martin scorsese's THE AVIATOR

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

who's seen this? god is it ever long.

― s1ocki (slutsky), Thursday, 30 December 2004 01:03 (twenty years ago)

and it's not very good, though i liked the first... four hours, i guess?

― s1ocki (slutsky), Thursday, 30 December 2004 01:04 (twenty years ago)

what's the point of overlooking all the horrible things he did?

― s1ocki (slutsky), Thursday, 30 December 2004 01:07 (twenty years ago)

scorsese be biopiccin'.

― jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 30 December 2004 01:07 (twenty years ago)

fuck biopics!! i hate them

― s1ocki (slutsky), Thursday, 30 December 2004 01:08 (twenty years ago)

did you see it, jaymc?

― s1ocki (slutsky), Thursday, 30 December 2004 01:08 (twenty years ago)

i really wish martin scorsese would stop sucking so much.

― s1ocki (slutsky), Thursday, 30 December 2004 01:08 (twenty years ago)

Gangs of New York is illin

― Riot Gear! (Gear!), Thursday, 30 December 2004 01:12 (twenty years ago)

at least the aviator wasn't gangs of new york, a movie that strangely enough had the potential to be the best movie ever and somehow ended up the worst movie ever

― s1ocki (slutsky), Thursday, 30 December 2004 01:13 (twenty years ago)

you bastard

― Riot Gear! (Gear!), Thursday, 30 December 2004 01:14 (twenty years ago)

you liked it?!

― s1ocki (slutsky), Thursday, 30 December 2004 01:14 (twenty years ago)

...yes...

― Riot Gear! (Gear!), Thursday, 30 December 2004 01:15 (twenty years ago)

No, I didn't see it. I probably won't go unless someone I know wants to.

― jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 30 December 2004 01:15 (twenty years ago)

don't bother (unless you have like 3 days to kill)

― s1ocki (slutsky), Thursday, 30 December 2004 01:17 (twenty years ago)

Running Length: 168 minutes

― jed_ (jed), Thursday, 30 December 2004 01:23 (twenty years ago)

He needs his hall pass revoked BIG TIME.

― I'm serious ... Ti-i-i-i-im (deangulberry), Thursday, 30 December 2004 01:38 (twenty years ago)

it didn't feel long to me. a breeze really! airplane stuff is cool, hollywood stuff is kind of amusing but i guess its fraught with impressions and "ooh that's so-and-so isn't that somehow instrinsically funny that they're being portayed in a movie?" kind of stuff. i felt really really sorry for Hughes tho, what a terrible illness.

i would have ended the movie at the moment the Spruce Goose took flight--what a perfect and generous ending that would have been.

― ryan (ryan), Thursday, 30 December 2004 04:01 (twenty years ago)

fuck biopics!! i hate them

-- s1ocki (slytus...) (webmail), December 30th, 2004 1:08 AM. (slutsky) (link)

angel at my table, dude

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Thursday, 30 December 2004 04:15 (twenty years ago)

i dunno ryan, even ending it that way is pretty biopic cheese

― s1ocki (slutsky), Thursday, 30 December 2004 06:57 (twenty years ago)

I almost saw The Aviator tonight but ended up going to Closer, which seemed ludicrously short for a movie I didn't particularly enjoy.

― Eric H. (Eric H.), Thursday, 30 December 2004 07:00 (twenty years ago)

you'd rather a movie you didn't enjoy be longer?

― s1ocki (slutsky), Thursday, 30 December 2004 07:01 (twenty years ago)

Part of the reason I didn't enjoy it was because all four characters were in such a rush to get to their next betrayal. So, yeah, if there was less ellipticality to it, maybe there would've been more enjoyment.

― Eric H. (Eric H.), Thursday, 30 December 2004 07:06 (twenty years ago)

I rather liked it.

― EComplex (EComplex), Thursday, 30 December 2004 07:19 (twenty years ago)

that was a hotlink, that was

― EComplex (EComplex), Thursday, 30 December 2004 07:20 (twenty years ago)

Angel at My Table: come for the boobs, stay for the film.

― Pears can just fuck right off. (kenan), Thursday, 30 December 2004 07:41 (twenty years ago)

That's a good summary of what I didn't like about Closer, too, Eric.

― jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 30 December 2004 07:52 (twenty years ago)

I kinda doubt I'll see The Aviator until it turns up on cable some night -- but speaking of Scorsese and cable, I just watched Boxcar Bertha on Trio. Anyone seen it? It's uneven, and some of it definitely has the feel of someone still learning how to make movies, but the ending is pure Scorsese. Not great, but interesting -- probably a lot more interesting than The Aviator.

Also, I loved Gangs of New York. But that's because 5 minutes in I realized it was a Mad Max movie (or a Warriors prequel, more to the point), and I decided to enjoy it that way instead of worrying about whether it was a major work by a major artist. It's ludicrous and stupid and borderline incoherent, but it made me giddy.

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Thursday, 30 December 2004 08:36 (twenty years ago)

DiCaprio is lined up for the lead in Scorsese's next picture too so 3 movies in a row. Does Scorsese really think that DiCaprio is some sort of replacement for DeNiro or does he just need his name to get financing in the first place? At any rate, is DiCaprio really that much of a box office draw? i find it hard to believe.

