Hmmmm...I wonder if I should still give Shark Tale a shot on DVD just because it's nominated.

In other news, I have seen The Aviator today and it was another underwhelming Best Picture contender. Now all my hopes rely on Finding Neverland, Sideways and Million Dollar Baby...

Wow. you thought The Aviator was underwhelming?

I have finally come to the conclusion that Aviator is an overall better piece of film-making than Million Dollar Baby (and aside from Kill Bill and Before Sunset, the best picture of the year). I still favor M$B more to win and personally LOVE M$B much more than Aviator.
From this year, I see a few movies that really will stand the test of time and be classics not necessarily in film-sense but artistic and human nature...
These films are Before Sunset, Kill Bill, Dogville, Million Dollar Baby, Passion of the Christ, and to a slighter effect Sideways.
The Aviator does not fit in that timeless category, but it is just such an impressive piece of film-making because in terms of cinema, it achieves more and succeeds on so many technical and on screen levels that it surpasses any other achievement in film-making this year. As far as story, character development, emotions, depth, and all the good and important aspects and effects film has, Aviator has them but other films are stronger in those departments. However, in my opinion, the sheer accomplishment in making The Aviator outweighs those other essential features of a film. the closest a movie comes to equalling Aviator with the opposite importance is Million Dollar Baby and that is why I'm almost in a constant tug-of-war over which is the better film. Each ascends to the tops of my list for different reasons and trying to distinguish which film's individual features are strongest compared to the tohers' strong aspects is extremely hard! No doubt Million Dollar Baby strikes a billion more emotional and psychological chords in every person than does Aviator but that is also the reason why Aviator's accomplishment is overlooked. Both films have just about equally great performances (Aviator has a lsight edge) and direction is split because each has one of the two very distinctly different types of directors. Scorsese is the big picture, epic and fine detail irector; whilst Eastwood is the more emotionally effective character director, not placing so much emphasis on scope, he creates the film's own scope as he goes along.

So, basically one week I have Aviator as my #3 and the other I have Million Dollar Baby there.
I will be content with either of them winning Best Picture, but I am rooting for my personal favorite, Baby!

My point being just that I think The Aviator is a masterful achievement of film-making on many many levels and I hope you don't overlook that while under an unidentifiable underwhelming performance. Were you waiting to be moved more? Were you expecting better acting? Better effects? a better synergistic effect?
What exactly let you down?

I am a bit tired, so I'll keep this short and try to elaborate more in this very thread tomorrow.

I thought the whole movie was a bit too, well, bloated, too "reaching for the stars". It was overlong and could use some better editing. Furthermore, I didn't like the focus of the film that was much more on Hughes' illness than on his achievements and his career in Hollywood. Speaking of Hollywood, I admired the recreation of the Golden Age of Hollywood that was shown in the movie, but it was kept way too short for my taste, the movie was much more about Highes' inner demons than I'd want it to be.

I also felt as if the movie was trying to mimic Raging Bull. I mean, so many things in The Aviaztor reminded me of Raging Bull. The way the story was told, the characters, the dialogue, even technical details. It's not necessairily a bad thing, but I had this "been there seen that"-feeling throughout many parts of the movie. I also wasn't too fond of the abrupt ending, but I can look over that.

Now to the good parts:

The moivie was masterfully shot and technically nearly perfect. The cast is amazing. The first half of the movie clearly belongs to the magnificent Cate Blanchett while DiCaprio excels in the second part. Both are very deserving of their Oscar nominations and I hope for Blanchett to win (her only better role was in Elizabeth and even that was just barely better). However, if compared to Ray, Foxx was better than DiCaprio. Nonetheless, Howard Hughes was DiCaprio's best role to date, without a doubt.

I loved the cinematography and the score of the movie, especially the score with its classic 30ies - 40ies music. Very pleasant. Furthermore, I was impressed by the entire cast in the film. I really wish Jude Law had more screentime as Errol Flynn, he was great. Kate Beckinsale did her job pretty well as did Alan Alda (but I can't believe they nominated him over David Carradine!!!). The art direction of Hughes' parties as well as of his house was superb, the visual effects were pretty good, even though nowehere near groundbreaking.

It was a good piece of cinema, I'd give it a B+ at the moment (and as you must know Raffi, grades usually change with further viewings). It is an entertaining pice of filmmaking, very well acted, technically great and well-directed. I think the screenplay was what I had the most problems with as well as the editing.

So much for keeping it short...

lol.

Thanks by the way for that run-down...

I also had a few problems with editing. It never really dragged until one point and It hought they kept that part going a bit long. After it's finished you do feel like you've been sitting for decades but you also feel like you've lived the time.

I also agree it's screenplay isn't its strongest asset, and most probably its weakest one, but I still stand, and it seems you mostly agree, that this is just an astonishing piece of cinema film-making.

you did mention at times it wasn't what you wanted to see and I don't want to seem rude in saying this at all, and there's no other way to say it, but they weren't really thinking of you or any audience member when making the movie (and I know yu obviously know that). My point is, maybe their aim was to dramatize his illness. He had many other, though less extreme than aviation and film-making, interests and is a man known for many fascinations. They just seemed to focus on his aviation obsession and dramatize his illness. the fame and hollywood just came with the package. though I don't think this was made to elaborate or really showcase Hollywood in the 40's and 50's it must inevitably touch on it and they decided to go all out if they must include his public persona. and in my opinion, they succeeded!

I do also acjnowledge that films opinion of films change with every viewing, something I'm just beginning to really grasp so I look forward to more great conversations about this any other films with you and all of posters!

I know that they weren't thinking of me or anyone else when making this movie, but it doesn't mean that people have to like what they made. I simply don't like this focus and I think that the movie really went down when his illness has peaked. On the one hand, of course, it gave DiCaprio a good opportunity to display his acting abilities (which are definitely great, even though I personally don't like him). On the other hand, though, it hurt the pace and the flow of the movie, in my opinion.

I think it is a great piece of filmmaking, technically, because all the technical aspects of the movie are great. Cinematography, visual effects, sound and sound editing, score etc. However, it does remind me too much of Raging Bull which I also think is very overrated. It is a good movie and for now, definitely in my TOP 20 of 2004, though.

In other news, I saw Sideways today and that was somewhat better than The Aviator. Might even enter my TOP 10 of the year.

Lect, when you're up for it, I would love to hear your thoughts on the film.

Certainly I'll post them in the Sideways thread.

Lecter, you still need to see Million Dollar Baby before the Oscars. :wink:

And Finding Neverland...