Kirpianuscus 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.

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.

gdfinky-1 I recently bought a DVD of "Amelia," having read "The Sound of Wings," one of the two books about her life upon which the screenplay was based -- the other being "East to the Dawn." To summarize, it is the story of Amelia Earhardt, one of America's first women pilots and of her personal life and close relationship with G.P. Putnam, her husband, as she attempts to be the first woman to fly across the Atlantic, and the first woman to fly around the world. I must say, I was not disappointed with the film, in spite of the fact that I had heard a lot of comments about its being slow and boring. I found it to be a surprisingly accurate, though necessarily condensed, account of her career in aviation, including most of her record setting accomplishments, and thanks to Hilary Swank's and Richard Gere's true-to-life portrayals of Miss Earhardt and G.P. Putnam, a vibrant and very exciting movie. And this, in spite of the fact that it contained no explosions, no explicit sexual encounters, and only one bad word!Oh, I suppose that some might find it dull if they were not interested in Amelia Earhardt or aviation, or dreams. But personally, I found it to be inspiring.

twilliams76 A very standard biopic.While there is nothing horribly wrong with any of this movie (it IS better than its 37% metascore implies), nothing really comes to life in Amelia either. I wanted the subject matter to soar but it doesn't ... it is a rather typical, ho-hum story about someone who did something great.For some reason so many of these stories forget to tell us why the person the film is about was great. The film decides that showing Amelia get into a plane and fly should do the trick and please the masses; but I think that sells her short! The cinematography is lovely and there was gorgeous, sweeping scenery; but that isn't enough for me. Is it wrong to want a glimpse into the life of this legend? The relationships in the film are all cut-and-paste and were only emphasized when the story needed them to further a tangent. The movie felt hollow and incomplete. Earhart is (again) a legend that deserved more. Swank, though -- in my opinion -- does a fine job with the role so the fault should not lay at her feet (it's not her best work; but it wasn't the best-written role of hers either).Perhaps the filmmakers had lofty intentions and they just didn't measure up in the editing room. While Amelia isn't a total waste of time, I would assume reading a biography on the Kansas-born aviatrix would be more fulfilling.