― jed_ (jed), Thursday, 30 December 2004 12:26 (twenty years ago)

what u mean the star of the biggest box
office movie of the past 2 decaedes?

― piscesboy, Thursday, 30 December 2004 12:35 (twenty years ago)

i must have missed it - what was it called?

― jed_ (jed), Thursday, 30 December 2004 12:39 (twenty years ago)

Angel at My Table: come for the boobs, stay for the film.
-- Pears can just fuck right off. (fluxion2...) (webmail), December 30th, 2004 7:41 AM. (kenan) (link)

???

i actually think AAMT is one of the greatest films i have ever seen. the particular mix of nuanced subjectivity and a lightly ironic distance makes for a really satisfying biopic. it also revelations of editing and framing, scene construction, acting (esp. kerry fox), at almost every moment.

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Thursday, 30 December 2004 13:57 (twenty years ago)

it is also one of the few films about a writer at which i didn't cringe. it felt genuinely literary, though not in a stuffy "uncinematic" sense.

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Thursday, 30 December 2004 13:57 (twenty years ago)

anyway, i don't think i'll bother seeing "the aviator."

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Thursday, 30 December 2004 13:58 (twenty years ago)

not in a stuffy "uncinematic" sense.

although, ironically, it was made for TV.

― jed_ (jed), Thursday, 30 December 2004 14:06 (twenty years ago)

i think it was planned to be distributed as a film outside of australia from the beginning, though. the film version is about 30 minutes shorter. the scenes from the tv version are on the dvd as a bonus. i think it was shot on 16mm, in which case it's one of the most gorgeous 16mm films i've seen.

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Thursday, 30 December 2004 14:08 (twenty years ago)

i still haven't seen all of it -it was shown on british tv in its (ahem) "mini series" form - but i really want to.

― jed_ (jed), Thursday, 30 December 2004 14:16 (twenty years ago)

the dvd is pretty cheap, go for it.

why "ahem"--it was set up as a miniseries. it's actually interesting to reflect on how the three-part aspect of the series became an essential formal ingredient in the film.

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Thursday, 30 December 2004 14:18 (twenty years ago)

yes! it's just strange to think of it as that given what miniseries' are generally like.

― jed_ (jed), Thursday, 30 December 2004 14:20 (twenty years ago)

yup!

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Thursday, 30 December 2004 14:23 (twenty years ago)

i dunno ryan, even ending it that way is pretty biopic cheese

you're right of course--but i still think it would have been neat to end that way considering everyone knows how his life ends up. give him his great moment and intentionaly leave out what happens later.

― ryan (ryan), Thursday, 30 December 2004 14:49 (twenty years ago)

I had no idea this was a Scorsese movie. I'm still not going.

― Jordan (Jordan), Thursday, 30 December 2004 15:10 (twenty years ago)

Amateurist, I liked the film a lot, too, but discovered it for the first time at four in the morning on IFC, and in the middle of one of the many nude scenes. So that's how I got there.

― Pears can just fuck right off. (kenan), Thursday, 30 December 2004 15:16 (twenty years ago)

i don't recall there being many nude scenes. one set of scenes about her sexual awakening, but that's all i remember...

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Thursday, 30 December 2004 15:19 (twenty years ago)

yeah, I guess that's it. See, I wouldn't have noticed if I didn't always turn it on right at that part. From the beginning, those scenes play totally differently. And anyway you're right, I'm a meathead, and I'll be quiet.

― Pears can just fuck right off. (kenan), Thursday, 30 December 2004 15:28 (twenty years ago)

you ARE a meathead, and you SHOULD be quiet.

just kidding

just kidding about being kidding

no seriously, just kidding

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Thursday, 30 December 2004 15:33 (twenty years ago)

let's just agree i'm a meathead about this particular thing.

― Pears can just fuck right off. (kenan), Thursday, 30 December 2004 15:36 (twenty years ago)

Boxcar Bertha is OK, but MS famously showed it to Cassavetes pre-release, who flew into a rage; "You just WASTED 2 years of your life! Make something you care about!" Hence Mean Streets.

The Aviator has a zippy middle, and if you can see it in a good theater, a truly stunning plane crash. (Not to mention blue grass in hommage to early Technicolor.)

>does he just need (DiCaprio's) name to get financing in the first place?<

For expensive period epics? Bingo. Leo isn't terrible, esp early on when Hughes is a ridiculed neophyte, but he needed an actor whose voice has changed. Beatty would've triumphed in that part 30 years ago.

HH, like all successful super-capitalists, was a prick.

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 30 December 2004 15:42 (twenty years ago)

yeah i just think the movie intentionally left out a lot of bad shit about hughes, it was kind of a whitewash don't you think? i don't really understand how scorsese viewed him--a flawed hero? autistic genius? misunderstood visionary?

and yeah, leo was ok at the beginning but i dunno about the second half of the movie. he had to deal with some excruciatingly long scenes though.

― s1ocki (slutsky), Thursday, 30 December 2004 16:11 (twenty years ago)

I just learned -- from the leathery morning-zoo DJs on the top 40 station here, who interviewed DiCaprio -- that the project originated with Leo. He developed the project with Michael Mann, but after Ali, Mann was "biopic'd out" and suggested that Leo draw up a list of directors he'd like to work with. "There was only one name on that list," DiCaprio said. "Marty Scorsese."

― jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 30 December 2004 16:16 (twenty years ago)

then it's not really a list, is it? nice one leo

― s1ocki (slutsky), Thursday, 30 December 2004 16:17 (twenty years ago)

A list of one.

― n/a (Nick A.), Thursday, 30 December 2004 16:37 (twenty years ago)

"Marty"

― jed_ (jed), Thursday, 30 December 2004 16:41 (twenty years ago)

well, his first choice was doris wishman, but sadly she died before the project went into production

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Thursday, 30 December 2004 16:43 (twenty years ago)

I actually thought The Aviator was really well done (and I had SUPREMELY low expections.) Miles better than Gangs of New York and one of the few biopics I've enjoyed all the way through.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 30 December 2004 16:49 (twenty years ago)

wave of the future, alex. wave of the future.

― s1ocki (slutsky), Thursday, 30 December 2004 17:17 (twenty years ago)

I thought it was way of the future, actually.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 30 December 2004 17:19 (twenty years ago)

"show me the blueprints" is the new "show me the money"!

― s1ocki (slutsky), Thursday, 30 December 2004 17:19 (twenty years ago)

Hahaha "Q-U-A-R-I. . . Q-U-A-R-A-N. . . . ARRRRRRRGH!" is the new "A human head weighs eight pounds."

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 30 December 2004 17:22 (twenty years ago)

who's the guy who plays his press agent? i feel like i've seen him in whit stillman movies or something

― s1ocki (slutsky), Thursday, 30 December 2004 17:23 (twenty years ago)

didn't you kinda wish the whole movie was set at the hepburn estate with all those crazy characters? that's the movie i want to see! (ps my friend is in that scene! he wears a striped shirt and has 1 line)

― s1ocki (slutsky), Thursday, 30 December 2004 17:24 (twenty years ago)

actually, funny enough it was the engineer guy, the redhead, who was in last days of disco

― s1ocki (slutsky), Thursday, 30 December 2004 17:26 (twenty years ago)

If by Whit Stillman movies, you mean Party of Five

― jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 30 December 2004 17:28 (twenty years ago)

"didn't you kinda wish the whole movie was set at the hepburn estate with all those crazy characters?"

That's a great scene, definitely. The comic relief-ish best were some of my favorite parts of the movie.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 30 December 2004 17:34 (twenty years ago)

i love me some francis conroy.

― s1ocki (slutsky), Thursday, 30 December 2004 17:34 (twenty years ago)

"Who doesn't like titties?"

― LSTD (answer) (sexyDancer), Thursday, 30 December 2004 17:36 (twenty years ago)

The MPAA sequence is also really funny.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 30 December 2004 17:40 (twenty years ago)

Scorcese is seriously slippin'. I didn't get into any of the characters - ANY of them. As iffy as the casting and other elements of GONY were I think that still turned out a solid film. This one just looked nice.There were just too many uninspired and unnecessary "cameos" (Rufus Wainwright?? Yikes! ) Thought Cate Blanchett was good, though my tolerance for Katherine Hepburn in *any* guise, except for Bringing Up Baby, is seriously low and that was a strike. And DiCaprio seemed ten years younger here than he did in GONY. Totally unbelievable. Does anyone else here think that Hughes just wasn't that interesting a character in the first place? I mean - a nutty rich guy who's into aeronautics and big tits?

― Jay Vee (Manon_70), Thursday, 30 December 2004 20:09 (twenty years ago)

needs xenomorphs

― latebloomer (latebloomer), Thursday, 30 December 2004 23:03 (twenty years ago)

http://www.theadvocates.org/celebrities/richard-branson.jpg

― Riot Gear! (Gear!), Thursday, 30 December 2004 23:11 (twenty years ago)

I am in trouble because I refused to see this with my mom and my sister. They are at the local multiplex right now.

― Mary (Mary), Thursday, 30 December 2004 23:20 (twenty years ago)

i bet they're talking about you!!

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Friday, 31 December 2004 01:55 (twenty years ago)

I'm boycotting "Marty"'s films until he realizes that "Leo" sucks.

― Steely Zan (AaronHz), Friday, 31 December 2004 02:21 (twenty years ago)

and vice-versa

― s1ocki (slutsky), Friday, 31 December 2004 04:44 (twenty years ago)

(sniff)

― s1ocki (slutsky), Friday, 31 December 2004 04:44 (twenty years ago)

I'm boycotting all of you til you realize scorsese rules.

― LSTD (answer) (sexyDancer), Friday, 31 December 2004 07:22 (twenty years ago)

ruleD

― Steely Zan (AaronHz), Friday, 31 December 2004 07:39 (twenty years ago)

xactly!

― s1ocki (slutsky), Friday, 31 December 2004 16:13 (twenty years ago)

Does anyone else here think that Hughes just wasn't that interesting a character in the first place? I mean - a nutty rich guy who's into aeronautics and big tits?

This sounds like box office gold and Scorcese fucked it up?

