Change Your Image
michaelheiser-25099
Reviews
12 Angry Men (1957)
Good legal drama
Good legal drama but the evidence brought to our attention by juror no. 8 (Henry Fonda) is often not especially convincing but seems to be taken very seriously by progressively more and more men in the room until inevitably we have a unanimous Not Guilty verdict. An example of this, is when Fonda successfully gets the others to acknowledge that the old man witness is unreliable, yet then goes on to base a major part of his own evidence on the old fellows testimony that he took fifteen seconds to get to the door to witness the murderer fleeing. Fonda clearly assumes that this man he has determined as unreliable would get his exact timings spot on in a moment of heightened emotion. It may seem like a minor point but there are just a little too many of these small inconsistent assumptions littering 12 Angry Men for me to feel it was an entirely successful exercise. I really couldn't help shake the notion that Fonda's character had his own agenda and was simply unwilling to back down. Perhaps he was the most persuasive man in the room and that was ultimately the reason that the decision was made. It's difficult to really say with any certainty that the accused was innocent at all. Did they really make the correct decision?
Silver Linings Playbook (2012)
Good film
Good film - the story is very well done, as is the cinematography, music, dialogue, etcetera, but above all else is the wonderful performance by Bradley Cooper and I never thought I would say that. I am not a fan of his; in fact, he was my least favorite character in the Hangover series. But, here, he gives the performance of his career. Notice how I didn't mention Jennifer Lawrence yet? Oh, of course, she's excellent. But, I expect that out of her. (I have yet to see her critically, and publicly, panned horror film of 2012, so in my mind, so far, that woman can do NO wrong.) Okay, I enjoyed her once again, but again, I already expected great things from her. I was shocked by how well Cooper played the bipolar hero of our story. Recently released mental patient, Pat (Cooper,) tries to put his life in order by being positive and reclaiming his lost wife at his side. All the while, he's unintentionally testing his elderly parent's (and the police's) patience with his uncontrollable outbreaks and being wooed by the great, and almost equally messed up character of Tiffany (Lawrence.) At probably too long of a length in running time, you know how this is going to pan out, but it's still suspenseful throughout because of the excellence of acting on the side of Cooper and his raging one moment to calm the next. I don't even know too many people with this problem, and yet, I know this is realism.
6/10.
Breaking Bad (2008)
Good show
Good show. It's not as great as everyone told me, but good show. We start out with one main character, Walter White (played by Bryan Cranston), who is struggling to make ends meet working both as a high school chemistry teacher and part time at a car wash. Then he gets diagnosed with cancer. Then he breaks bad. Teaming up with an unlikely sidekick, Jesse Pinkman (played by Aaron Paul), who is the immature "yo, bitch"-spouting, high-school-screw-up small-time drug dealer, Walt and Jesse both put their skills towards the drug world to try to make good by their families. This show has been masterfully put together with layer upon layer of insight into some of the most interesting characters ever realized in the history of television. We have some very dark characters, and a lot of grey characters, and it all adds up to brilliant dialogue and plot lines.
The creator, writers, directors and actors have paid attention to every single detail, putting thought into every nuance in every character in every scene. Because of this attention to detail there is something for everyone in this show. Every thinking brain will immediately be attracted to the intelligence so evidently on display, that even if you're not a drug dealing chemist living in Albuquerque, you will find something in the characters that connects you to them and makes you hang on for dear life.
