The Aviator

User Score
8.1

Universal acclaim- based on 483 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 36 out of 483

Where To Watch

Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Expand

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling

User Reviews

  1. Jan 18, 2011
    6
    I am not quite sure why this film didn't resonate with me. Technically perfect, amazing sets and costumes, great cast, but it just wasn't what everyone told me it would be. I guess I was waiting for that POW to knock me off my feet and it never came around. I really don't have any complaints about this movie (other than it was pretty long) just that it didn't really catch my attention. II am not quite sure why this film didn't resonate with me. Technically perfect, amazing sets and costumes, great cast, but it just wasn't what everyone told me it would be. I guess I was waiting for that POW to knock me off my feet and it never came around. I really don't have any complaints about this movie (other than it was pretty long) just that it didn't really catch my attention. I will say however Leonardo DiCaprio's performance was Oscar worthy, not sure why he is overlooked by some. Though The Aviator didn't really do much for me that shouldn't turn anyone off from seeing it as I am sure others will be much more impressed than I. Expand
  2. Sep 2, 2012
    4
    The Aviator is a very boring film that is stretched to the end in too many parts. Leo is not at his best when he puts on a phony accent, in which i can't take him seriously. The art direction was nice though.
  3. BayC.
    Feb 21, 2005
    4
    Boring & couldn't wait for it to be over. Di caprio needs to spend a buck two fifty for a voice coach. otherwise, he'll always be a pipsqueak.
  4. tosh&vera
    Feb 3, 2005
    4
    Oh God! this was the longest movie ever! What was it? five hours or what? the music was driving us crazy all the time and the whole sound effects were just terrible!The aviation stunts were fine and the acting was good, especially Dicaprio's and this are the only reasons we give 4 points. don't really understand how it desrved 11 nominations for the Oscars....
  5. AWelles
    Jan 27, 2005
    6
    Interminably long. Hollywood material was hollow and not believable, most performances overblown caricatures, music way overblown. Aviation aspects were interesting but covered too superficially.
  6. Dublin
    Feb 10, 2005
    4
    Boring and drawn out ad nauseum. Not worthy of so many nominations.
  7. StanC.
    Jan 17, 2005
    5
    A terrible script is made almost bearable by inspired acting and impressive special effects. Scorcese seems to have lost his bearings. By all accounts Howard Hughes lived an amazing life, but Scorcese's film is cliched, rambling, and bloated. Scorcese used to make films where he seemed to have a personal mission to tell the stories. After The Aviator I found myself wondering "What A terrible script is made almost bearable by inspired acting and impressive special effects. Scorcese seems to have lost his bearings. By all accounts Howard Hughes lived an amazing life, but Scorcese's film is cliched, rambling, and bloated. Scorcese used to make films where he seemed to have a personal mission to tell the stories. After The Aviator I found myself wondering "What was the point of that? You just wasted good acting, a lot of money and 3 hours of my time on a poor story." I wish he would return to directing something worthwhile. Expand
  8. RP
    Jan 27, 2005
    5
    This is an average Hollywood big budget movie. Why all the nominations? I don't get it. Story doesn't engage. Scorsese & DiCaprio have both done better work.
  9. KarenW.
    Feb 10, 2005
    5
    Another darling of the critics that's way overrated. Its OK, many scenes are just way too long. DiCapprio is inadequate. Cate Blanchet's Katherine Hepburn is the best thing about the movie. The movie taught you facts about Howard Hughes, but it makes no emotional connection with the audience what so ever.
  10. Catherine
    Feb 17, 2005
    6
    I'm sorry, but what a snooze. The first interesting thing happens two hours into the film, when he crashes into the Wilshire Country Club. Didn't know that happened and it was gorgeously and imaginatively shot. The rest was boring, boring, boring.
  11. JonathanS.
    Mar 19, 2005
    5
    Good solid acting by all players, some fantastic "cameo" roles by well-known faces, and extraordinairy visuals work. The problem? The movie was boring and drawn-out as heck. Fell asleep twice and couldn't give a darn about the characters or the story for that matter one way or another.
  12. TonyB.
    May 25, 2005
    6
    This was far too long for its own good and certainly not worth all the hype it received, but thanks to some fine acting, excellent cinematography, generally good editing and a great production design, it was well worth the price of admission. However, I couldn't for a minute accept Leonardo DeCaprio as Howard Hughes. He's a good actor when he is not out of his depth as he was here.
  13. NickiC.
    Jul 16, 2005
    5
    Long-winded and not that interesting. was very disappointed after all the big reviews.
  14. WayneW.
    Dec 11, 2004
    5
    Some good performances but the movie lacks focus and direction. It's really just an episodic amalgam of scenes about Howard Hughes. But it looks at the character from the outside in; we never get a sense of what makes him tick. It fails to answer the classic question of: what does he want, who's stopping him, and how's he going to get it.
  15. JasonO.
    Dec 13, 2004
    6
    I'm giving it a 6 because a self absorbed twerp like Dicaprio is not qualified to wash Howard Hughes's underwear, much less portray him. Scorsese did an excellent job building the last era of American history when great things were possible. Walk out of this movie without concluding that America is in decline, I dare you.
  16. prochecy
    Jan 12, 2005
    6
