Amelia (2009) User Reviews (115)

The story behind the legend

[moviemanMA · 7/10 · 24 October 2009]

Mira Nair brings to life the story of Amelia Earhart in Amelia. It stars Hilariy Swank, who just might have acted her way into another Oscar nomination and potential win. Alongside her is Richard Gere as George Putnam as her publicist and partner. The story starts with her emergence into the public eye when she tried to become the first woman to fly over the Atlantic Ocean. She does so but not alone, something she would later try to accomplish.

As her popularity grows so does Putnam's interest in his starlet. He wants her to be famous and to be loved. All she wants is to fly. Together they help make strides for female pilots everywhere. In the days leading up to and including the Great Depression, aviation was a primarily male dominated world, but that mattered very little for Amelia.

Along the way she becomes acquainted with Gene Vidal (Ewan McGregor), a pilot himself and someone that Amelia becomes very close to. Amelia's free spirited nature and desire to be set free come in the way with her feelings for Putnam, and as well as Vidal.

The film is not just about one person, but about a person's dreams, desires, and ambition. Amelia lectures and speaks out for women's rights, advocating for them to follow their dreams of either becoming a pilot like her, or just living their life the way they want to. She doesn't want to be tethered down or restricted.

Swank gives a solid performance as the flying ace. She both looks the part and acts the part very well. I must say that I did not know an awful lot about Amelia Earhart other than the common knowledge about her, but I feel like Swank embodied pretty much what I would expect Amelia to be. Swank has such confidence on screen and is not afraid to let it all hang out there. Though her performances in Boys Don't Cry and Million Dollar Baby are more impressive, this is a finely tuned character she has developed and a very likable one. Gere too gives a great performance. He does a great job of becoming Putnam ever so slightly with his voice. It's the tiniest of inflections but it is effective nonetheless.

Nair does a great job of capturing the beauty of flight and the ability that the world has to take you breath away. I didn't think this was a visually stunning film, but a well constructed biopic that tells a story we want to hear. I was interested in how she would present her final flight around the world and I was pleased with how she broke it up into segments and didn't try to make it recreate things we don't know about like in The Perfect Storm. The mystery is still there.

Parts of the film are a bit dry, clichéd, and repetitive, but overall this was a nice film about someone who shouldn't be forgotten. It's a good story with great characters, fine acting, and is pleasing to watch.

A Pleasant Movie

[ccthemovieman-1 · 7/10 · 25 May 2010]

I found this to be exactly as a few had described: "a fair movie, not great but not bad, either." I'm not surprised it didn't do well at the box office even though I cannot pan the film. I enjoyed it.

Even though I liked it, something was missing: maybe an edge and a few things to get us more involved with the characters. It was hard to warm up to either Earhart (Hilary Swank) or her husband George Putnam (Richard Gere.). Swank and Gere usually play interesting roles so to see them so bland here is a bit of a surprise.

Kudos to Stuart Dryburgh, director of photography, for a very pretty picture. He's done some nice work in the past, such as "The Painted Veil." The airplanes and the overall look of the 1930s is wonderful in here, often capturing my attention more than the dialog.

Overall, it's a pleasant film, a romance more than an adventure. Don't let naysayers discourage you from seeing it, yet on the other hand, don't spend big bucks on it, either.

One gutsy womans passionate love affair with flying

[mrcibubur · 7/10 · 3 February 2010]

A most enjoyable movie and I had NEVER heard of Amelia Earheart before I watched this movie, so there, did i have to? She was one gutsy woman, portrayed by this film, who put flying first and love second, that is why clearly Richard Gere had to take a peripheral role in this role and though I feel Gere was the wrong man for the job this time around, he did the job well enough. the British Christopher Eccleston produced an extraordinary American accent playing Fred Noonan and Ewan McGregors role was comfortable enough.

the flying element of the film has received a lot of criticism, by those who understand aviation and by those (me included) who know nothing of aviation. As an aviation spectacle, the film definitely works because this is a love story of one woman with flying, not one womans love story with George Putnam or the other 'chap'! let us clear be about that and enjoy the film for what it is.