Goodfellas (1990)
Good film - Too violent for my taste
Good film - Too violent for my taste. Robert De Niro gives one of his best performances -- ever -- as Jimmy, even if he's not in the film as much as you might be lead to believe from the front cover. Joe Pesci is in this movie about as much as De Niro, maybe a bit more or less. But when he's on screen there's no doubting he's on screen--he's very hard to miss. A short, deranged, loud-mouthed man with something wrong in his head. Someone makes an insult toward him and he shoots them, and then laughs. It's quite disturbing. I am a huge fan of Pesci, and I tend to love his characters, but he really makes you feel sick towards his character in "Goodfellas," while at the same time taking a strange liking to him. That just goes to show how good of an actor Pesci is. Ray Liotta is perfect as Henry Hill. I can't think of a better actor to play him. He captures a sense of innocence yet at the same time a feeling of violence. I love the scene where he walks over to a man's house with a regular expression on his face. "What do you want, f&*^&?" the man asks. Liotta continues walking, takes out a gun, and starts to continually beat the man in the skull with the butt of his gun. As Henry walks back to his car, his face is disturbing and his expression stays with you for a long, long time.
Blade Runner (1982)
The glimpse of our future
The glimpse of our future ; for the pure subject to have reflection is for it to automatically realise, nihilistically, that consciousness is itself nothing. Unless this happens, the replicant remains a "simpersonator", able to simulate personalities, but always confusing personality-function with consciousness-as-essence. In other words, unlike Deckard, the pure subject would not go from "it does not know what it is" to "it now knows what it is", but from "it does not know what it is" to "it knows it cannot know what it is becoming", which is the kind of morbidly fked up place Cronenberg now resides. But, philosophically, "Blade Runner" doesn't go this extra mile. If the film is about nostalgia and loss, it remains trapped on the level of thinking in terms of "memories" and "death". IE - whether replicant or human, memories aren't ours and all existence ends in death, as bemoaned by one dying, rain-drenched replicant. In this regard, the film is a lamentation more in the style of such Westerns as "Once Upon A Time In The West", "Unforgiven" and "The Wild Bunch". Indeed, "Blade Runner's" screenwriter, David Peoples, injects many western motifs into the film, borrows heavily from "High Noon" (a 1952 western that features a lone bounty hunter tasked with killing four outlaws) and would himself go on to write "Unforgiven". Fused with these are director Ridley Scott's motifs - an emphasis on eyes, photographs, pictures etc - (photographs are objects of place, sentiment, history, and memory. Similarly, phrases like "we get the picture" or "world picture" show that consciousness can be discussed in terms of a picture) all of which stress the recording and capturing of memories.
Gandhi (1982)
Wonderful historical film
Wonderful historical film; compare it to David Lean's style in "Lawrence of Arabia" or Edward Zwick's style in "Glory" and it seems a bit dull. The other thing was that it seemed like the screenwriters had gone to great efforts to make sure that there were white characters on screen at all times. It seemed very contrived to me, having this whole scene where Gandhi tells the priest (Ian Charleston, who was also scandalously under-billed considering the importance and quality of his performance) that he has to leave because whatever is done must be done by Indians, and then there's really no explanation as to why he's bringing this British woman to India to help him take care of his house. Then just as the movie is coming to a close, we have Candice Bergen strutting around flirting with Gandhi and it sets a very odd tone to some scenes that probably could have been done better with a more serious actress. You have John Gielgud in a role that could just as easily have been played by just about anybody. So there's a lot of wasted talent in a sense, and all these actors getting top bill over some of the people who had real roles in the film leaves a bitter taste in the mouth.
Manhattan (1979)
It was good
Isaac mirrors more of Allen's personality than any other character he played. It's the medium of Woody's soul allowing him to say that "Bergman is the only genius of Cinema" and to express his contempt toward "pseudo-intellectual" stuff, like an alibi against his detractors. But Woody doesn't deny his flaws, his character represents the struggle of a soul trying to embody Manhattan's incarnation of the American Dream, but as he stutters in the opening line, unable to pass 'Chapter One', he can't find inspiration. His friend Yale (Michael Murphy) says he's got a "Freudian" relationship with New York, it's more than that, it's Oedipian because he knows he's in love with this city, but is incapable to make himself worthy of that love. But Manhattan is more than a movie about love; it's about the strange effect of love in mature people. And Isaac, like Woody is mature age-wise of course.
