The Amazing Howard Hughes

Tommy Lee Jones is the quintessential Howard Hughes,with mannerisms, voice,and he looks just like Howard Hughes (Check out old news reels) His acting puts the frosting on the cake. In the same regard Ed Flanders portrayal of Noah Dietrich, is right on the money as well. I also like the "Aviator" (2004) Martin Scorsese's ,interpretation is also great;but Tommy Lee Jones (for me) became Howard Hughes,through 1924-1976. This film deserves to be remastered for sound/video, but for now I'm quite satisfied with my DVD version of this 1977 Mini Series Classic!

that just about sums up this compelling portrayal of Howard Hughes. William Graham's direction presents a ruthless, cold and single-minded world of Hughes the entrepreneur. However, for all Hughes' shortcomings when relating to others, Graham allows Tommy Lee Jones to reveal the multi-billionaire had a heart of gold. Whereas people surrounding Hughes saw the coldness he projected, often to their own personal cost, Hughes would repay kindness in ways they never dreamt of.

Such was the enigmatic nature of Hughes and his story has been told countless times by book or film the exact truth is never likely to be known as to the reasoning behind his complex and often contradictory actions. In his lifetime Hughes made fortunes in many ways, although the fact that his massive wealth was initially inherited is not glossed over. Nor are some of the more bizarre practises Hughes utilised - such as hiring people to sit by a telephone that would never ring; or the highly imaginative pointed sacking of a film director by sending the unfortunate man on a ___location hunt only to remove the entire film set, cast, crew, props, the lot, during the director's absence!!

This work is well acted by Jones and the supporting cast. If you are looking to find out for the first time about one of the world's richest ever men then this is a good place to start as any. Effectively, this turns into a celluloid biography. You'll be fascinated by Hughes' pragmatic working methods but after seeing this its doubtful you'll come away liking the man. Graham's careful direction shows its not hard to see why once someone has accrued such vast wealth (to the point where money almost has no meaning) it becomes harder and harder to trust the people around you. On that basis its possible to see where Hughes' personal life fell apart, how he failed in love, and even to feel a tad of sympathy for him!

There's just no comparison between this excellent made-for-TV movie and the awful soap opera Aviator. And talk about casting... HRH was a long, tall (over 6') Texan with a southern drawl. So who does Scorsese pick? A short, blond, blue-eyed kid - di Caprio. On the other hand, Tommy Lee Jones was right on. Looked like Hughes, sounded like Hughes, etc, etc. Oh, and Ed Flanders was MUCH more believable in the role of Noah Dietrich than John Reilly.

Both NetFlix and Blockbuster.com have it. If you prefer a chic flick with lots of romance and stories that focus about the women in his life, then Aviator wins. But if you really want to know about HRH, the Las Vegas acquisitions, the Glomar Explorer, etc, then The Amazing Howard Hughes is a far better choice.

Tommy Lee Jones stars as Howard Hughes in a biopic spanning the life of the eccentric business magnate, from young hotshot mogul to notorious recluse. Hughes was such a fascinating character, possessed by a drive and idiosyncratic nature that brought him to the top but eventually took over in later years, and this contrast has provided the inspiration for many different retellings over the years.

This version was originally made as a 2 part miniseries, and unfortunately tries to get too much in over the course of the runtime, ultimately just skimming the surface of the eventful, stranger than fiction life story. I think I must have watched the theatrical edit, which explains the slightly disjointed way it's told, jumping through the key points as if it's just ticking them off.

Hughes goes from making a movie to becoming studio head to flying around the world, but the film never really elaborates on any of these remarkable achievements, anxious to move onto the next milestone and as a result getting quite monotonous after a while. I think even with the cut parts reinstated it still would have felt truncated, the format ultimately proving overambitious for a story of this size. The Aviator only covered the first half of Hughes' life, which made it feel much more developed and character driven.

This film is much more event driven, hitting all of the milestones but giving enough insight into any of the motivations, which remain at a distance throughout. I think a lot of this is down to the writing, which doesn't do enough to draw out the dramatic stakes. A good example is the portrayal of Hughes' near fatal plane crash and subsequent legal battle with the TWA; in The Aviator this provides the majority of the second half, building tension as to whether the rapidly deteriorating Hughes is willing to testify, but in this version he just goes immediately and without conflict, which can't help but feel like a missed opportunity.

Though Jones definitely looks the part, and it gave him a major career breakthrough, he never feels like he inhabits the character, which results in a flat performance that never gets to the heart of why Hughes behaved as he did. It might just be the limitations of the script, but Jones feels quite bland here, lacking the nervy, focused energy of Leonardo DiCaprio's take or the ragged, world weariness Jason Robards brought in Melvin and Howard.

He's better while showing Hughes' increasingly harmful quirks, though, and these are the strongest moments, getting across the compulsive nature of this behaviour, and if the film had leaned into this more it would have felt more developed and involved that it was. The film was based on a book written by right hand man Noah Dietrich, which might explain the detachment factor, as it always feels like it's being presented from a distance. Dietrich is played by a superb Ed Flanders, who's great as the down to earth voice of reason who increasingly becomes sidelined as the years go by as his employer's mental state begins to break down.

I though this dynamic was the best part of the whole film, given depth in a way none of the other relationships are, although it being Dietrich's account there's a definite undercurrent of bitterness to the way it's presented. Maybe the film was just made too soon after Hughes had died to really give a fully rounded portrayal of his story, lacking the hindsight later versions were able to have.

The Amazing Howard Hughes never quite takes off, going on a whistlestop journey that touches all the bases without enough substance behind it.

Found this movie again - buried in my Dvd collection.

Tommy Lee was just superb. As much as any bio drama can, this movie portrays the man, H. R. Hughes pretty well. I won't even compare the other bio-drama so many here mention because they're simply two completely different movies movies made in two completely different eras.

Why must people's opinions be so rooted in comparing same-subject movies?

This is a strong and unique movie.

The character is in fact developed enough psychologically that we fully understand his drive; a common enough story; never able to please his father, Howard drives himself to utter perfection in everything. Sets the highest goals, and achieves them. Unfortunately, the cost of that is one's sanity.

As Albert Einstein said, 'the only difference between genius and insanity is that genius has its limits.' I believe his OCD behaviours were with him all his life, easier to dismiss or call 'ecentric' and somewhat more controllable in his youth, but obviously, culminated into total loss of control because the mind (& body following along) can only control just so much. It is utterly overwhelming to realize one is losing control, or even if they are in denial of that, the fallout exists - either way they will suffer the collateral damage - and then the mind turns on itself - to control what it thinks is controllable. The same paradoxical idea, for example bulemics exhibit - controlling their weight in destructive ways - is about feeling in control, yet it's out of control behaviour.

For Howard, it was germs. It was trying to grasp at anything he thought he had left in the realm of control, like the care of his own body.

Yet, the controller is denying the obvious out of control results, obsessively repeating the steps to give himself the illusion of control.

Hughes exhibited quite paradoxical behaviour throughout his life. This, combined with his genius, and as portrayed here, rather inappropriate social behaviours, leads me to strongly believe he was on the spectrum for Aspergers.

Just a fascinating & brilliant man. Regardless of his tragic end.