Not award winning at Oscar level but entertaining and interesting. Some of the facts may have been changed around but not the basics, again I say this is a movie for entertainment and not a documentary and thank god I didn't get dished something like Nights at Rodanthe which I was served the last time I watched Gere with a mature woman.

Hilary Swank is beyond criticism in this role, she clearly researched her character and acted with great integrity and pride. Amelia Earheart clearly flew at a time of aviation transformation and full credit to her for what she did in her life, whether she was foolhardy or not, she died doing something she loved.

Sometimes we can know too much and it spoils our instinctive enjoyment of something; don't let that happen with this film. I am not a fan of Swank or Gere but to be honest, they delivered the goods here against the odds.

Homage

[Vincentiu · 13 September 2011]

A delicate strong story.But not a biography. Only homage for a belief, vision and adventure. So, it is difficult to define a film without great ambitions but with good taste.The bricks are not the truth or realistic portrait. Feelings, pieces from gestures and sage wise are gift for the public. And a sun - shine Hilary Swank. A Richard Gere , same lost hero of old years. The fever of fly, the small details and interior fight, the end as mist and flavor of a dream in the skin of reality. It is not a chronicle, testimony or documentary. It is not a masterpiece but may be a beautiful pendant.Must see! For a travel in the teenage corners.

Hilary's performance was Oscar worthy!

[harjotarora · 7/10 · 21 October 2009]

I saw this movie at an advance screening in Toronto, and it was definitely worth it. The audience had mixed reactions, but the Academy will most likely the movie. Everyone is probably familiar with the story of Amelia Earhart, but if you are not, just go an see the movie - Nair has directed it well. You will not be bored in the movie; however, you must like the 'Academy-type' films. It's a drama and a biography so know that going into the cinema. Hilary's performance was mind blowing. She got into the character exceptionally well, and she is definitely an actor of high calibre. I felt that Richard was a miscast. The time frame of the movie was supposed to be set in the 1920s/1930s but it felt like it just happened yesterday. As a viewer, you are looking to be taken back into the time but that's where Nair scored low for me. Overall, it's definitely worth seeing and depending on the rest of the films of 2009, it may or may not get selected for an Oscar nomination. It's hard to tell with this one.

Earhart Went Where No Man Had Gone Before

[jymwrite-1 · 6/10 · 23 October 2009]

Amelia is a pretty standard issue bio-pic. The story is told as Amelia makes the last journey with Fred Noonan to find Howland Island. Amelia Earhart was a pioneer of aviation when flying was still dangerous, when airplanes crumpled like kites, and only to be undertaken by adventurous men. Although, for a while women's aviation was competitive with men's aviation, since engines and machines even up the playing field.

The story is pretty much about the adult Amelia Earhart (Hilary Swank), although we're shown a young Amelia become enthralled with flying upon seeing her first barnstormer. Earhart's accomplishments are pretty hit on this film. The first woman to fly across the Atlantic, as a passenger, winning a cross country air race, her meeting with and falling in love with G.P. Putnam (Richard Gere) who made her a celebrity. The film makes it clear Earhart was uncomfortable with that celebrity endorsing a cigarette brand when she didn't smoke, luggage, a clothes line, a waffle iron, all that was missing was a perfume. It's clear that Earhart was not only a pioneer in the air but in the area of celebrity endorsements, and that status chaffed at her. In her eyes, her accomplishments were diminished by having to be only a passenger on that first trans-Atlantic flight. Putnam made a her feel like a "white horse jumping through hoops" but rationalized that it was necessary to fund her wanderlust of the skies.

Also detailed is her setting up with Gene Vidal (Ewan McGregor) the first airline shuttle within the United States, again, for this business venture Earhart allows herself to be used as a figurehead to attract business for Vidal's airline. Earhart also meets Vidal's son the future writer Gore Vidal, who even at a young age it seems was proposing alternative lifestyles.