Isaac is 42, and he realizes it's an interesting age where his mind became his greatest asset, and since he evolves in an artistic milieu, he's clearly in his advantage. Through "Manhattan" and Gershwin's music, it's the whole intellectual and artistic underground world of New York that lets its soul implode, it's to New York what Saint-Germain was to Paris in the existentialist 50's. But in the 70's, New York became the center of the underground culture, of sexual liberation, of the whole questioning of the American heritage without the idealism of the late 60's or the pessimism of the post-Nixon era. Everything is debatable, war, marriage, orgasms and nothing is to be taken for granted. The film was made in 1979.
Annie Hall (1977)
Funny film
The final result is something deep yet funny; to the extent that it could be the funniest psychological movie ever made. I loved that collection of daily details which formulate the lead's character eloquently, take a list: How he, as self-conceited, feels importunate necessity to prove his point of view's rightness for some guy, who hears accidentally in a line of a theater; hence, it takes a brief dream appearance of (Marshall McLuhan) to assure the lead's superiority, and shut-up any disagreement. The lead's culture gets in the way between him and having sex with a beauty, while - in fact - it's his forever fear disguised as a discussion about who killed (JFK), where he doesn't suspect the CIA, but - really - his own sexual capacities! The lead doesn't see anyone further himself; so he deemed dully that the need for love, ambition, encouragement, and alteration form his girl's side--are nothing but bad symptoms caused by her period! He was too blind to grasp the truth of himself as the actual reason of why his love failed. And lastly, he can't change himself, only his love story's end, which he writes as a play; because what can't be fixed in reality can be fixed in art. This is, as a whole, a profound exploration done very amusingly too.
Gangs of New York (2002)
Cynical look at history....
The film is remarkably cynical about American public life in this period. Official history might teach that the Civil War was a noble crusade against slavery and that nineteenth-century America was a beacon of liberty to oppressed Europeans living under autocratic regimes. The history we see here, however, is the unofficial version. Elections are bought and sold as a result of shady back-room deals. The police are as corrupt as their political masters, and have little interest in protecting the public. (They make no attempt to intervene in the fight in which Vallon's father is killed). The city's rival fire-brigades would rather fight one another than put out fires. Opposition to the war effort was common, and not confined to a few Copperhead politicians. Although Scorsese shows the irrational violence of which the mob are capable, we also sense that he has some sympathy with the complaints of the poor that, in what is nominally a democracy, their voice is not being listened to and that they have no alternative but to riot. (Ironically, however, this anti-war riot may actually have lengthened the war by persuading Southerners to keep fighting, even after Gettysburg, in the belief that the North was tearing itself apart). The depiction of the riots with which the film ends is one of its two great set-pieces, the other being the battle scene between the Dead Rabbits and the Natives with which it begins.
Fargo (1996)
Not good sorry.
Don't know if it was good acting or bad acting, but every character in this movie sickened me. Their behaviorisms, their speech, their rationale just drove me insane. Mr. Lundegard (William H. Macy) was a train wreck, the criminals he was dealing with were inept, his father-in-law was a boorish man, his wife was just annoying, and the sheriff was a pregnant Columbo. It's ideal to do a movie about a crime that goes horribly wrong due to lousy criminals, but make it a comedy or something. The attack on Asian-Americans is also not good. This was supposed to be the real deal crime drama type, but these people were so pathetic that I couldn't bear to watch them. And besides that, what possesses a sheepish, meek man like Lundegard to try to pull off such an extravagant crime like have his wife kidnapped? Though I couldn't stand it, somehow I stomached the movie.