    What makes me laugh is that this is sopposed to be a documentary on howard hughes and this is the funny part. when it ends its cuts at least 20 years of his life we saw nothing about his helicopters or the germans inventing the first `jet engine`the acting was good and the story good but as a documentary its not his whole life so thats what brought it down.
  17. LiamS.
    Jan 18, 2005
    6
    This movie lacked a critical ingredient to good filmmaking...an editor, and a credible ending. Neither of these important elements were present in this film. The film meanders along, blissfully unaware of the march of time, and runs aground approximately 20 years before the end of Howard Hughes' life. In fact, the ending of the movie seemed tacked on and completely rushed, like This movie lacked a critical ingredient to good filmmaking...an editor, and a credible ending. Neither of these important elements were present in this film. The film meanders along, blissfully unaware of the march of time, and runs aground approximately 20 years before the end of Howard Hughes' life. In fact, the ending of the movie seemed tacked on and completely rushed, like someone looked at a clock and said: "Oh oh..this movie is now almost 3 hours long..better end it fast!" It is sad that these two elements were so badly handled, since the acting was for the most part brilliant. I think it is entirely appropriate for Leonardo DiCaprio to win best actor for his role, but it would be scandalous if Scorcese won for best picture when there are other gems (Million Dollar Baby, Closer) out there that were far far better movies. However, knowing the Academy, I bet you the Aviator is a shoo-in. Expand
  18. Bob
    Jan 28, 2005
    5
    Fair and dragged in spots. Nothing to write home about. Soon forgotten as soon as you leave the theater. Can't believe all of the nominations.
  19. PaulS.
    May 27, 2005
    5
    Very slow and not really exiting... Great acting, but very boring writing.
  20. JeremyE.
    Feb 22, 2009
    6
    It really pains me to write this review because this movie had soooo much potential. The acting by dicaprio and blanchett was PERFECT. They portrayed their characters so well. Another bright spot was the sound and cinematography. Everything about this film looked and sounded phenomenal. However, all of that goes down the drain because the plot is terrible. It's scattered, jumping It really pains me to write this review because this movie had soooo much potential. The acting by dicaprio and blanchett was PERFECT. They portrayed their characters so well. Another bright spot was the sound and cinematography. Everything about this film looked and sounded phenomenal. However, all of that goes down the drain because the plot is terrible. It's scattered, jumping from one thing to the other all the time and it doesn't really go anywhere. There's not really a story, more like a series of events. and the movie lasts about 40 minutes longer than it should. it's really sad because this could have turned out great but it sucked Expand
  21. DannyG
    Dec 25, 2004
    5
    Too Long!!!!!!!!!
  22. MarcK.
    Dec 27, 2004
    5
    Sorry, Sam J., this film just wasn't very good. I know everybody in Hollywood "roots" for Scorsese to make a great film, but this one isn't it. Di Caprio does a bang-up job, and Blanchett's performance as Hepburn was quirky good. But the last hour or so of the film was ponderous. Interestingly, I thought "Gangs of New York" was a much better movie, although most mainstream Sorry, Sam J., this film just wasn't very good. I know everybody in Hollywood "roots" for Scorsese to make a great film, but this one isn't it. Di Caprio does a bang-up job, and Blanchett's performance as Hepburn was quirky good. But the last hour or so of the film was ponderous. Interestingly, I thought "Gangs of New York" was a much better movie, although most mainstream critics have rated this one as much better. Expand
  23. EthanP.
    Dec 28, 2004
    5
    A "Generally Favorable" Metascore for an Oscar contender tends to foretell something good but forgettable. (Gangs of NY, Cold Mountain, 21 Grams...listing them is kind of hard, since they are, in truth, forgettable.) Critics like it, but don't love it. Not challenging enough for many of them to hate it. This movie was passable, because it was genuinely well done. Yet it was A "Generally Favorable" Metascore for an Oscar contender tends to foretell something good but forgettable. (Gangs of NY, Cold Mountain, 21 Grams...listing them is kind of hard, since they are, in truth, forgettable.) Critics like it, but don't love it. Not challenging enough for many of them to hate it. This movie was passable, because it was genuinely well done. Yet it was ineffective; I feel no more or less value in my life, no desire to see the movie again, and no real desire to think about it other than to understand why it garners Oscar attention that it doesn't deserve. I wanted to like DiCaprio, but only his nonverbal acting truly paid off. Cate Blanchett was super, and I'd like to see her finally win the Oscar she's more than earned. Beckinsale played the part of Flawless Complexion With No Other Noticeable Attributes--why is anyone giving her kudos? (My favorite was Alan Alda, who was both likeable and villanous in a part that wasn't really scripted to make any interesting moves). Great cinematography, utterly uninspired score, who-cares writing. Generally soulless. Expand
Metascore
77

Generally favorable reviews - based on 41 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 36 out of 41
  2. Negative: 0 out of 41
  1. Reviewed by: Todd McCarthy
    100
    An enormously entertaining slice of biographical drama, The Aviator flies like one of Howard Hughes' record-setting speed airplanes.
  2. Scorsese has crafted a rip-roaringly gorgeous-looking, beautifully acted biographical epic. But while firing on all cylinders, there's something oddly distancing about the picture.
  3. Reviewed by: David Ansen
    90
    DiCaprio is astonishing.