Earhart wanted to erase all doubts about skills as an aviator (aviatrix in the parlance of the day), that she was more ambition than accomplishment, and undertakes to circumnavigate the globe, which no man had done. Did Earhart undertake this expedition because she was insecure about the circumstances of previous accomplishments? The acting by all the principals is what you would expect of actors of this caliber, there's nothing flashy here, but then the script doesn't really call for it until the end with Earhart and Putnam promising to see each other soon.

Of course we all know the outcome of that last flight and the speculation and mystery it's generated since, but this movie doesn't rise up to the level of the mystery, or of it's stars.

Ordinary film of extraordinary woman

[bbkfinn · 4/10 · 25 October 2009]

Sorry, it's just not enough to have Hillary Swank look the part, which she does. This movie had all the historical ingredients to be a great film, and it instead falls back into the same old bland dialog and formula plot that sinks so many biography movies. This film is like a made for TV movie - paints a pretty picture and refuses to go where no man, or no woman, has gone before. Which means it's a whitewash of history. Offers no real interesting insights into this extraordinary woman - not even her mysterious disappearance. For once, why not just stick to the facts, and give us a slightly less glamorous Amelia, minimize the love story, and show what a truly remarkable explorer she was? How dangerous her flying really was, and the challenges she had to overcome, both in the air and on the ground, in a male-dominated society. This film touches on this, but rather than paint with strong strokes, it uses an airbrush. Not a complete waste of time, just average.

The aviator

[jotix100 · 6/10 · 22 August 2010]

Amelia Earhart, one of the most daring women in history, is the subject of this biopic that tries to reconstruct a life of a truly original aviation pioneer. As with biographies like "Amelia", the viewer has been acquainted with some points of her larger than large life and the mystery of her disappearance. The reenactment of her last flight is interspersed throughout the film with other aspects of her life.

The early days of aviation in America were somehow reserved for men. Women had to take a second seat to their male counterparts. Because of her determination to break into this a new field that presented so many opportunities, Amelia Earhart made an important contribution in the way women invaded that male dominated area. Amelia was above all a feminist that decided to go against conventions of the times in which she lived.

She married New York publisher George Putnam, a union that on the surface appeared to have been made in heaven. Yet, Amelia saw something in Gene Vidal, the founder of the now defunct Eastern Airlines, Trans World Airlines and Northwest Airlines. He was quite an influence in her determination to go ahead with her dreams. Evidently, as the film points, she was loyal to George, despite of what she might have felt for Vidal.

The last sequence of the film shows her attempt to reach Howland Island, a small island in the Pacific which would have been her next to last port of call in the historic flight around the world. The elements conspired against her and her fellow aviator not to reach their destination. The mystery of what happened to her, has fascinated people for years.

Mira Nair, the director of "Amelia" presents the material written by Ron Bass and Anna Hamilton Phelan, based on two books about Amelia Earhart. Their account of Ms. Earhart shows a determined woman in search of adventure. Her legend looms larger than life. It is a story that has fascinated people ever since her disappearance. Hillary Swank seems to be the perfect actress to play the woman aviator because of the uncanny resemblance between them. Richard Gere is seen as George Putnam and Ewan McGregor plays Gene Vidal.

A Highlights Reel

[ssunzhong · 4/10 · 25 October 2009]

I was very disappointed with this movie. It's an honest statement and I am prepared to explain why.

This film had so much on its side. Excellent actors, a fascinating subject, in fact the whole thing reeked of Oscar-Worthy... until it actually showed up in theaters. Perhaps it really did try, and I can tell that it was MEANT to be an awards movie. It couldn't be further from worthy.

"Amelia" is a highlights reel of Amelia Earhart's life, faithfully chronicling all the significant events of the famed aviatrix's career. However, it is hollow and nowhere is this more apparent than in the depiction of Earhart's relationships. Or the lack of it. There's no buildup, no exposition, no sort of character interaction to motivate any kind of bond or love forming between individuals. Things just kind of... HAPPEN. Amelia falls in love, falls out of love, and falls in love all over again, all without any sort of event or prompt to motivate it.

In fact, that's the problem of the entire film. Things just HAPPEN with little or not buildup or motivation in between. Poignant moments come and go with no warning or conclusion, rendering them meaningless and out of context. It seems almost as though the director Mira Nair tried a little too hard in the wrong direction.