In the Name of the Father (1993)
Very moving
Very moving. As father and son Giuseppe and Gerry Conlon, both Pete Postlethwaite and Daniel Day-Lewis give passionate and outstanding performances as they struggle with both their failed relationship and the battle to prove their innocence. Emma Thompson gives a strong performance too as lawyer Gareth Peirce, the woman who has taken up the appeal. All other cast members are impressive. Sheridan presents a highly charged, emotional drama which tells a horrifying tale in what is a black period in Irish and English history that continues even today. While he perhaps could have shown us more of the people's reaction and the feeling of the time, he instead concentrates on the Conlon's plight and their never ending fight for justice. Due credit must also go to Jim Sheridan for keeping what would have to be an incident and an issue that is close to his heart, very evenly balanced, as both sides are portrayed as equally guilty of terrible and unspeakable acts.
Backed up by some very good cinematography, editing and set direction, "In the Name of the Father" is certainly a movie that will stir your soul and disturb you. It is truly frightening what men in power are capable of, and even more frightening are the devastating effects they can have on so many people's lives.
Days of Thunder (1990)
Not good sorry.....
Not good sorry. Yet what my heart says about 'DOT' gives quite a different spin on it all together. It is an exciting movie that not only shows the competitive side of racing, but what lengths a race driver will go to be behind the wheel. I also like the relationship that Cole (Cruise) has with his crew chief Harry (Robert Duvall). Then with all Jerry Bruckheimer films, if you have an enjoyable experience, then that will last with you for alongtime to come. So with all that in prospective, 'DOT' is a great film in my opinion. The racing sequences are well incorporated into a story about a racer that is pushed, and once he is, you will not like the reaction that you get. Tom Cruise's performance is pretty good. I like how we see him go from being one sort driver to the other. However my favourite character has to be Harry, as Robert Duvall is great in what he says and does. He gets Cole through many races with clever and intelligent moves, that many experienced crew chiefs would not even think of.
Born on the Fourth of July (1989)
Powerful film on Vietnam
Powerful film on Vietnam. Ron Kovic's touching autobiographical novel is the subject matter on which Stone bases his harrowing, disturbing screen play (co-written by Stone and Kovic) about young Kovic's blind pro-war patriotism which turns into a strong anti-war passion after he returns from Vietnam paralysed and disillusioned. The film's strongest point is its performances from an impressive cast including Raymond J. Barry, Caroline Kava, Jerry Levine, Kyra Sedgwick, Willem Dafoe, Tom Berenger and an outstanding Tom Cruise who gives us a powerhouse showing, first as the gung-ho young marine ready to take on the world, then as the confused and angry vet questioning the very ideals on which he was brought up.
The splendid production values that were evident in "Platoon" return again, with Robert Richardson back behind the camera to deliver some splendid 'Nam pics, Bruno Rubeo again in charge of Art Direction, while new editor David Brenner does a creditable job and John Williams scores an emotionally rousing piece of music.
Rain Man (1988)
Good film, but not the greatest
Good film, but not the greatest. When Charlie finds out that his father's entire estate has been left to a single trustee, he schemes around and unmasks who the trustee really is -- his older brother he never knew he had, Raymond Babbitt (Hoffman), who lives in a homey mental institute and quotes the Bud Abbott and Lou Costello "Who's on first?" charade when he gets nervous.
Charlie confronts his brother, who seems as though he doesn't recognize him. And in a moment of weakness, Charlie kidnaps his brother from his home, drives him back to California, and attempts to squeeze the money out of Raymond, who has no holding on the concept of money at all. Despite his lack of understanding regarding monetary value, Raymond is an idiot savant, and Charlie takes advantage of Raymond's mathematical skills by taking him to Las Vegas to count cards. After achieving a fortune they are thrown out of the casinos and left to face charges of kidnapping. The problem is, by the time it's all over, Charlie has formed an odd sort of bond with his brother. Long after the laughs settle the emotional impact of the story sinks in.
