[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chris Knipp
[B]I can't see why you don't see that lots of the early parts are thrilling.

In actuality, I said that it's the early parts that are the most interesting (although the film held my attention throughout) and it certainly seems as if Scorsese is most interested here; certainly the manic drive that informs Scorsese's films is kindred to Hughes' drive. After that, the film gets rather pedestrian.

It's a bit perverse to say the young DiCaprio is better as Hughes ages, but I think he's good all through.

DiCaprio has grown into a very good actor. I didn't think much of him in the beginning ("What's Eating Gilbert Grape?" and "This Boy's Life") but he's gotten much better since "Titanic". He was competent throughout "The Aviator" but, to me, only came alive when he could go off a bit. Perhaps he identified with Hughes' madness. Fortunately, he never hammed it up.

"John Logan’s workman, easy-solution script " -- yes, but doesn't that intentionally make it part of a great Hollywood tradition, much like the condensation of the Ellroy novel for L.A. Confidential? How else can you do a screen epic?

I'm not sure the comparison is apt. "L.A. Confidential" was an adaptation of a novel. This isn't so much a condensation of a life as an excerpt from one. But it's real (at least purportedly) and concerns itself with Hughes' life's midsection. I would guess it's easier to streamline a biography that edit a novel for cinematic purposes.

I just think Logan's screenplay was just too reductive. Even my wife, the first person to admit she doesn't give a shit about film construction, leaned over and said "Always blame it on the mother." The movie runs almost three hours and boils explanations down to one or two short scenes or comments (that line about Hepburns' brother killing himself had virtually nothing to do with the movie; it seemed to exist to prove how much research was done) just so it can focus on exciting plane crashes.

I guess that's why they called it "The Aviator". Sigh.