This is a biopic, not a biography. Plenty of biographies have been written about Ms. Earhart already, the facts belong there. This is supposed to be a movie, and whereas I have no quarrel with facts, they are not the most important aspects. Movies are supposed to be snapshots, truer to the SPIRIT of a character and the MESSAGE of a story than the events within. Events in and of themselves are hollow and meaningless unless the MOTIVATIONS behind them are explained. In "Amelia", they sadly are not, and we are relegated to seeing the brilliant moments of Amelia's life pass with emotionless detachment. Why? Because this movie makes no effort in building character, assuming that the actors' charisma and the fame of their names would automatically make us invested in their fates.

Ms. Nair, you were mistaken.

A glimpse into pieces of the life of an American heroine.

[headhunter46 · 7/10 · 1 August 2010]

I have always had a bit of fascination regarding Amelia so I rented this movie to see what Hollywood was putting out there. It was nice to have look into her life, to watch the airplane scenes and a good deal of real life footage. There could have been more character development but I don't think that is what the director or writers were after. This movie does a fair job of showing certain aspects of her life that are not common knowledge. She doesn't jump up and down screaming, "I want to fly, I want to fly." And, I don't believe a mature, intelligent woman of the 1920's and 30's would do that.

I felt the interaction between the characters was fairly accurate given the time period and their personal pursuits. The details toward the end of the movie indicate a combination of errors caused the crash. I had never heard that part before and most certainly there are records somewhere of the personnel at Howland attempting to contact Amelia. The movie depicted a sailor typing all transmissions onto a typewriter so I am certain somewhere there is paper proof of the circumstances just before her disappearance. Quite sad to think she made it that far only go down in the Pacific, but she knew the landing at Howland would not be easy.

She was a free spirited, gutsy lady who pursued that which made her feel alive. I think the movie did a respectable job of showing that side of her.

I enjoyed it for what it is, Amelia the aviatrix.

Lost at Sea Indeed!

[tjackson · 1/10 · 23 October 2009]

Occasionally a movie comes along from Hollywood that sweeps you away with the breadth and scope of its sheer awfulness.

True story - a hank of hair at the International Women's Air and Space Museum in Cleveland thought to be Amelia Earhart's was recently discovered to be, in fact, just thread. This movie is the cinematic equivalent. This movie, thought to be about Amelia Earhart is, in fact, a threaded bundle of clichés and overwrought soap opera moments. If Hilary Swank gave one more brave toothy grin, I thought I was going to have to leave. But I stuck it out to see which was worse, the unconvincing acting, the poor casting, Richard Gere, the costumey looking costumes, or the dreadful Peter Pan soundtrack. But the winner, I think, is the screenplay, which rattles off one maudlin insight after another alternating with scenes of stunning mediocrity played without conviction or chemistry.

If some of this is based on Earhart's real words, then maybe she's just not that interesting a subject for film. My guess is that the forever overly earnest Hillary Swank, as executive producer, buoyed by research and good intentions, convinced Mira Nair that her poetic approach to film-making would be perfect against the pilot's own words of inspiration. The result is a disaster. When you're sitting in the theater having shelled out your ten bucks and you can't wait for Amelia Earhart to die, you know you've gone to the wrong movie.

inspiring film about the most famous woman of her time

[serendipity160 · 8/10 · 24 October 2009]

Most professional reviewers share the same conclusion .. the following sentence boils their reviews down to one sentence: the movie stinks.

But I'm not a professional film critic. I'm the average film buff who watches movies for one main reason: to be transported to a different place or time by a story that could be inspiring, gritty, funny, emotional, romantic, thrilling or horrifying.

This movie was not perfect.. yes, there were some cheesy dialogs and not enough background on Amelia Earhart's passion for flying. But these shortcomings were made up by spectacular cinematography (breathtaking views of the Victoria Falls), authentic airplanes (they used a version of the 1937 Lockheed Electra that Amelia used on her last fateful voyage), brilliant acting (Hillary looks and acts the part to a T) and resonating music (by Gabriel Yared of "City of Angels" fame).