The ending is the sort of rare conclusion that brings tears to the eyes. Throughout the film, Charlie is an arrogant, ignorant, greedy businessman who cares of no one but himself. By the end, however, he has learned more than he has in his entire lifetime from the brother he never had. And unlike a lot of the buddy films out there, we get to see the bonding between Charlie and his big brother, Raymond, form on a daily basis, until it is brought to a standstill. Dustin Hoffman gives his best performance in "Rain Man," one of such unmatched strength and brilliance that we often feel that we are really watching an autistic man on screen. Raymond Babbitt is one of the most memorable characters you will ever encounter as a viewer, and though Dustin Hoffman isn't necessarily a favorite actor of mine, I place his performance in "Rain Man" as good but his best performance was probably Marathon Man.
Patton (1970)
Compelling, complex portrait
There is something magnetic about a general who is desperate to be a hero despite being wealthy, a leader whose knowledge of the past is eerie enough to provide his beliefs in reincarnation. While Patton was not a "womanizer" as other Generals in World War 2 (like Ike) were, he is leading a full life in the present to go with the life he has led before throughout history. This makes for a compelling, complex portrait which goes beyond how a real man is presented in film in most cases. This film is very much a canvas portrait of George Patton which not only looks like a masterpiece, but give the viewer a glimpse at the oil base that makes up the painting. It is run on television often because it is so good. If you have not seen it, you should. If you have, it still holds something enthralling enough that like a great masterpiece, seeing it again can give you something more. The battle sequences were shot in Spain & are very well produced.
The French Connection (1971)
Chase film
When Gene Hackman, as Popeye Doyle is hot on the trail of that illegal load of heroin, he lets nothing and nobody get in his way If one stands aside from the sheer excitement of the film and examines it dispassionately, it becomes apparent that here is ruthlessness which, under normal circumstances, would be regarded as the actions of a crazy man Under the arches of the elevated railroad, the Doyle character drives a car like a character gone berserk; if the number of innocent bystanders sent flying and the total of wrecked cars were calculated, it might have been cheaper and more humane to let the villains - and the heroin - escape But it's only movies While the picture's running it is not necessary to wonder whether all this mayhem is morally right or wrong Indeed, it would be a sorry day for the entire thriller industry, both written and screened, if ever we did!
This is a world of fantasy into which the audience is content to follow the action for less than two hours There are the goodies and the baddies; the policeman may act like a baddie, but he's really on the side of the angels.
The Deer Hunter (1978)
Powerful unending film
The movie is full of fabulous performances by Meryl Streep, John Cazale, Robert De Niro, Christopher Walken, George Dzundza, and John Savage.
Savage recently starred in my favorite film 'The Islands' and did a remarkable job in that as well.
I think the cast of 'Deer Hunter' is well-ensembled and brilliantly acted. The small town in Pennsylvania is quite important to know the significant impact that the war had on small towns in America. Everybody was affected by their absence. Not knowing their fates is often worse than knowing it. After the war, three of the men must face their lives back home. They are never the same again. The game of Russian Roulette is used effectively and frighteningly and almost too violent.
The Exorcist (1973)
Demonic warfare is REAL.
Demonic warfare is REAL. This is based on a true story and the pictures prove it. While many people would most certainly list The Exorcist as THE scariest movie ever made, there seems to be a growing number of fans who find humor where it was not intended. I don't get it. Maybe it's a generational thing, but The Exorcist remains as effective today as it was in 1973. If the story of a young, helpless girl being turned into a snarling creature isn't horror enough, add to that the desecration of sacred religious symbols and you've got something quite shocking. Beyond the story, the strong performances by a good cast really help put The Exorcist over the top. Max von Sydow was never better. And the performance of an incredibly young and inexperienced Linda Blair is nothing short of remarkable. A.
