Today we saw The Aviator, in a full house. I liked it. I knew it would be long, though I did not warn my wife about that or she would not have gone (don't tell). The story moves right along for the most part - - the cutting is very good (as expected) but I feel Mr. Scorsese could have lost 15 or 20 minutes easily, with no loss of story. I also appreciate the reluctance to do so. I am, however, a little frayed with overly used digital special effects, and I do wonder how an old school Scorsese-type would be persuaded to choose this path during the storyboard process. I feel we are now crossing the line, with directors choosing this method over other available effects. The process is just not 100% right. The impossible "camera" angles are distracting (to my taste, irritating), violating all sorts of physics laws which causes an observant person to instantly question the process of placing animations in serious films, and it therefore becomes a dead giveaway: he knows he is viewing a cartoon. It reminds me of the early days of S-T-E-R-E-O, very few younger people would understand this concept. I think James Cameron gets it but who knows for sure. Digital animations were probably required for this; I am suggesting that some moderation of it and additional use of models might make sense.
This would be my prime criticism then, that the effects are in your face; they are anything but subtle in certain scenes. This was true with the other film I saw this weekend (The Flight of The Phoenix), there's relatively little in the way of special effects differences between them. I am witnessing this on an increasing level. All that said, The Aviator visuals are nonetheless impressive (some great plane crashes), and the storytelling, though very good, is artsy. I give the effort a must-see, on balance. This film looks very modern but handles the period feel with brilliance; it is indeed slick. The score and adaptations (Howard Shore) are fitting but not something I'd want to own beyond a possible DVD of the film itself, later on. And you have this: after seeing the film, there is little doubt in your mind who Hughes was, or what sorts of things cranked his gear. -- Don Forbes
This would be my prime criticism then, that the effects are in your face; they are anything but subtle in certain scenes. This was true with the other film I saw this weekend (The Flight of The Phoenix), there's relatively little in the way of special effects differences between them. I am witnessing this on an increasing level. All that said, The Aviator visuals are nonetheless impressive (some great plane crashes), and the storytelling, though very good, is artsy. I give the effort a must-see, on balance. This film looks very modern but handles the period feel with brilliance; it is indeed slick. The score and adaptations (Howard Shore) are fitting but not something I'd want to own beyond a possible DVD of the film itself, later on. And you have this: after seeing the film, there is little doubt in your mind who Hughes was, or what sorts of things cranked his gear. -- Don Forbes