gcoker Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Terrible...Terrible...Terrible. Oh did I mention I thought the movie was terrible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Songer Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Amy Posted June 1, 2005 Moderators Share Posted June 1, 2005 I loved it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m00n Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Still need to see it, I've heard only good things about it. This is the first neggie I've heard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Amy Posted June 1, 2005 Moderators Share Posted June 1, 2005 It was long, and it didn't delve into Hughes' later years, which is more of a mystery and more interesting to me (the Las Vegas years, and the continued descent into madness, the strangeness of his death)... but I thought overall it was a great first look at the genius of this disturbed man. The acting was excellent... No mystery to me why Cate Blanchet won the Oscar. I thought Leo did an impressive job, as well. I was wondering if he could pull off playing a 40+ year old man convincingly. He did. I also thought the flying sequences were very well done from a visual and audio perspective. A crash in a Beverly Hills neighborhood was fantastic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m00n Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 ---------------- On 6/1/2005 10:57:06 AM Amy Unger wrote: I thought Leo did an impressive job, as well. ---------------- I personally think Leo is a very tallented actor. I've yet to see him in a movie where I thought his performance was lacking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Amy Posted June 1, 2005 Moderators Share Posted June 1, 2005 Oh, me too. I'm just so used to him in younger roles, and he's very "boyish" looking... but he pulled it off well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicholtl Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Leo is a fantastic actor, and I STILL think he got robbed from even an Oscar NOMINATION after Titanic! (Which James Cameron refers to as his $200 million dollar chick-flick) That said, I didn't much like Aviator. Too long, too winded, too drawn-out. Scorcese lost himself within the gigantic scope of Hughes' life, and it made for a somewhat convoluted movie that skipped around on the timeline a few too often. Now, we all know Hughes was a disturbed man, as many brilliant visionaries often are, but I still found the character to be too abstract to grasp. Too hard to relate to. I had no emotional connection to Leo's character and thus, didn't care what happened to him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Amy Posted June 1, 2005 Moderators Share Posted June 1, 2005 ---------------- On 6/1/2005 1:46:45 PM nicholtl wrote: Leo is a fantastic actor, and I STILL think he got robbed from even an Oscar NOMINATION after Titanic! (Which James Cameron refers to as his $200 million dollar chick-flick) That said, I didn't much like Aviator. Too long, too winded, too drawn-out. Scorcese lost himself within the gigantic scope of Hughes' life, and it made for a somewhat convoluted movie that skipped around on the timeline a few too often. Now, we all know Hughes was a disturbed man, as many brilliant visionaries often are, but I still found the character to be too abstract to grasp. Too hard to relate to. I had no emotional connection to Leo's character and thus, didn't care what happened to him.---------------- Hey nic (our resident Hollywood insider!) You say it skipped around on the timeline...I was under the impression it was all linear? What skipping did I miss? Maybe I wasn't paying as close attention as I thought! And yes, Hughes' life does seem like a monster to get a single movie's arms wrapped around. He would've done better to focus on perhaps one aspect (the business dealings/personal life/mental disorders/movie career)...it was just too much. But I think the movie did do a good job with an "overview" and will perhaps prompt people to find out more. I, for one, am more fascinated by the last 20 years of his life when he was virtually never seen in public--drug addicted, filthy, withering away in hotel suites that were never cleaned... running the mob out of Vegas (although perhaps not intentionally?), still making and losing millions... How was he running his empire--or was he really running it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wheelman Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 I am waiting on it to come from blockbuster online. It should arrive today, or tomorrow. Amy you just about ruined for me. The way you described his latter part of life is much more interesting to me by the sounds of it. Nic I agree on Leo and Titanic he was robbed big time. That movie would of sucked without him in it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Amy Posted June 1, 2005 Moderators Share Posted June 1, 2005 I'm sorry, wheelman!! How he got to that point is pretty derned interesting, too, though!! Plus it's cool to see his work in pioneering the aviation industry, not to mention dallying around with every major actress of the 30s and 40s. I don't think you'll be disappointed! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Adams Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Slight tangent....but does anyone know what oil industry invention Hughes created that's still in use today? Tom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lipinski Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 I thought Leo and Cate both did a great job of acting. Hughes tools - rotary drill bit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxman Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 I was very impressed with the movie and the acting, it's one of the few I have seen in the theater in the past couple of years so I was waiting for the DVD and the transfer is as good as I remember the theater version. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wheelman Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 ---------------- On 6/1/2005 2:28:48 PM Amy Unger wrote: I'm sorry, wheelman!! How he got to that point is pretty derned interesting, too, though!! Plus it's cool to see his work in pioneering the aviation industry, not to mention dallying around with every major actress of the 30s and 40s. I don't think you'll be disappointed! I'm sure the movie is entertaining, and I am looking forward to it. I was actually complimenting your vision on how it should of been made. In my own little way. I'll be looking foward to that dilly dallying around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ygmn Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 ---------------- On 6/1/2005 3:21:07 PM Tom Adams wrote: Slight tangent....but does anyone know what oil industry invention Hughes created that's still in use today? Tom ---------------- The drill ship used to raise a russian sub... owned by transocean seco/forex.... dayum forget the name...arggggggg they still use the name...been upgraded to actually drill for oil now....I remember quoting on the new cranes for it...but my former company was too expensive.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Amy Posted June 1, 2005 Moderators Share Posted June 1, 2005 I thought it was the first and only drill bit that could drill through rock? It was patented and very expensive, so old Howard was able to live off it's profits his entire life...something to always dig him out of his debts, so to speak. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicholtl Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 Amy, when I said jumped around on the timeline, I didn't mean in a non-linear fashion. My bad for the confusion. I simply meant it would jump over huge chunks of his life, skipping 5-10 years at a time, sometimes. I understand such a device was deemed necessary to cover such a long, eventful life, but I still felt it lost much of the power and emotion by doing so. As you said, I too think it would've been far, far more effective if a certain aspect (or two) were concentrated on, as opposed to the attempt to cover each and every facet of his complex, misunderstood life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theryugobuddy Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 I just remember hearing about him with 10 inch fingernails, long hair and stench after he died, with all the mystery about his fortune. This is a great biopic, and Scorsese does an incredible job showing what a renaissance man/genius Hughes was. And a brave SOB he was, piloting his own planes on their maiden flights, facing down Senate hearings after the onset of his illness, and spending stupid amounts of money to get things right. This movie seems shorter than it is--there is so much to be told. Dittos that they tried to cover too much ground, I wondered often how he got to there from here-- Leo is very very good--the bathroom scenes washing his hands made me cringe--the poor man! And Cate Blanchett channels Hepburn. Lots of surprising cameos too--I was surprised to see Willem Dafoe and that No Doubt chick--for short scenes. And how 'bout the bombs on the 15 year old girl he dated! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicholtl Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 ---------------- On 6/2/2005 2:12:18 AM theryugobuddy wrote: ... and that No Doubt chick--for short scenes. ---------------- Gwen Stefani. She's hot, and her new album (in stores now) is daaaaaaaaaaaamn good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.