FILMBRATS - REVIEWS

Here we have the biopic for Howard Hughes. He made the most expensive film to date in the late1920s with the epic WWII spectacle, “Hell’s Angels.” He funded the nearly four-million-dollar project himself. The buzz alone made him a hot commodity in the industry. He directed and produced many other films and he wined and dined several top female movie stars. But his first love was always flying. He was an innovator in creating bigger and better aircraft, notoriously losing millions in failed models. He didn’t care about money, he cared about the industry, and so if he had to spend a lot in order to make that next technological leap, he would. This film chronicles his trials and tribulations – literally.

Director Martin Scorsese comes at us again with another overly long period piece. Unlike “Gangs of New York,” this one doesn’t quite work as well. But before I get into all of that stuff, let’s talk about what is effective. The color palette changes depending on where in the chronological timeline the film is. It starts off with just copper and light blue tones. It progresses to have a broader spectrum of colors, although the colorization look never stops. It’s pretty noticeable straight away, but it hardly seems like a gimmick to me because the progression is so gradual.

The acting is good, but not extraordinary. Leonardo DiCaprio (Hughes) has done all this stuff before. He’s played the manipulative, no nonsense type in “Catch Me If You Can” and he’s played a character with mental problems much better in “What’s Eating Gilbert Grape.” Alec Baldwin (Pan Am Head Honcho, Juan Trippe) is always fun to watch. Cate Blanchett does a great impression of Katharine Hepburn, but looks absolutely nothing like her. She was the best actor in the film, and there is a scene between her and Leo where they communicate through the door of his projection room that virtually makes the movie. With that said, as great as Blanchett was in the role, I would have loved to see a better visual match.

Speaking of visual matches, the editing in this film is the worst I’ve possibly ever seen from a major motion picture. It’s definitely the worst I’ve ever seen from an award contender. Either the footage wasn’t covered well enough or Scorsese’s go to editor Thelma Schoonmaker just dropped the ball. It was extremely distracting and I expected much more professionalism from such seasoned experts. As a form of comparison, imagine if I chopped out every “the” in my sentences. You’d still be able to understand what I was saying, but you’d wonder why I’d have a job writing in English. That’s how bad the editing was to me.

I don’t really know what Hughes was like, but it was still fun to watch this rendition. I enjoy watching people at the top of their game. Hughes took charge and always knew how to get exactly what he wanted. Even when he was at his lowest point emotionally, his business skills never faltered. The script by John Logan (“Bats” and the vastly overrated “Gladiator”) didn’t leave a bad taste in my mouth, but didn’t really show mastery of such a massive cast and eventful life. The whole experience was just basic. However, the three hours spent in the theater seemed to go by quite quickly. I probably could have stuck around for more. The film doesn’t crash and burn, but like a solitary bag of peanuts, it leaves no impact.

respond to jon@filmbrats.com