Good, but not great, and certainly not Oscar material

Rating: 7/10 (22 February 2005)

I went to see this movie Saturday, and while it's good, it's not great and certainly not worth all the fuss being made over it. Ebert & Roeper oooohhhed and aaaaaahed over the crash scene, which certainly gave you a good perspective, however it was not at all realistic: a plane would not simply fly along straight while a wing on one side slices through a house. It might slice for a little bit, but only until the drag pulled the fuselage into the house demolishing both the plane and the house.
The special effects, while outstanding for say, 5-10 years ago, are mediocre at best these days, particularly golfing: the ball looked like the golf ball in the game in the movie Outland, floating along rather than a realistic arc. The water was done better in Titanic, and while it was probably done as a "stylistic" choice, at times the movie looks like a B&W film badly colorized. No thanks.
As far as the acting goes, it was pretty good, save that I don't understand the Oscar nomination for Cate Blanchett's portrayal of Katherine Hepburn, who must be rolling in her grave at the caricature here.
Leonardo does do a good job playing Howard Hughes, but the script is a little disjointed and the movie, albeit long already, ends before it really shows just how far Howard fell before the end.
In the end, I recommend seeing it, but only at economy hour.