― Billy Dods (Billy Dods), Friday, 31 December 2004 16:20 (twenty years ago)

This wasn't terrible at all. It was great up through the Hepburn breakup, then Marty got all heavy on us in a very half-assed way. (I bet the six-hour version makes the second-half better. Should have pulled a Kill Bill, Harvey!) Even with the serious stuff not being fleshed-out, it was better than most biopics. But it does make me wish Scorsese would go all the way with a big, fun boys' adventure movie. Let him direct the new Indiana Jones, plz.

I couldn't tell - was the first cigarette girl/flapper he felt up Stefani/Harlowe?

― milozauckerman (miloaukerman), Wednesday, 5 January 2005 06:20 (twenty years ago)

six-hour version, feh

― s1ocki (slutsky), Wednesday, 5 January 2005 08:59 (twenty years ago)

'GoNY' was his best film since 'Age of Innocence', which was his best since 'Goodfellas'. I'm psyched about 'The Aviator', but I'm not a massive Scorsese fan. Just think he's very good.

― henry miller, Wednesday, 5 January 2005 09:50 (twenty years ago)

The Hepburns scene just fell flat. I didn't laugh.

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 5 January 2005 17:29 (twenty years ago)

I didn't say I'd watch the six-hour version, but I bet it clears up some of the problems. The Spruce Goose becomes the plane that the entire film turns on, even though it never seemed that special before (just another plane). Maybe Baldwin and Alda get to do something aside from reiterate that their characters are the bad guys. Maybe we find out how Hughes became a billionaire when everything he's shown doing is a flop.

― milozauckerman (miloaukerman), Wednesday, 5 January 2005 17:46 (twenty years ago)

"Hell's Angels" was a hit movie (as was stuff he produced like "Scarface"). It was TWA that made him a "b"iliionaire, no?

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 5 January 2005 18:18 (twenty years ago)

i hate that whole "oh but the [probably apocryphal --ed.] forty-hour director's cut must be a masterpiece" meme

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Wednesday, 5 January 2005 22:42 (twenty years ago)

i blame erich von stroheim

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Wednesday, 5 January 2005 22:42 (twenty years ago)

"It was TWA that made him a "b"iliionaire, no?"

I think it was SELLING (his stock anyway in) TWA in the 50s or so that made him one of the richest men in the world (if not the richest.)

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 5 January 2005 22:59 (twenty years ago)

no, drill bits for oil drilling made him rich. that's how he got to make 'hell's angels'.

this was a great movie. his best since 'goodfellas'.

― henry miller, Monday, 10 January 2005 10:12 (twenty years ago)

I saw this over the weekend and quite enjoyed it. I haven't seen the last few Scorsese flicks, so I'm not sure how this compares to his other recent work. DiCaprio was great, per usual. I went into the theater with some trepidation over the running time but honestly I never once glanced at my watch.

― o. nate (onate), Monday, 10 January 2005 19:52 (twenty years ago)

Actually, now that I think of it, the last Scorsese film I saw was Kundun - which I liked, even though it seemed about 10 times longer than The Aviator.

― o. nate (onate), Monday, 10 January 2005 19:57 (twenty years ago)

Hughes' original money came from the family business that he inherited - which was oil bits, as others have mentioned.

Upon his father’s death in 1924, the 18-year-old Hughes inherited an estate valued at almost $900,000, including 75% of Hughes Tool Company, whose control he assumed a year later. As Otto Friedrich writes in City of Nets, a book about Hollywood in the1940s: "So it was the Hughes Tool Company’s control of an indispensable oil drilling bit that enabled Howard Hughes to imagine himself one of the kings of Hollywood. No matter what he did, no matter how much money he wasted, the Hughes drilling bit would always pay his bills, would always protect him from harm."

from http://www.socalhistory.org/Biographies/h_hughes.htm

― o. nate (onate), Monday, 10 January 2005 20:01 (twenty years ago)

Yeah, that I knew. But the bits business wasn't the ungodly money he later had. I assumed he earned the billions in the lead up to TWA , but if he was only a millionaire ('only') for the duration of the film that makes sense.

― milozauckerman (miloaukerman), Monday, 10 January 2005 21:07 (twenty years ago)

Well, in 1924, a million dollars was real money, and that's not counting the steady stream of revenue from the business.

― o. nate (onate), Monday, 10 January 2005 21:36 (twenty years ago)

Ian Holm in The Aviator: "We have clouds in Oakland! God Dammit, we have clouds!"

Ian Holm in Big Night: "God Dammit! This is good!"

ROFFLE

― dave225 (Dave225), Tuesday, 11 January 2005 19:13 (twenty years ago)

All this drill bit info and that Hughes was very wealthy from birth is very true, but again it wasn't until he actually sold his stock in TWA in the 50-60s that Hughes became a billionaire and one of the half-dozen richest people in world.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 11 January 2005 19:22 (twenty years ago)

Why? Was wealth measured in cash back then?

― dave225 (Dave225), Tuesday, 11 January 2005 19:24 (twenty years ago)

Hmm, good point. I guess strictly speaking his net worth wasn't changed by the sale of stock, unless he got a price above the market value.

― o. nate (onate), Tuesday, 11 January 2005 19:27 (twenty years ago)

"Why? Was wealth measured in cash back then?"