The Lost Boys (1987)
A film for vampire fans only
I don't know. A film for vampire fans only. "The Lost Boys" bathes in '80s film cheese. There's boy-sees-girl-across-the-room romance, a comic book store, a carnival, gangs ... the list goes on. The film epitomizes that decade in movies, which either makes it corny or classic. I would argue that as the plot thickens, it moves from the former to the latter. The key to the film's effectiveness is the slow unveiling of the vampires. The scene in the tree where they show Michael what he has become by turning into their vampire forms and attacking their pray has a massive impact. Although we never see the transformations in process thanks to budget issues most likely, the colored contacts, make up and Joel Schumacher's approach are enough to freak you out in all the right ways. The cumulative amount of blood and guts at the climax also adds that cult-classic horror camp that will put a stupid grin on the face of any of the genre's fans.
The Usual Suspects (1995)
Good film with suspense - Stephen Baldwin was great in this
We start when five criminals are brought in for a line-up. There's McManus (Stephen Baldwin), Dean Keaton (Gabriel Byrne), Fred Fenster (Benicio Del Toro), Todd Hockney (Kevin Pollack), and Verbal Kint. While they are being held in prison, the five men all agree that the police just need someone to pin the crime they are suspected of on someone. They all agree to plan revenge by forming a league of crime...
Lotta stuff happens, next we know a legendary criminal named Keizer Soze (whose name reminds me of a type of food) has the five men under his control. He makes them steal drugs off a docked ship, and as we see in the beginning, the men all die save Verbal. Hmm, who could Keizer Soze be? How did all the people die? Who is Lara Croft? Oops, wrong tagline. "The Usual Suspects" is a very good film, but not one of my favorites. It's extremely catchy, brutal, etc., but comes across slightly shallow. The ending, though surprising, doesn't really click together as well as some other films with surprises. I wasn't confused by the ending, I understood it, I just thought it was a bit shallow compared to some other flicks.
Horrible Bosses 2 (2014)
Decent comedy but too much profanity
Sequel to the 2011 comedy, with our three losers-Jason B, Jason S and Charlie-returning with their comical escapades. Our boys are now trying to start their own business, since they are tired of working for horrible bosses, but they get taken advantage of by Christoph and his son, Chris, in their first business decision. After losing everything, the three would be criminals decide to kidnap Chris and ransom him to Christoph. Of course, nothing goes right. In their adventures, Jason B, Jason S and Charlie cross paths with some familiar faces from the first movie, including Kevin Spacey, Jennifer Aniston and Jamie Foxx. It's written and directed by Sean Anders, who wrote Dumb & Dumber, to, We're the Millers and Hot Tub Time Machine and he directed That's My Boy and Sex Drive. The situations are hysterical and I laughed a lot. As the end credits start, they have some out takes and bloopers. It's rated "R" for language and sexual content, including brief nudity, and has a running time of 1 hour & 48 minutes.
The Godfather (1972)
Powerful and violent
I thought the film was very powerful, but a tad too violent for me. The film's emphasis on family ties, honour and vengeance recall the revengers' tragedies of the Shakespearean and Jacobean theatre. Coppola does seem to be aiming for a Shakespearean grandeur. Don Vito, the ageing monarch whose powers slip away is reminiscent of King Lear, Michael, a good man corrupted by power, of Macbeth (a comparison which will become even more apt in the later episodes of the trilogy). There is also something of Hamlet in Michael and Sonny's resolve to avenge their father. Such an ambitious film requires acting of a very high order if it is to seem credible, but Coppola was able to draw upon some of the best performances of the seventies. To my mind, this was Marlon Brando's last great role (I have never cared much for 'Apocalypse Now' and loathed 'Last Tango in Paris'), but it was one that he made the most of. His Don Vito is both terrifying and pitiable, part dictator and part lonely old man. His rasping voice (the result of an earlier bullet wound in the throat) conveys both menace and physical weakness. Don Vito may be a bad man, but he is also in a way a magnificent one, and his passing marks the end of an era. If the film was notable for the last of the great Brando, it also saw the birth of a new star. Except perhaps for 'The Godfather Part II', I have never seen Al Pacino give a better performance than he did here, as he portrayed Michael's passage from a 'civilian' (as his brother calls him) to a warlord, from an innocent young idealist to a ruthless killer. Given the length of time that Pacino is on screen, I am surprised that he was only nominated for Best Supporting Actor rather than Best Actor. It would be interesting to speculate who might have won if he and Brando had been in competition for the award. I am even more surprised that Pacino did not win as Best Supporting Actor; Joel Grey's role in 'Cabaret' (which did win) is more showy and a technical tour de force, but it lacks the emotional depth of Pacino's performance. I also greatly admired James Caan's role as the hot-headed Sonny.
