so script. Some of the best Scorsese action sequences. Great performances.
I thought the way Hughes faced people without going completely crazy was explained really well in that dinner sequence with the fish and dirty glass. It helped me believe in his behaviour before the court.
And YES, it happened in this order. Hughes was long crazy when he went before the commission, and it went particularly well. Anyone who doesn't understand this sequence cannot understand how Hughes continued to be succesful even as he was crazy as hell, I guess.
...ends up being jack of all trades and master of none: the movie should have been about either Hughes's film career, or his love affair with Hepburn, or his aviation career, but not all of these.
Notice that it would have been impossible to do so, because they are all linked. His film career helped launch his aviation career (he experimented in planes because of Hell's Angels). Hepburn played a role in his personal life, which cannot really be explored without exploring his professional life. If the movie would have focused only on his personal life, people would have whined that he was much more than that, and if they did it the other way, they'd have thought it was not personal enough.
Good flick, but a little long-winded. Still, a great performance by DiCaprio (probably one of the best I've seen him in, next to Catch Me If You Can--though I've never seen Gangs or Romeo or The Beach). Also, Cate Blanchett was absolutely amazing. Best Actress without a doubt. I didn't see Cate Blanchett on the screen, I saw Katherine Hepburn. And I wasn't even alive during the time when Hepburn was, so I don't even know what she was like! That's how good Cate was in the flick. Worth seeing for her performance alone. Scorcese could've easily cut 20 minutes from this without hurting it.
Notice that it would have been impossible to do so, because they are all linked. His film career helped launch his aviation career (he experimented in planes because of Hell's Angels). Hepburn played a role in his personal life, which cannot really be explored without exploring his professional life. If the movie would have focused only on his personal life, people would have whined that he was much more than that, and if they did it the other way, they'd have thought it was not personal enough.
I disagree. A film solely about the making of Hell's Angels would have been a perfect standalone movie, with a traditional, coherent narrative structure (that would have come in at two hours, probably, with real development of minor characters instead of the few loose sketches we get here). A film about the love triangle between Hughes, Hepburn, and Tracy could have also been a perfect standalone movie, with Spencer Tracy as a richly developed character instead of someone we just see once or twice--as it is, if you don't know that Hepburn and Tracy had a notorious and lengthy romance, then the two or three scenes in which Tracy's mentioned don't have any emotional resonance and seem to come out of nowhere. A film about Pan Am's attempt to take over TWA could conceivably been an interesting movie, though I doubt it, and don't think Scorsese would be the best choice as a director.
eh I disagree, if anything, in the scripts current form, it needed to be fleshed out. if any compressing should have went on, it should have been on the script. the way they hopped around and had him in and out of bouts towards the end was trivial and not near as effective as it could or should have been.
A film solely about the making of Hell's Angels would have been a perfect standalone movie, with a traditional, coherent narrative structure (that would have come in at two hours, probably, with real development of minor characters instead of the few loose sketches we get here).
Boring. Hell's Angels is NOT an important movie anymore while viewed in American Cinema's history. It is only important when considered with Howard Hughes' aviation career. It's not even the best Hughes movie (Scarface is.).
Prospero said:
A film about the love triangle between Hughes, Hepburn, and Tracy could have also been a perfect standalone movie, with Spencer Tracy as a richly developed character instead of someone we just see once or twice--as it is, if you don't know that Hepburn and Tracy had a notorious and lengthy romance, then the two or three scenes in which Tracy's mentioned don't have any emotional resonance and seem to come out of nowhere.
Boring. That would have ended up a standard romance flick, and would have missed the point of Hughes life, which that he was an INCREDIBLY SUCCESSFUL MAN (while flawed). I don't want to know his love stories as much as I want to see how he ruled the world, sorry. And that's the case with most people, too.
Prospero said:
A film about Pan Am's attempt to take over TWA could conceivably been an interesting movie, though I doubt it, and don't think Scorsese would be the best choice as a director
Boring. At best, you get A Civil Action type of procedural court movie with a guy getting abused. At worst you get something very confusing mired by technical stuff we don't want to know (which gets brushed upon by The Aviator, thankfully not for too long).
I like how Scorsese knows we are SMART people, and that we can grasp things without having them laid out for two hours. I prefer this type of ambitious bio-pic that covers and links multiple aspects of a life to one that would focus on a single one, especially with someone as interesting as Hughes. And no, I don't want to watch 5 2-hours movies to get to know him, sorry.
P.S. Please don't ever, ever become a movie director.
Prospero said:
Saw this movie this morning. Not Scorsese's best (GoodFellas, Casino), but not his worst (Bringing Out the Dead), and better than average for one of his "hired-gun" movies.
Why am I even arguing with someone who hasn't seen a pre-Goodfellas Scorsese flick and considers Casino to be one of his bests? Bah. Oh, and by the way, Bringing Out the Dead is so underrated, it's not even funny.
I'd like to go into finely-crafted detail about what an uninformed attempt at trolling this is, but I don't like to talk about my personal life on this board. I'll just say that I had good seats for the premiere of the recent limited re-release of The Last Waltz at the Ziegfeld Theater, and leave it at that.
88% of critics disagree, and the 4 other people I went with thought it was one of the greatest movies of the year (I'm not sure how I stand on this, though, but it would probably make my top 10, if I had one).
Prospero said:
I'd like to go into finely-crafted detail about what an uninformed attempt at trolling this is, but I don't like to talk about my personal life on this board. I'll just say that I had good seats for the premiere of the recent limited re-release of The Last Waltz at the Ziegfeld Theater, and leave it at that.
Lucky you. You could be the biggest The Band fan ever and still be there. You still think Casino is one of Scorsese's best flicks. It's a good film, but it basically revisits Goodfellas themes in a lesser way. And well, you could have mentioned almost any pre-Goodfellas movie in that "best Scorsese films" enumeration. You chose two 90s flicks (Goodfellas is one of my favorites, for sure, but it's still pretty recent). It doesn't really show you as being a Scorsese or even movie afficionado, but hey, you chose your examples, I didn't. Maybe I went a little too hard on you, but hey, this is ga-forum. Get used to it.