Most people thought he got far more money from the sale of TWA than it necessarily should have, yes (esp. given that he'd been running the airline into the ground for a good number of years by that point.)

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 11 January 2005 19:32 (twenty years ago)

one month passes...

i somehow ended up seeing this.

it was horrible. i slept through much of the last 20 minutes. i started looking at my watch after 90 minutes. basically, after about 60 minutes i stopped giving a shit.

several scenes were excruciatingly bad. every scene with kate beckinsale. the last scene with cate blanchett. anything having to do with the twa/pan-am intrigue and/or alan alda.

the script was ridiculously bad. as a narrative it was poorly designed. too much expository information contained in stilted dialogue. too many stock forms of "confrontation" (though i liked the part where the jilted teenage lover tried to kill him; did anyone else feel like they spent an awful lot of time introducing her only to make her disappear pretty quickly; also did anything ever come of the bad publicity that episode caused?? see what i mean, sloppy narrative construction.)

horrible.

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Monday, 7 March 2005 06:43 (twenty years ago)

let's face it, martin scorsese is at the mercy of his scripts. this was a rotten one.

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Monday, 7 March 2005 06:44 (twenty years ago)

haha, i don't even remember that scene; what a tepid movie! i did like the hell's angels bit and i thought alan alda was pretty good too... the guy who plays howard hughes in the rocketeer shows up in the film; it would have been cool if scorcese gave a bit part to every other actor who's played him like, um, jason robards

― dave k, Monday, 7 March 2005 06:51 (twenty years ago)

oh man, melvin and howard is a beautiful movie. it actually involved someone using their imagination!

this thing was just ... yeah i guess tepid. although eventually it became sort of malignant through sheer length. i've never been so annoyed at a movie for being so long.

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Monday, 7 March 2005 06:54 (twenty years ago)

Isn't it a little creepy that Scorcese's so bitter about not winning the Best Director Oscar? I mean, when a movie like The Aviator is nominated for best picture, what does an Oscar even mean?

― Aaron A., Monday, 7 March 2005 07:40 (twenty years ago)

is he really bitter?

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Monday, 7 March 2005 08:31 (twenty years ago)

are you quoting Jonathan Rosenbaum? I think Scorsese is one guy who has managed to elevate many a colorless script. Bringing Out the Dead--which everyone else probably hates, so maybe it's a bad example--comes to mind immediately.

― Gear! (can Jung shill it, Mu?) (Gear!), Monday, 7 March 2005 08:40 (twenty years ago)

i might be quoting him inadvertently, or just agreeing with him if that's what he said.

i didn't like BOTD but i also don't remember paying much attention for whatever reason.

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Monday, 7 March 2005 09:02 (twenty years ago)

To me, it was evident that Scorsese was filming the urban landscape in a way that was influenced was Happy Together, which makes sense when you consider his Cannes jury awarded Wong Kar-Wai best director a couple of years before for that film. It's really a pretty unusual film. I have a friend who really despises most films that are released who for some reason considers it to be his best picture. I disagree, but only because of a couple other films.

― Gear! (can Jung shill it, Mu?) (Gear!), Monday, 7 March 2005 09:15 (twenty years ago)

i remember covering my eyes in embarrassment during the lengthy shot with that 10,000 maniacs song playing over it.

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Monday, 7 March 2005 09:20 (twenty years ago)

it's a great shot, but the song destroys it. I suppose it was chosen because it's a pleasant early-'90s hit (it being a period piece in that regard) meant to play off a nice unspoken moment between the characters, but any other song would have been better.

― Gear! (can Jung shill it, Mu?) (Gear!), Monday, 7 March 2005 09:31 (twenty years ago)

"melvin and howard" is really good! i'm so glad someone mentioned it! jonathan demme was the best director in the world for like, ten years, a fact understandably obscured by how bad he's been ever since (though no one ever seems to hold all the boring films scorsese's made against HIM).

― J.D. (Justyn Dillingham), Monday, 7 March 2005 09:34 (twenty years ago)

is "hell's angels" any good?

― J.D. (Justyn Dillingham), Monday, 7 March 2005 09:36 (twenty years ago)

i dunno gear, the shot-in-question felt too much like a "stunt" to me--ok, let's leave the camera linger over these two people sitting beside each other not exchanging a word, but let's leave the music to speak for their feelings DO YOU SEE?

"hell's angels" is k-corny, but the fight scenes are pretty cool.

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Monday, 7 March 2005 10:26 (twenty years ago)

is it just me or did three wainright's appear in "the aviator"?? (loudon iii was really, really hamming it up.)

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Monday, 7 March 2005 10:28 (twenty years ago)

cate blanchett sounded like cary grant or jennifer jason leigh, in "the hudsucker proxy", but, I guess, that might have been on purpose.

I didn't like the camera flying into leo's face/through moving propellors/other not nice places shots.

I think I am mellowing, somewhat, in my old age. of course, I didn't like this movie, whilst I was watching it, but now I think it was probably OK. I watched "I, robot", last night, and quite enjoyed it.

still, I wish this had not been made.

