Please don't spend money on this.

Fresh and Exciting

Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

the basic virtue - its freshness. it is a film made with passion and special for the right option for the lead roles. it is a homage. and a realistic portrait of a legendary woman. it is the simple and honest story behind the titles of newspapers. and this did it a great film. Hillary Swank shines as Amelia. and she gives not exactly a beautiful performance but the inspired way for discover her character out of the status of impressive statue. the ambition, the sacrifices, the need to be herself. this is all. and more. because "Amelia" is little more than a biopic. it is the perfect answer to the expectations about yourself who grows up from the early years for each from us.

Ultimately this is a very dull movie even with everything going for it. Beautiful cinematography, a brilliant performance from Hilary Swank who embodies Earhart (looks, voice, mannerisms) a nice blend of action and romance with some fine male leads in Richard Gere & Ewan McGregor.This should have been a great movie but was instead boring, pretentious even, with wasted potential of an interesting and intriguing historical figure and some great actors. I read a couple of reviews that described Amelia as "Oscar bait" and a "prestige picture" hoping for critical acclaim. That seems to hit the nail on he head.Amelia is a biopic, taking a look at the life of legendary American pilot Amelia Earhart, who disappeared while flying over the Pacific Ocean in 1937 in an attempt to make a flight around the world. 9/7/13

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.

You take one of histories richest characters and flatten out her personality, giving you the film "Amelia". So much potential in making a new movie about the life of Amelia, this film could have been terrific given the new information about her ill-fated flight and the evolution of computerized effects, but sadly Swank and Company offer us a meandering portrait of a fascinating person that cannot decide if it wishes to be a triangular love story or an historical account of the life of Amelia Earhart. Very disappointing was my first reaction while I waited for something other than the measured, even and unemotional acting by Swank, along with Gere's lame attempt to portray the swarmy, manipulative Mr Putnam. The only drama in this two hour film is contained in the last 5 minutes as Amelia tries to communicate with the Navy ship which was to assist the round-the-world flight with navigation, as her fuel supply is running out. Even that part could have been played with more intensity. The older films on this rich character do justice to her life and accomplishments, this movie does not. Oh, BTW, Swanks teeth look like a refrigerator showroom baring testament to the work of a fine orthodontist.