Wonderful character development!

Just perfect...

Watch something else. There are very few redeeming qualities to this film.

Blistering performances.

Made-for-TV movie about Amelia Earhart that paints an unflattering picture of the famed aviatrix. It stars Diane Keaton and, as another reviewer before me noted, she is not the right fit for this role. It's basically Diane Keaton being Diane Keaton (or Annie Hall). The controversy with this version of Earhart's story is how much she is portrayed as an incompetent and petulant woman who is barely able to get the plane off the ground. Her personal life is not spared either, as her relationship with her husband (Bruce Dern) is portrayed as a passionless business arrangement. I appreciate they didn't romanticize Amelia too much but maybe they went a bit too far in the other direction. The Amelia shown here had no business piloting an airplane.It's a television movie so it was obviously never going to be dynamite, but it kept my interest throughout so I can't complain too much. You don't see much on TV today that would even go half as far as this in attempting to match the period clothing and cars, etc., let alone use an actual plane. It would be all CGI today and since it's made-for-TV, it would be terrible CGI. I should point out that, despite the attempts at getting the period setting right, they aren't entirely successful there. Also there are a few instances where they use words and phrases that I don't believe were common in the 1930s. Still, it's a decent time-passer despite its many flaws. I think most people will at least find it watchable, although Earhart buffs might be infuriated by it at times. I enjoyed it more than that terrible movie with Hillary Swank, that's for sure.

It would be impossible to make a biographical film of Ms. Earhart then or now without some included elements of myth. Noting them would be not so much a criticism as an observation.Re: comments about her pilot skill shortcomings, I think the issue was well served by the takeoff accident depiction. I agree that her busy schedule seemed to have precluded enough up to date stick time.The cinematography was above the made for TV standard throughout. The aerial shot of the lonely taxi and lineup to the last takeoff was one of the most visually evocative scenes in the history of film.It will be interesting to compare this modest effort to the impending release. Diane Keaton vs Hilary Swank, no comment from me. Rutger Hauer Vs Christopher Eccleston. Bruce Dern vs Richard Gere will be interesting. I like them both but would lean towards Dern, all else being equal. But it won't be. The tale will be told in the battle of the writers. Given the tone and level of the work today, I will bet on this film. The trailer makes the new version seem a bit florid, but it is just a trailer.

I like flying movies, but being a professional pilot, I have found misleading info about Earhart, that was probably more the fault of her sponsors than herself However, she did not shy from the limelight, and was an ardent feminist.This made for TV film appears to be a little short on facts and long on the myths that have made Earhart the most famous of female pilots. This mythology is not fair to other aviators,male and female, who made more contributions to aviation as a commercial venture and towards safety.This film thus centers on the myth, rather than stick to the facts. Earharts aviation contributions are substantial, however, she seemed to have more than her share of accidents, some of which indicate a basic failure of pilot judgment. Engines can fail, weather is unpredictable, gas may be exhausted before landing, but a pilot's judgment must be constant to meet the various challenges.The real Earhart apparently had so many irons in the fire, her skills as a pilot became questionable. One of a pilot's requirements is recent experience. Making historical flights in questionable aircraft could not be a part-time job. In a recent biography of Earhart, none of her warts which would show her humanity rather than the public image which we already know. This film does nothing for me but watching aircraft fly.

This movie was decent for a TV Movie, it was well directed and fairly well casted (Although the casting of Dern as Putnam could have been better), and handled the era quite nicely.I liked how it explored the angle of Amelia gathering information about Japanese movements - if you consider the condition the country was in at the time of the real Earhart flight, you'd understand that it very well could not be a myth. It included Noonans alcohol problem (A little known, yet on the record fact) as well as Amelias stubbornness to carry extra equipment.One thing I did not like about this movie is the "afterwards" angle. It ended with them raising their altitude in some final acceptance scene into the sunset - Amelia was stubborn, she wouldn't have accepted the fact that she may very well be DEAD in an hour that easily.Also, I think it would have been prudent to tell the viewers that not only would a Lockeed C-35 Electra (The plane she was flying) float with empty fuel tanks, but also that there were several islands in the vicinity of Amelias last transmissions... the (real) main theory is that she crashed on one of these islands and was later executed by pacific Japanese troops... the plane was then burned (Almost confirmed by pieces of a C-35 found on one of the islands) Overall it was an amusing movie. I thought it was overacted in some parts, and the drama was stereotypical and drawn out, but it was worth the two hours to watch it.