― RJG (RJG), Monday, 7 March 2005 10:45 (twenty years ago)

amst I think the shot (with the mute button on) works mostly because there's this serious business going on in the story and these two characters are trying to maintain a certain facade. But being bounced around a tad in the back of the ambulance and banging their heads slightly against the wall, which elicits a couple of smiles from them (as they refuse to look at each other) is a nice, subtle touch.

The song itself doesn't derail the scene by making it obvious, it derails the scene by being a really bizarre, poppy choice that has nothing to do with what the characters are thinking/doing. To me, it doesn't ruin the shot completely, but it is a bad soundtrack choice.

― Gear! (can Jung shill it, Mu?) (Gear!), Monday, 7 March 2005 11:38 (twenty years ago)

I thought rufus w. was disgusting, in this movie.

― RJG (RJG), Monday, 7 March 2005 12:04 (twenty years ago)

yep, it really was a piece of shit. the characterization of hughes was so, so, SO shockingly poor.

and an oscar for schoonmacher?! i mean when she was good she was AWESOME but how bad is the editing in this movie?

― s1ocki (slutsky), Monday, 7 March 2005 17:26 (twenty years ago)

four months pass...

OK I finally broke down and Netflixed it.

A) Two days previous, I rewatched Raging Bull. This was a mistake, because it makes things like this or GONY look about 4000000000x times worse than they probably are.
B) Were they kidding with the casting in this movie? Cos if they were totally riffing in some ridiculous meta-saddo manner, it's fantastic. If they actually stunt cast people like Gwen Stefani and Jude Law and Kate Fucking Beckinsale as these people and actually meant it, I'm horrified and disgusted. Cate Blanchett doesn't really acquit herself as Kate Hepburn very well either but compared to "Leo" she's a shining star. WTF was the point of casting Jude Law??? It was distracting, amazingly distracting, moreso than even the Gwen Stefani thing, to the point where I just actually blurted out, "Are they fucking kidding? Is that Jude Law? As Errol Flynn?". Also the awful dialog introducing him that yes, indeed, this is ERROL FLYNN, not JUDE LAW, DASHING ERROL FLYNN instead! Jarring and hideous, I wish they did the Zoolander David Bowie treatment instead of the dialog, just flashing "JEAN HARLOW" or "ERROL FLYNN" underneath these people and doing away with the ridiculous dialog introductions. Jude Law casting only worth it for the moment where he gets hit in the back of the head by some hurled plate or food item, whatever the hell that was. The idea that Kate Beckinsale has about 1/1000000 of Ava Gardner in her makes me want to puke. Who put this together? And where can I get their drugs? Apologies, again, if this was actually meant to be a total farce, a mockery of 1940s and '50s Hollywood, and NOT a serious motion picture drama.
C) If I ever have to see "Leo's" ass again, I'm ripping my own eyeballs out.
D) Afterwards, I put on Witness, which is a better movie and also, previously unbeknownst to me, features a young VIGGO MORTENSEN as an AMISH. Hands up, who knew that, come on. Sadly, no Jude Law.
E) The Senate hearing scenes were enjoyable.

― Allyzay knows a little German (allyzay), Wednesday, 13 July 2005 05:06 (twenty years ago)

I mean, going back to point B, I mean...Willem Dafoe? Why?

― Allyzay knows a little German (allyzay), Wednesday, 13 July 2005 05:10 (twenty years ago)

"gony" should be a word...for stuff that sucks!

― g e o f f (gcannon), Wednesday, 13 July 2005 08:40 (twenty years ago)

E) The Senate hearing scenes were enjoyable.

The last one was all sorts of fucked up, like "uhm, I don't really have anything to defend myself with, but hey, OTHERS DID IT TOO, YOU'RE JUST HATIN'!" How could that get anything but a "ninja please"?

Yeah, "The Aviator" really sucks, between this and "Million Dollar Baby" it's been a pretty poor year for hoary canonised directors.

(I like "Gangs Of New York"!)

― Daniel_Rf (Daniel_Rf), Wednesday, 13 July 2005 10:27 (twenty years ago)

Jude Law casting only worth it for the moment where he gets hit in the back of the head by some hurled plate or food item, whatever the hell that was.

Yes, this part was great. Ally is pretty much otm, the only thing I think this movie did competently was portraying ocd.

― Leon C. (Ex Leon), Wednesday, 13 July 2005 12:29 (twenty years ago)

Yeah, the scene where he's ranting over and over again about bringing in the milk and the long shot of the urine bottles was creepy as hell.

The last Senate hearing scene made little sense to me, I mean his point was something that he didn't say: the reason why none of the planes he was talking about were "delivered" to the military is because the military cancelled the orders. He crashed the spy plane, the military bailed on the contract for that and the enormo elephant-carrier. This happens all the time. So, I mean, it was all well and good, to point out about how 20 kajillion other people have had the same thing happen to them, but it seems like it would've been just as well to explicitly point out WHAT happened. I mean, he HAD the planes, they just told him at the 23rd hour that they didn't want them anymore, they didn't want him to do more testing on the spy plane, oops hey now. It doesn't seem like he should be held responsible for their contract jumping.

Haha I do find it quaint that one of the central dramas of the movie, besides the inherent mental drama of Hughes's breakdown, is between PAN AM and TWA. I felt like patting him on the head, it's ok, sell it to him, in 45 years neither of your airlines will exist anymore. It's better to just let Alec Baldwin take all of that hit.

