Tetrady not as good as all the hype

SincereFinest disgusting, overrated, pointless

Humaira Grant It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Brooklynn There's a more than satisfactory amount of boom-boom in the movie's trim running time.

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.

Nicholas Barrett If you are here to check out reviews of "Amelia" in the hope of a gripping cinematic adventure, please be warned to lower your expectations. My own proved far too high, founded on my longstanding admiration for the charismatic 1930s heroine of the skies and on a love of flying in old turboprop planes and noisy small aircraft whenever the chance arises, sidelining guilt about my bit part in aviation's major contribution to ozone depletion. Of course Amelia Earhart was free of today's environmental worries, with great distances topping her list of challenges.When I heard that the dependable and gifted Hilary Swank had been cast in the star role, my hopes soared with a feeling that she would be perfect for the part like the smart, spunky and enthusiastic all-American girl she seems to be. And excellent she is. I had doubts about Richard Gere in the role of the publisher who becomes Earhart's fund-raising promoter and more. My prejudice was unfairly based on a period when I sat through someone's young appetite for some of the sloppiest high romance movies ever endured. Back then, Gere then seemed omnipresent and utterly beyond credibility and I started avoiding his films!But years pass. In fact, Gere does very well in the role of the patient and increasingly affectionate George P. Putnam, while Ewan McGregor is good as the commercial flight pioneer Gene Vidal. He also becomes part of a love triangle, testified to by his son Gore. Equally worthy of mention are Cherry Jones in a cameo part as First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt and Christopher Eccleston as Amelia's navigator Fred Noonan on her final ill-fated bid to be the first woman to fly round the world.Amelia lifts us off the ground in the lengthy flight sequences in Mira Nair's film, the parts I usually enjoyed the most. We are granted the spectacular views that any airborne movie should dish up, with some splendid photography and a taste of the thrill of the rides across different oceans between continents. And when Earhart succeeds in her accomplishments, we see the ticker-tape parades and meet younger female fliers whom she does her best to encourage in a man's world.So what's so disappointing about "Amelia"? It's hard to pin down precisely, but to start with both script and direction are serviceable but pedestrian, failing fully to flesh out some key characters and at least sustain constant interest. The very worst of the film, after spells of boredom despite valiant efforts by the actors, concerns the last known hours of Earhart's short life, which make for a missed opportunity.The aviator is world famous for attempting the almost impossible, risking all on a bid to complete her planetary tour by landing on tiny Howland Island in the Pacific to refuel and fly on to coastal America. If any true-life exploit shown on screen should generate a sense of action and high adventure, that was the biggest in Earhart's career, but Nair's movie falls regrettably short of the reality.True, the film-makers portray in some detail one of the controversial accounts of the fatal communications breakdown between Amelia's Lockheed Elektra and the USS Itasca moored off Howland, which led to the disappearance of the aircraft. Yet hardly any real tension builds up in these climactic scenes aboard plane and ship. The cast seems all but abandoned to make their best of a bad job, not for the first time, which I blame on script flaws and unadventurous direction.Maybe Nair tried to plod her way too close to all the details she and the producers knew to be accurate, without venturing into a little creative licence to raise the dramatic stakes. But when I rate her film 6/10, that's an acknowledgement of the background research and of factors such as the acting and some striking sets. These mean I am ready to see it more than once while wishing it could have been much more exciting, like Earhart's life often was.I get a far bigger emotional punch from listening to Heather Nova singing "I Miss My Sky (Amelia Earhart's Last Days)" on her "Redbird" album than I did from that last act of the film. Nobody knows what really happened to Amelia and Fred, but legends persist that they did manage to land somewhere unknown. Nova's allegorical lyrics imply by conjecture that the aircraft was out of fuel or a write-off.After all, in the film Earhart and Noonan do indeed land in places as yet unknown! Location titles solemnly inform viewers that they are in Pakistan, which did not exist until 1947, a decade after their global circumnavigation attempt, and also set them down in Mali, which was then no nation but a part of sprawling French West Africa. But these are quibbles.For all my reservations, I recommend "Amelia" not only to die-hard Earhart fans who will certainly be able to recognize her in Swank's well-prepared performance, but also to a broader audience that might be interested in a movie about a succession of some of the most daring aviation exploits of all time. Like I said, the film does manage to fly - but mainly when it's already airborne.

