Scorsese's weakest film?

This is the only film I've seen from the great master that I will probably never return to. Don't get me wrong, it's not terrible. I just didn't find it particularly compelling.

It felt like every other Oscar tailored, paint by numbers biopic of a famous person's life. It feels as though it lacks any real depth or insight about Howard Hughes as a person. After seeing this, I didn't come out with any strong feelings towards him one way or another. In spite of its fictitious plot, I honestly thought Hugo had much more to say about the life of George Melies than this about Hughes.

Scorsese's protagonists are usually fascinating in their moral ambiguities and mixture of virtues and flaws. Whether it be Charlie Cappa, Travis Bickle, Rupert Pupkin, Jesus Christ, Henry Hill, Sam Bowden, Newland Archer, Ace Rothstein, Frank Pierce, or even Jake LaMotta. In this however, all I got out of Howard Hughes is that he had OCD.

I also think DiCaprio is largely miscast in the role. There's some scenes where he's effective, but he often comes off more as a guy PLAYING Howard Hughes to me, than actually being the real thing. The same could be said about Cate Blanchett whom, while doing a largely successful impersonation, never struck me as though she was doing anything more than just that, an impersonation.

The film isn't without its merits. Robert Richardson's cinematography is lush and effective in recreating the various time periods Howard's life puts us in, and Thelma Schoonmaker's editing is razor sharp and tight as usual. But overall, this is probably the Scorsese film that's least affected me.

Anyone else feel the same?

Discuss...