― Allyzay knows a little German (allyzay), Wednesday, 13 July 2005 14:20 (twenty years ago)

Oh another thing...DiCaprio's accent was virtually unlistenable-to. Also whenever he'd get angry and scream, he'd lose the Texas accent instantly. Why bother? I guess more importantly why is he not being forced to redo the scenes where he drops his awful faux accent?

I really hope Scorcese realizes what everyone else in Hollywood has realized and stops working with him, because really this is just too much. I know that Leo basically cast himself in this film, it was his little project, BUT GONY + supposedly in Scorcese's next film? He really can't seriously think of the dude as a replacement DeNiro, can he? I mean he's awful.

― Allyzay knows a little German (allyzay), Wednesday, 13 July 2005 14:26 (twenty years ago)

Yeah, DiCaprio and Matt Damon are the leads in his next movie. I'm not sure what Scorcese sees in him.

― Leon C. (Ex Leon), Wednesday, 13 July 2005 14:29 (twenty years ago)

features a young VIGGO MORTENSEN as an AMISH.

Actually, I saw this on E! or something last week, so I will raise my hand.

― Jimmy Mod Is Sick of Being The Best At Everything (ModJ), Wednesday, 13 July 2005 14:29 (twenty years ago)

I have high hopes for the next film! the source material (Infernal Affairs) is great, and the supporting cast looks excellent. However, the Damon/DiCap question remains.

― Gear! (Ill Cajun Gunsmith) (Gear!), Wednesday, 13 July 2005 14:31 (twenty years ago)

Viggo has no lines in the movie, except for something muttered, in German, to the big blonde Amish. According to imdb it was his first motion picture!

Anyway, see, Matt Damon is not terrible. Even in movies I hated that he was in, he was pretty ok in the movie. I'm not 100% sold on him, but he could be alright. There are lots of pretty good actors in that age range, so why fixate on DiCaprio? I guess there's no way to answer that question. It just makes me sad. Again, I reiterate: do not watch Raging Bull in the week prior to watching more recent Scorcese.

― Allyzay knows a little German (allyzay), Wednesday, 13 July 2005 14:34 (twenty years ago)

unfortunately there are about 7-8 Scorsese movies I like more than Raging Bull!

― Gear! (Ill Cajun Gunsmith) (Gear!), Wednesday, 13 July 2005 14:48 (twenty years ago)

It doesn't matter, it's not my favorite Scorcese either, the point is that it's a biopic of a mentally unstable, self-destructive person and it beats the shit out of his most recent biopic of a mentally unstable, self-destructive person. Watching them close together invites comparisons which is going to make The Aviator look a lot worse than it probably is.

― Allyzay knows a little German (allyzay), Wednesday, 13 July 2005 14:50 (twenty years ago)

I think the down'n'dirty style of Raging Bull suits Scorsese better than Epic Bro Marty

― Gear! (Ill Cajun Gunsmith) (Gear!), Wednesday, 13 July 2005 14:52 (twenty years ago)

Ally hands up I knew about C). Sadly. I was watching Witness over Christmas or something and I was like, hey...
I also know that big blond Amish was one of those famous defector Russian ballet dancers in the 80s who I think died of AIDS.

― jocelyn (Jocelyn), Wednesday, 13 July 2005 14:57 (twenty years ago)

Gear I think that is a totally OTM point.

― Allyzay knows a little German (allyzay), Wednesday, 13 July 2005 15:01 (twenty years ago)

right on allyzay!! this movie is garbage!!

― s1ocki (slutsky), Wednesday, 13 July 2005 15:12 (twenty years ago)

see one reason I really do like Gangs of New York is that while it's an epic, it's a pretty disreputable and dirty epic.

― Gear! (Ill Cajun Gunsmith) (Gear!), Wednesday, 13 July 2005 15:22 (twenty years ago)

although I think that film too would fall apart completely if Daniel Day Lewis didn't give one of the better performances I've ever seen.

― Gear! (Ill Cajun Gunsmith) (Gear!), Wednesday, 13 July 2005 15:23 (twenty years ago)

WELL THERE YOU GO
(lucky the lens cap wuz off, huh)

― Tigerstyle Shamanic Vision Quester (sexyDancer), Wednesday, 13 July 2005 15:25 (twenty years ago)

1) DiCaprio is not awful. Tho his most memorable perfs came before age 22 (This Boy's Life, Gilbert Grape, Marvin's Room), Matt Damon is much more a blond beefcake action figure. As the callow, arrogant Hughes in the early reels, Leo is just fine.

2) DiCaprio's stardom = key to Marty getting $60-100 million budgets.

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 13 July 2005 15:25 (twenty years ago)

I MEAN "Electric Ladyland" would have sucked if Jimi Hendrix didn't play guitar on it.

― Tigerstyle Shamanic Vision Quester (sexyDancer), Wednesday, 13 July 2005 15:26 (twenty years ago)

difference is Electric Ladyland was all Hendrix, creation to completion, his work, under his direction. DDL was a component of a film. bad comparison.

