Film: The Aviator

I am way behind on reviews. Time to start catching up. And where better than with The Aviator? I now have the benefit of being able to incorporate its performance at the Oscars into the review.

But is it any good? It's watchable, but over-rated. DiCaprio doe not bring enough stature to the central role and the cript has serious problems.

I am not a great fan of biopics. They impose a constraint on the story that can be told. For a biopic to work, it has to feature a really compelling character, preferably one that you knew a little about but with plenty of room to shed new light. That could apply to Howard Hughes (most of what I know about him comes from the novels of James Ellroy - not a complimentray portrayal).

I am alo not a fan of screenwriter John Logan, who has brought us such memorable works as The Last Samurai, Gladiator, and Star Trek: Nemesis.

And ultimately, I'm not a great fan of The Aviator, either. The biggest problem with the film is Leonardo DiCaprio, who fails to bring any charm to the role - the great womaniser comes across as a leering creep - and also fails to age convincingly. In fact, nothing about the film conveys the near 20 years that it is meant to cover.

But the screenplay doesn't help. We never get to see what really drives Hughes, or what he is passionate about. Oh, we see that he likes directing films, and likes planes, but it never goes beyond that. There is a scene where Hughes goes to dinner with the Hepburns, fails to get on with them, and tells them that they don't appreciate money because they've never had to work for it. This is an incredible outburst from a man who, at the start of the film, ha inherited a vast fortune from his parents and is risking it all to make a film, apparently for vanity purposes. We catch occasional glimpses of Hughes "working", but it always seems like a hobby. Several times he risks the entire Hughes empire, and the trick quickly get tired - partly because there seem to be little really at stake, and partly because we are never told what the outcome actually is. We can infer it from the fact that his companies continue to operate, but where is the dramatic payoff?

There is also a terribly contrived opening scene featuring young Howard being bathed by his mother and made to spell the word "quarantine". A subtle theme this is not.

Alan Alda turns in a nice performance as a Senator who puts Hughes on trial, but sadly his character is a straw man for Hughes to blow down. Cate Blanchett is good fun as Katharine Hepburn - given how many Oscar nominations this year were for portrayal of real people, no great surprise that she won - and everyone else is fine with the small parts they have to work with.

The film looks nice, has an authentic (if not entirely aesthetically pleasing) period soundtrack, and never drags, which is quite an accomplishment given its length, and probably the nicest thing I can find to say about it. Scorcese is in control of his craft, and this is certainly a step up from the mess that was Gangs of New York. But it's a long way short of his best work, and I'm glad he didn't get a entimental Oscar for it. Hopefully he can hit his past heights again and earn the Oscar that his body of work deserves.