Review of The Aviator (2004) by Samra M — 11 Oct 2010
I enjoyed the pic and diCaprio was a surprise talent, I could see Hughes in him. Kate Blanchette and Kate Beckinsale did stunning representations of Gardner and Hepburn. But there were two things I disliked.
..the movement of airborne aircraft cannot be left to CGI alone. The airplanes needed to be more than just fast, they needed to be NATURAL. William Wellman would never have tolerated seeing a deadstick crash landing from a 50 pr 60 degree dive to a nose-up landing in a beet field inside of 100 feet of the ground.
Had the plane approached the ground like that with no engine, Howard Hughes would have been DEAD, and there would have been no story. Secondly: the role of a FLYABLE Lockheed Constellation to a movie prop rather than a major role as Howard Hughes' dream airliner that would propel TWA past the DC-4's of Juan Trippe's Pan Am.
Hughes actually FLEW the Connie from LA to New York, and they did it in record time. Why not in the movie? They FLEW that working, flyable plane from Kansas City in 2003 to Burbank to make the film! No models nor special effects needed.
Instead they gave us that lame scene with the CGI special effects copies of the aircraft on a tarmac. A damn WASTE if you ask me. I am not too sure the chronology was right either...was the accident before or after he flew the new airliner from LA to NY?
This review of The Aviator (2004) was written by Samra M on 11 Oct 2010.
The Aviator has generally received very positive reviews.
Was this review helpful?