― Gear! (Ill Cajun Gunsmith) (Gear!), Wednesday, 13 July 2005 15:31 (twenty years ago)

2) DiCaprio's stardom = key to Marty getting $60-100 million budgets.

that's the problem!!

― s1ocki (slutsky), Wednesday, 13 July 2005 15:31 (twenty years ago)

now if you say bluesbreakers sucked without clapton (because of?) I'm with you!

― Gear! (Ill Cajun Gunsmith) (Gear!), Wednesday, 13 July 2005 15:32 (twenty years ago)

I don't think DiCaprio was very good in any of those movies, actually! Whoops!

DiCaprio's stardom...I mean no one uses him anymore besides Scorcese, I can't remember anything he's done since Titanic besides GONY and Aviator. I mean I'm sure there must be something...right? It just seems like he's kind of one of the "Huh, oh yeah, he was in that boat movie, that's what he does now?" type of figures and not a bona fide star anymore, to put it bluntly. I'm sure that's part of it, I mean he did exec produce Aviator, so, yeah, I'm sure he's at least partially responsible for the budget on that one...

Also as already stated $100M epics aren't really "Marty's" thing, IMO.

― Allyzay knows a little German (allyzay), Wednesday, 13 July 2005 15:34 (twenty years ago)

He was in the Spielberg con artist movie with Tom Hanks which was actually pretty entertaining. Blanking on the name.

― n/a (Nick A.), Wednesday, 13 July 2005 15:35 (twenty years ago)

catch me if you can

― latebloomer: the Clonus Horror (latebloomer), Wednesday, 13 July 2005 15:36 (twenty years ago)

oh yeah, I forgot about that movie! That was actually surprisingly ok.

― Allyzay knows a little German (allyzay), Wednesday, 13 July 2005 15:37 (twenty years ago)

Scorsese's best film over the past dozen years being the decidedly un-epic Bringing Out the Dead, what with its Wong Kar-Wai/ghost story hijinks, I think he'd be served by making smaller scale pictures. That's one reason I'm anticipating this next one! I figure DiCaprio is playing the Tony Leung role, Damon in the Andy Lau part?

― Gear! (Ill Cajun Gunsmith) (Gear!), Wednesday, 13 July 2005 15:37 (twenty years ago)

btw, Jack Nicholson and Mark Wahlberg are also in the Infernal Affairs redo. It'll rise and fall on the script (by the former SPY guy who wrote "Kingdom of Heaven"). It sounds like it could be a 'street'/epic hybrid.

Gear, you bizarro-anticipated my saying Scorsese's last New York-grit ramble was the utterly mediocre "Bringing Out the Dead." (Kundun and Age of Innocence are my fave post-Goodfellas films.) He's about 40-45 years removed from that world, I can see why it's no longer as relevant to him.

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 13 July 2005 15:45 (twenty years ago)

I didn't like Bringing Out The Dead because I didn't like the cast there at all. :(

― Allyzay knows a little German (allyzay), Wednesday, 13 July 2005 15:49 (twenty years ago)

it was really strange, I was watching TV and Striking Distance came on and it was bizarre to note how Tom Sizemore aged about 25 years ina 5 year period between those two films. and now he looks like Robert Blake.

anyway, you guys are nuts!

― Gear! (Ill Cajun Gunsmith) (Gear!), Wednesday, 13 July 2005 15:51 (twenty years ago)

I hate everything Dr. Morbius ever says!!

― TOMBOT, Wednesday, 13 July 2005 15:53 (twenty years ago)

offtopic: Eric H. OTM re: Closer. The only way I would enjoy that movie is if all four characters were killed in a freak accident at the end.

― sleep (sleep), Wednesday, 13 July 2005 17:49 (twenty years ago)

Better yet, the beginning.

― sleep (sleep), Wednesday, 13 July 2005 17:49 (twenty years ago)

this isn't a great movie, but it's not bad by any means. leo was a lot better than i had been led to believe he would be. his accent was terrible, however.

the movie looks beautiful. the cinematography and period production design are very colorful, detailed, and convincing (for the most part, anyway; the flying sequences are pretty fake-looking).

the film's main flaws are in the script, which suffers from the usual glossed over biopic bullshit.

― latebloomer: lazy r people (latebloomer), Thursday, 21 July 2005 02:50 (twenty years ago)

I have this out on DVD right now and I'm going to watch it as soon as I finish this other movie, and then I will tell you what I think WHETHER YOU CARE OR NOT.

(This other movie is pretty good.)

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Thursday, 21 July 2005 05:06 (twenty years ago)

this movie really was garbage

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Thursday, 21 July 2005 05:23 (twenty years ago)

yeah it was fuckin' dire

― Ward Fowler (Ward Fowler), Thursday, 21 July 2005 06:07 (twenty years ago)

total shit

― s1ocki (slutsky), Thursday, 21 July 2005 14:21 (twenty years ago)

and yet STILL not as bad as gangs of new york!!

― s1ocki (slutsky), Thursday, 21 July 2005 14:21 (twenty years ago)

i actually enjoyed this, although low expectations may have had something to do with it. also the fact that i watched it in hour-long chunks over three days; i don't think it would have held my attention as well for 3 straight hours.

i did hate gangs of new york though.

― sleep (sleep), Thursday, 21 July 2005 14:36 (twenty years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.