Impact (2004)
Saw this on Epoch TV!
I agree with everyone on this that the world needs to see this film. I saw it like everyone on Epoch Times and applaud the network for airing such a bold and courageous film for Christ.
I leave with this powerful verse:
"Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake,
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven..."
Matthew 5:10-12.
The Godfather Part III (1990)
Good film
Good film. In sum, Michael Corleone, wants to get respectable, recognized by the catholic church and world influential. So he tries to donate big quantities of money to the Vatican bank in exchange of a majority share in the Vatican's real estate institution. He fails at first but goes on and tries to find the invisible ways into the labyrinth. So he makes friends with as many people as possible in the financial, religious and political circles around the church. He finds out he has to go to Sicilia to get in touch with an important cardinal who is actually elected Pope, but does not last more than a few months. They have special teas that make you sleep very long in the Vatican. But this third part shows a great evolution of the Sicilian-American and Italian-American communities in the US. Violence is becoming less and less easy in the US. They have to respect the law and law-enforcing institutions are too strong and powerful for them to be neglected or under-evaluated. Then there is a shift in that mafia violence. The Corleones going to Sicilia, among other things to take part in the first operatic production of Michael's own son who is an opera tenor, violence catches them up and Sicilia becomes the theatre of what they can't do in the US any more. And once again Michael goes through and is well protected by the men of his nephew who he has just appointed his successor, and also by chance. The final gun directed at him cannot be prevented from firing, though the assassin will be shot back on the spot by the new Don Corleone, but Michael is once again lucky and the bullet does not reach him.
The Aviator (2004)
Howard Hughes bio pic
Howard Hughes bio pic, I get it. Hughes is very much the hero of the film, not its villain. He is, admittedly, a flawed hero, but then none of us are flawless- certainly not the heroes among us. He can be stubborn- for example, he insists on completing the Spruce Goose even after the military have cancelled their order and it should have become clear to him that there is no commercial future for the plane- and also ruthless, as when he blackmails a muckraking journalist who is threatening to publish a story about Hepburn. Throughout the film we are conscious of his struggles with the mental health problems- especially his paranoid fear of germs- that were to worsen in the latter part of his life. Nevertheless, we are always aware of the powerfully creative side of his personality, his flair for business and his combative spirit. This comes out most strongly at the end of the film when TWA's business is threatened by a Senate bill that would have given Pan-Am a monopoly on international air travel and Hughes is summoned to be interrogated before a Congressional committee about his business record. Hughes's enemies expect that he will be humiliated, but he is able to answer all the charges against him to such good effect that the bill is defeated. Leonardo di Caprio was excellent as Hughes. I must admit that I have not always been his greatest admirer; he struck me as an untalented pretty-boy when I first saw him in "Titanic", and there was little in "Romeo and Juliet", "The Beach" or "Gangs of New York" to persuade me to change my mind. He was, admittedly, better in "Catch Me If You Can", but this was a light-hearted film very different in style to "The Aviator". He seems, however, to be maturing into a very good actor and succeeded in bringing out the various sides of Hughes's complex personality. Of the other performances, the two that stood out were Cate Blanchett's impersonation of Hepburn and Alan Alda as Hughes's enemy, the corrupt senator Owen Brewster who is more interested in serving the interests of Pan-Am than those of his constituents.
6/10.