The Aviator

2004 "Some men dream the future. He built it."
7.5| 2h50m| PG-13| en| More Info
Released: 17 December 2004 Released
Producted By: Miramax
Country: United States of America
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Synopsis

A biopic depicting the life of filmmaker and aviation pioneer Howard Hughes from 1927 to 1947, during which time he became a successful film producer and an aviation magnate, while simultaneously growing more unstable due to severe obsessive-compulsive disorder.

... View More
Stream Online

Stream with Prime Video

Director

Producted By

Miramax

AD
AD

Watch Free for 30 Days

Stream on any device, 30-day free trial Watch Now

Trailers & Images

Reviews

2hotFeature one of my absolute favorites!
Odelecol Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.
Taraparain Tells a fascinating and unsettling true story, and does so well, without pretending to have all the answers.
Tobias Burrows It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.
alexwesterberg Went into it having delayed many years of "saving up". Because dir. Scorsese and actor starring is Leo.Turns out it's quite a boring pic, none of Scorsese's flair is really demonstrated, Leo seemed to pull some very familiar faces that reminded me more of him in other works than a convincing Howard Hughes (ESPECIALLY) lacking the Texas drawl. The 20s vibe was played up but doesn't interest me much at all. The flight CGI scenes were terrible (both looking painfully cgi and the flight paths behaving very uncharacteristically- blame my too many hours in war thunder). The scars post accident didn't look very good.Katharine Hepburn's actress was extremely good.
HotToastyRag The Aviator is a biopic of the famous Hollywood director and producer Howard Hughes. Martin Scorsese directed the film, so naturally, his beloved Leonardo DiCaprio starred as the title role. The film was advertised ad nauseum, so much so that even movie goers who didn't want to see it felt compelled to at least rent it at some point. Everyone loves to watch movies about old Hollywood, chalk-full of celebrity impressions of legendary stars, right? From a technical standpoint, the movie was very well done. The shots are well-framed, the colors are beautifully saturated, and the sound is well-created and mixed. However, if you're at all familiar with the actors and actresses portrayed on the screen, you will be beyond disappointed. To summarize, Cate Blanchett plays Katharine Hepburn, Kate Beckinsale plays Ava Gardner, Jude Law plays Errol Flynn, and Gwen Stefani plays Jean Harlow.Katharine Hepburn had such a distinctive way of talking that it's almost a game to imitate her, like Michael Caine's or Cary Grant's accents. Cate didn't sound anything like her, and I don't know why no one told her. In addition, she didn't look like her and she didn't even mimic the way she moved her body. Basically, she wore trousers and dyed her hair and thought the audiences would be fooled.Jude Law, while a very handsome man, doesn't happen to look like Errol Flynn. His eyes are further apart on his face and neither down-tilting nor deep set, his nostrils take a different angle, the tip of his nose is shorter, his bottom lip has a bow-shape, and his eyebrows have a different arch. So why was he cast? Why didn't the casting director pick Kevin Kline, who does look like Errol Flynn and actually portrayed him in a movie nine years later? Ava Gardner's defining characteristics are the large features of her face. She has a huge mouth, large eyebrows, eyes so far apart they seem to be falling off her face, and a big skull. I've been waiting in vain for someone in Hollywood to cast Eva Mendes as Ava Gardner, because I'm sure audiences would think Ava had been reincarnated. Kate Beckinsale has a small, delicate-looking frame, and a thin face. Her eyes and eyebrows are not falling off the sides of her face, and her smile doesn't scare people with its size. I can't imagine any reason why she was cast.Last, but certainly not least, we have Gwen Stefani, who was extremely excited about her film debut. She played the original bombshell, Marilyn Monroe's idol: Jean Harlow. Jean Harlow is one of my all-time favorite actresses, so I took this insult to her memory personally. We'll start with her face. Jean Harlow had close-set, deep-set eyes, a substantial nose, a cleft in her chin, an extremely small mouth, a very high forehead, and eyebrows that were stylish at the time but nowadays look clownish. Gwen Stefani, during her five minutes in the film, was not given any putty for her nose, her chin was cleft-less, her mouth was its normally large size, and her eyebrows had not been altered one millimeter in shape or position. This in itself is absurd. Next, we have body structure. Jean Harlow was very petite at 5'2" and had a beautifully curvaceous figure. She was diminutive. Gwen Stefani, at 5'7", is intimidating. Her shoulders are very prominent, and her athletic build is nothing like the woman she's supposed to be portraying. Finally, we have the feature that was Jean Harlow's trademark: her voice. Jean Harlow had an incredibly thick and distinctive accent, but when Gwen Stefani opened her mouth, she spoke like a breathy Valley Girl. It's appalling that she either refused to do her homework, take direction, or submit her resignation.With all my criticisms, I haven't yet mentioned one word about the lead actor. Throughout the film, Leonardo DiCaprio portrays a larger-than-life figure who ends up succumbing to a debilitating case of OCD. He was nominated for an Oscar for The Aviator, and when you watch it, you will concede that it's the type of role that usually gets a nomination. In general, I'm not a big fan of his because I always feel that he's acting. Actors are supposed to convince audiences that they're not acting and that there isn't a camera, crew members, sets, lights, and modern contraptions all around them. I never feel that way when watching Leo's performances. I always feel he's trying to pull from something that isn't there, and that if you went to see him in a community theater production, you'd think he was very good but probably stretching the limits of his talent. Unless you already love Leo and everything he does, you probably won't like this movie.While it didn't end up being a huge success at the box office, Hollywood couldn't get enough of it. The Aviator was nominated for eleven Oscars in 2005, taking home the gold for Costume Design, Art Direction, Cinematography, Editing, and Supporting Actress. Cate Blanchett has given some very good performances for which she should have won an Oscar; portraying an unrecognizable Katharine Hepburn isn't one of them.
nimishasrivastava I had never before heard of Howard Hughes, let alone be aware of his nature and his achievements. After watching this movie I thought I was watching Howard Hughes himself living, in all his eccentric, paranoid self and his love for aviation. Leonardo Di Caprio is my favourite actor, and after watching this movie in 2016, I cannot help but wonder, how can any performance surpass his depiction of Howard Hughes for the Oscars!! The movie was beautifully directed by the legend Martin Scorsese. Subtle details like the use of lights, flashes etc to highlight eccentric nature of the main character were phenomenal. For instance when Howard Hughes locks himself up in a room, my focus was on his fingernails which they showed to have grown several inches as he hadn't gotten out of that room. In all a must watch movie for everyone who wants to enjoy good film making.
allyatherton The Story of Aviator Howard Hughes.Starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Cate Blanchett and Kate Beckinsale.Written by John Logan.Directed by Martin Scorsese.I can see why this movie has won so many Oscars. It has all the right ingredients. Great acting, great cinematography, great photography and it is undeniably and unreservedly a Martin Scorsese movie with all of his trademark style and artistry. It's one hell of a production which I'm sure had the Oscar Nominations Board purring and salivating non-stop round the clock.It is fascinating and it is an interesting watch but for me it's too long and a little bit boring. Just because a movie wins lots of Oscars doesn't necessarily mean it's an exciting movie and this fits into that category. It reminded me of Citizen Kane and I'd go as far as saying that it's basically the same kind of thing produced for a more modern audience. And that movie was pretty boring too.This is a film I can appreciate on many levels but it's lacking a decent hook and a good dollop of excitement.7.5/10 for the acting and production values.