funkyfry This film bio-picture of the aviatrix Amelia Earhart (Hillary Swank) tries to be too much, treading a line between historical representation and mythic representation without managing to succeed on either count. There's nothing to fault in Swank's performance -- although her chemistry with the typically lazy Richard Gere (as her husband, GP) is basically not there -- but the film manages to bring the famous flier down to earth, without restoring any of our hopes or interest in her. Why, for example, does the film labor so hard to establish her relationship with Gene Vidal, and indeed with his son Gore Vidal (the famous crochety old liberal writer of later years), and indeed further still with a young female aviatrix, simply to let these threads drop without resolution? Everything in the film's treatment is typical -- right to the score that sounds like John Williams 101, you know, big sweeping strings followed 2.5 seconds later by thumping oboes -- and nothing about the director's style is lyrical. The film is hurt, in my opinion, by CGI treated flight images that do not portray real images of flying. In this respect it is inferior even to lame melodramatic bio-pictures like Billy Wilder's Lindberg pic "Spirit of St. Louis." If the film had attempted to treat Earhart in a mythic way like Wilder's film did for Lindberg, it might be laughable. But, if it had gone all the way to a real depiction of this woman as a mediocre pilot whose fame was largely manufactured -- as, indeed, the film does hint -- then it might have been fascinating but offensive to the legions of Earhart fanboys. Instead the film comes off as half-baked, touching both territories but never committing itself. It is a remarkably cowardly film about a woman whose courage, whatever her other faults, could not and should not be doubted.A typical error in the film -- Gore Vidal is introduced as "Gore", and Amelia remarks, "What an unusual name for a boy." Indeed, it would be an unusual name for a boy, but his name was actually Gene Vidal Jr. He only started calling himself "Gore", in tribute to his grandfather the Senator, later when he was serving in WWII. It's a small error, but it is telling -- as if the film wants to telegraph to us that "hey, this is Gore Vidal!", but to what purpose? Those who know enough about Vidal realize that he was not called "Gore" as a boy, and so the film immediately strikes a false note. Those who do not know, probably don't really care about "Gore Vidal", and therefore why should the film go out of the way to give them a history lesson? Particularly an inaccurate one? I thought this flaw was typical of the middling approach of the film itself to fact and fiction, to truth and myth. Why bother telling any of the truth, if you're going to tell it in such a half-assed way? Although the film gives us a nice image of Earhart as portrayed convincingly by Swank, there is no compelling reason for anybody to watch this film.

SnoopyStyle Amelia Earhart (Hilary Swank) is a Kansas girl who pines for the freedom of flying. The movie starts with Amelia trying to fly around the world with Fred Noonan (Christopher Eccleston) in 1937. The movie flashes back to her meeting with publisher George Putnam (Richard Gere) about being a passenger on a trans-Atlantic flight billed as the first woman to fly the trip. Putnam and Earhart would eventually marry, but she would stray with Gene Vidal (Ewan McGregor). Meanwhile, there are younger pilots like Elinor Smith (Mia Wasikowska) on the way.The smaller problem is those accents of Earhart and Putnam. Even if they are correct, they are very distracting. It sounds stilted, and sucks out all of the life in the movie.The bigger problem is that her story is done in a perfunctory boring way. It must have been a fascinating story about how she learned to fly, but none of that is in the movie. It opens up from Putnam onwards ignoring anything before then. When she first travels trans-Atlantic, there are a few nice jabs about the sexism of the times. It's a big part of the theme of the movie. I think director Mira Nair is just too subtle with the obstacles she faced. She may be the wrong director for this movie.There's no doubt that these are great actors doing their best. They spent the money to recreate the planes and the era. It has a professional look. Everybody is very capable, but the result is a wholly boring movie.

Jenny Wall I have been a huge Amelia Earhart fan my whole life and I've waited to see this movie until I read a few books about her. After learning so much about the real woman I honestly could not stand to watch this film. My biggest pet peeve was the idea that G.P. GAVE her the Electra for her around the world flight, are you kidding me? She was approached by Purdue University to help lecture women about the importance of careers and it was AMELIA who worked out a deal with the university to fund the around the world flight. They basically just robbed her of an accomplishment to make George Putnam look good. Amelia always put work first and she was an advocate for advancing women's freedom and choices. She was also a social worker before becoming famous and it was one of the most important things t her. As for this huge love affair with George Putnam, they loved each other sure, but they also married because it was logical and she had no problems saying she wanted to put work first. I was appalled that the film could gloss over ALL of her accomplishments in favor of creating some fictitious soap opera romance. George was married when he met Amelia, no mention of that. There were so many historical inaccuracies that I could have overlooked if they had served a purpose. As for Hillary Swank she was the worst part of the film. She attempted a sweet, charming, quirky attitude and instead she came across sounding like an idiot. I really thought she was slow in some scenes. She was not nearly feminine enough to play Amelia and she lacked the paradoxical humble, yet confident quality that Amelia possessed. I kept noticing also that in some scenes she had the gap in her teeth and in others she did not. This movie was a huge disappointment.

jc-osms A solid, if sometimes stolid biopic of a remarkable woman who probably deserved a slightly stronger treatment than is delivered here.. "Amelia" is beautifully set and features as you would expect some excellent aerial photography but falls down somewhat in the dramatic stakes.Hilary Swank bears a strong physical resemblance to the title character, but for me doesn't quite convey the passion and drive which inspired Earhart's exploits. The dialogue also is occasionally too florid, particularly between Earhart and her husband, Putnam, played by a too-old Richard Gere giving us some more of that razzle-dazzle, always looking for the main chance. Euan McGregor however seems miscast as the other romantic interest, Gene Vidal, father of writer Gore as the screenplay seems determined to make us realise. Christopher Ecclestone is wasted in his relatively small part as Earhart's last navigator (she didn't die alone) and could conceivably have played the McGregor part to greater benefit.There is some interesting interpolation of vintage footage of Earhart herself and some neat transitions from black and white to colour to take us into the movie, but mostly the direction is unspectacular and episodic. The obvious comparison here is to Scorcese's "The Aviator", his biopic of Earhart's contemporary Howard Hughes. Yes, Hughes' eventful life gave Scorcese more to work with,but his film really grabbed you by the scruff of the neck and kept you on the edge of your seat, whereas this movie felt more like something you'd watch on the National Geographic channel.All that said, immediately after watching the film, I was inspired to read up on the aviator's life, but maybe that too is a sign that the movie hadn't quite done its job in encapsulating the life and times of its remarkable subject.My summary quote, by the way, is from Joni Mitchell's great song "Amelia" on her "Hejira" album.