Martin Shelton Amelia synchronizes with my upcoming short story book Aviators, Adventurers, and Assassins which contains a flagship documentary-style novella that reveals the skullduggery extant on Earhart's last flight, entitled Amelia. (See sheltoncomm.com)I'm an ol' codger. Amelia Earhart was an icon in my youth. As an eight-year old nipper, I remember clearly where I was and what I was doing when I heard on the radio broadcast that Amelia Earhart was missing somewhere near Howland Island in the Central Pacific. Yes, I'm that young. With the massive search conducted by the US Navy, I was confident that they'd find her. To no avail, unfortunately. Accordingly, I have a vested interest in Amelia Earhart.To paraphrase Ernest Hemingway, Amelia is an awful film. It's a great film. Let's explore "awful" first. Amelia is a mishmash of miscellaneous scenes that lack coherence and purpose. This film stumbles along some path I cannot discern. If the viewer does not know the details of Amelia's life, they may well wonder, when the lights come on, What was this film about? Infrequently does Amelia engender empathy. Without empathy, there is no involvement, entertainment, or communication. On the whole, directing and acting are pedestrian—save Swank, from time-to-time. Gere is wooden —not the robust hustler that was George Putnam.I cringed that far, far too many close-ups show the actors staring into space looking at something off screen, or infernally smiling about something we cannot fathom or see. Amelia is more of a romantic film than an autobiographical film of the dynamic aviatrix. Perhaps, I expected too much.Technical errors are myriad. No need to discuss here; there're posted on IMDb. However, I'll discuss a few that particularly vex me. This film overlooks the fact that Amelia Earhart was a mediocre pilot, at best. That's what killed her. She was over confident, stubborn, and had a narcissistic ego. She believed Putnam's publicity. She failed to listen to her mentor, Paul Mantz, about learning Morse code and using the long-range antenna to transmit its signals. She was palpably ignorant about radio procedures and its technical factors. Her refusal to practice radio protocols with her guide ship, the USCGC Itasca is particularly troubling and is the direct reason of her death.The last scene is a disaster—a collage of technical nonsense. Earhart is lost. She cannot find Howland. She is low on petrol. And she cannot communicate with the Itasca with congruity. Again prior knowledge of these few critical minutes is essential to understanding this scene and her fate.If I were directing this last scene, we'd see the Electra from a high- angle, rear shot flying over the ocean and receding in size until it disappears. On the soundtrack, we hear the twin-engines on the Electra purring loudly. As the Electra decreases in size, the volume of the engines reduces in synchronization with the visuals. Mixed with the engine sounds, we faintly hear the jumbled voice radio-communications between Amelia and the Itasca. This voice also fades in volume. Shortly we hear the engines supper, cough, and quit, one by one. Then silence as the Electra disappears from view.It's a great film. I was disappointed that Art Direction did not get a nomination for an Academy Award. Airplanes, props, costumes, and automobiles set an authentic 1930s ambiance. Swank is Amelia— outstanding look-alike with makeup, hairstyle, and clothes. Most of the flying scenes of the ol'-time airplanes are spectacular—even the computer generated. The blending of newsreel footage into the narrative is excellent. Lastly, the Richard Rogers and Lorentz Hart tune Blue Moon sung by a pretend Billie Holiday stirs the soul.

blanche-2 I have a feeling that 2009's "Amelia" plays better on DVD than it did in the theater. There's something about paying $10 for a movie that falls short that can really sour a person on it.Hillary Swank obviously thought this would be a great role for her, so she is a producer of this film. She was right -- she and Earhart share a similar androgynous quality, and Swank worked on getting her resemblance to the aviator as close as possible. As her partner-promoter-husband, George Putnam, Richard Gere is wonderful. And he's not an actor I usually like.The film purports to tell the life story of Amelia Earhart, but like "The Elizabeth Taylor Story" from some years ago, just as an example, it seems to be a series of headlines. She meets George Putnam (Richard Gere) and a couple of scenes later, he says he hasn't had much time to be alone with her. We don't see the relationship develop.If you don't know a lot about Amelia Earhart, the film is interesting. I had no idea that she did so many product endorsements in order to finance her flying - she had her own clothing line and luggage line besides all the products she advertised. Her personal life is interesting, too: she was rumored to have a romance with Gene Vidal, Gore Vidal's father, and also with Paul Mantz, another pilot. Mantz isn't part of this film, but he is a character in two other films about Earhart.Swank talks like Katharine Hepburn, which I assume is the way Earhart talked, not unusual for those days. The film has an occasional narration by Swank, quotes from her diaries about her flying."Amelia" is a pretty film about an early feminist and a true adventurer. Unfortunately we don't get enough of her essence in this film.