An outline without insight

Rating: 4/10 (10 November 2011)

Viewers here seem to tend to extremes of praise or condemnation, neither of which is right. The Aviator is worth watching, but it could have been a lot better.
Hollywood has such a bad record of historical accuracy in non-fiction films that I don't trust them farther than I can spit. In this case, that's about 1945. It seems most of the basic facts are probably presented accurately up to that point, but the problem is there's not much else. However, I couldn't help feeling I was watching a film version of the Clifford Irving fake biography.
The Aviator seems more like a pictorial outline of the life of Howard Hughes, without providing more than a smidgen of insight. I wish the script had done a better job of providing fictionalized but plausible background to help us understand this unusual man. About all we get is the word "quarantine" repeated over and over. And the scene at the Hepburn home is way over the top, and not the sort of family described in Hepburn's memoirs.
As to acting, I am not a big DiCaprio fan, but I think he did a good job here. I don't know if it matched the true Hughes, who seemed more solemn, but who knows? I am a big Cate Blanchett fan, but this time it didn't quite work. The energy and presence of the luminescent Hepburn wasn't there, though the voice was, and some of the mannerisms. Actually, Kate Beckinsale delivered the most natural, convincing performance; I have to wonder how she would have done playing Hepburn.
One viewer compared Hughes' story to Tucker, the car maker. But that is to miss the point; Tucker got eaten alive, but Hughes ate the senator - Alda - for lunch. There was much that was heroic about Hughes' life. The old Hollywood knew how to portray heroics, but this film doesn't seem to try very hard. The film is unusually long; more of that time should have been used to provide more depth to the character, rather than drawing out the insanity shtick, which only emerged near the end of Hughes' life.
Looking through the glowing reviews of Martin Scorsese's towering genius, I am struck by how little these reviews have to say about the film, beyond generalities and a list of who is in the movie, etc. Did they actually watch the film?
The more I reflect on this film, the more it leaves a sour taste in my mouth. Frankly, it's a simplistic cheap shot at a complex man. I wonder how many viewers who praise it are old enough to remember when Hughes was alive? Or Hepburn?
But, hey, if you enjoy the movie, what the heck.