4 of 4

Annabelle Robertson (Crosswalk) says, "It's not the most accurate representation of Howard Hughes' life, and it certainly misses many defining facts, but it gets at the essence of who he was. The biggest problem with the film is its lack of faithfulness to the actual story of Hughes' life. And it isn't that Logan and Scorsese misrepresent the facts; they just leave many of them out. The film and its cast and crew will garner numerous awards. Some will definitely be merited. Others will simply be consolation prizes, awarded because of the dearth of quality movies released in 2004. It's been a very bad year, indeed. Still, The Aviator is worth seeing."

Barbara Nicolosi (Church of the Masses) vehemently disagrees. "The Aviator showcases the director's fabulous cinematic eye, but also his pathological inability to flesh out a satisfying narrative. The audience leaves feeling like it must have missed something — 'How can so many fabulous frames amount to so very little in the end? The Aviator is just tedious. The film suffers from the fact there is too much material in the movie for a movie.'"

Mainstream critics are arguing whether this is a great Scorsese film, or merely a good one. Most of them say it's well worth a ticket.

Josh Hurst (Reveal) says, "2004 has been the Year of the Biopic, and The Aviator is easily the year's best entry in the genre. Scorsese … is a master, and The Aviator stands as one of his most entertaining films. Beautifully shot and masterfully written, it's funny, suspenseful, touching, unpredictable, and completely enthralling. And get this … it's also surprisingly true to the real life of Howard Hughes. (Take that, Kinsey!)"

Denny Wayman and Hal Conklin (Cinema in Focus) describe it as "a powerful film of a troubled life that contributed much to the science and development of aviation in our world. But it also reveals the life of a man who crashed as dramatically in destruction as his flights of success soared above the ordinary."

Marcus Yoars (Plugged In) calls it "an in-depth, three-hour character study. [Scorsese] concentrates on Hughes' internal struggles, and his film quickly reveals itself as a—well-made and eloquent—tragedy. [DiCaprio] excels as a man well aware of yet helplessly trapped by his personal demons. The movie's content is another matter. If one takes the liberty of equating 'personal demons' with such things as foul language and sexual shenanigans, it can be argued that the film falls victim to the exact same thing Hughes does: it's well aware, yet helplessly trapped."

Chris Monroe (Christian Spotlight) says, "This film is lavishly produced with several big stars and lots of CGI, but in the end isn't terribly engaging. Earlier films of Scorsese made on a much smaller scale tended to be more captivating, but these big stories—even though they're made more personal—don't provide as much interest. Some of it is pretty impressive, but isn't necessarily recommended."

World Magazine reports, "It is, in many ways, a very fine movie. Thirty years after his death, [Howard] Hughes is still a larger-than-life figure, and Mr. Scorsese only partially succeeds in getting under his skin. With some fantastic footage of Hughes's aviation achievements and fascinating glimpses of his many tumultuous romantic relationships … one begins to regret the screen time that Mr. Scorsese devotes to Hughes's almost impenetrable inner life. A weak framing device that unconvincingly pins Hughes's compulsions on his mother doesn't help. Despite these flaws, The Aviator is as forceful as anything on screen this year."

Steven D. Greydanus (Decent Films) describes the film as "an intriguing portrait of a troubled golden boy in a golden age, a man who lived as if he had a charmed life, and whose charm and charisma and vision were enough for awhile to make it seem as if he really did." He then considers how the film measures up to Citizen Kane, which it clearly echoes."

Copyright © 2004 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

first page |  4 of 4