I'm going to take the 5th as far as Mira Nair's hand in this film is concerned. I've seen this director use more originality to bring fiery screenplays to life on the big screen ("Monsoon Wedding", "The Namesake"), so there does seem to be a disconnect between "Amelia" and her previous films.. I'll say no more :) Don't write off the movie based on the negative reviews. Watch the film for its real appeal - the story of a courageous woman, ahead of her time, who seized every opportunity to live her dreams, whatever the consequence.

Keeps you awake (nearly)

[neil-476 · 6/10 · 18 November 2009]

Hilary Swank plays Amelia Earhart in an utterly routine biopic. Richard Gere plays George Puttnam, but this doesn't make it any less routine. Ewan McGregor plays Gene Vidal - ditto.

This is all very worthy, and mildly interesting if you don't know Ms Earhart's story (or all the details of it), but I was never invested in the movie because I never really cared about any of the characters. The nearest I got to any emotional involvement was when Puttnam threw a wobbly on finding a poem Amelia had written to Vidal - however, his reaction made me dislike him rather than sympathise with him.

On balance, I didn't feel that I had wasted my time, but I didn't feel I had used it wonderfully well either.

Conflict-free dull portrayal of an interesting woman

[itsmegin · 1/10 · 26 October 2009]

Despite reading a few negative reviews, I had high hopes for Amelia. Of course, the critics were right and it was not good. The best thing about this film was the cinematography. With grand, sweeping aerial shots of all the gorgeous land and sea Amelia flew over, there's no denying it was stunning visually. That and the fact that Hilary Swank looked just like Amelia Earhart are the two things I could say were done well. The rest was a mess.

There were little things that were irritating about the film. Hilary Swank's weird accent bothered me. I don't know anyone from Kansas, so I'm not sure what women from Kansas in the 1920s and 30s would have sounded like, but if they truly sounded as irritating and awful as Hilary Swank did, then the acting coaches should have taken poetic license and allowed her to speak normally. Her accent was so odd, it was distracting. It was also inconsistent and drew attention to itself, taking me out of the experience of the film.

The chemistry between Amelia and George Putnam, played by Richard Gere, was entirely lacking. While Richard tried his best to feign love, and said all the right things, I just didn't buy it. And Amelia was cold and completely unlovable towards him, which I assumed was just part of her character, since when he proposed marriage she responded with a grimace and a promise that she would not be faithful nor would she expect him to be. Because she was so honest, it was not dramatic, interesting or exciting when she began her passionless, short-lived affair with Gene Vidal.

The only thing keeping me awake through most of the film was my popcorn, but I perked up slightly when I thought perhaps they were hinting at Amelia being gay. This at least, was a new take on her life that I hadn't heard of yet. While at a bar, she pointed out that a woman nearby was very attractive. That, her masculine appearance, and her support of other female pilots, particularly the mentoring of an attractive young competitor combined to make me wonder if maybe the filmmakers were going to explore that side of her story. But no, it was just an idle comment used to explain why Amelia always wore pants, she admired the other woman's legs and thought her own were inadequate. Yawn.

The primary problem with this film goes back to the script at its very basic level. There was an utter lack of conflict that made the story incredibly dull. Biographies are hard to do well, as most people's lives are meandering and episodic by nature. We all know the fascinating story surrounding Amelia Earhart's disappearance. This story should have brought us into her life, engaged us so thoroughly that we were on the edge of our seats and calling out "No Amelia-don't get on that plane!" as we watched her take the fateful voyage. Because if we had cared more about her and been brought into her world by an exciting, conflict-driven look at her life, we would have been emotionally attached and deeply moved at the thought of her demise. We all knew how Titanic would end, but were nonetheless moved to tears when we watched Jack sink to his watery grave, because the writers of Titanic did what the writers of Amelia did not-they got the audience emotionally involved with the characters so that we cared whether they lived or died. Watching Amelia was like watching a historically accurate documentary which included all the dull parts of a real person's life. There was little focus on the obstacles and conflicts Amelia Earhart no doubt faced in doing what she did at that time in American history. Instead, everything seemed relatively easy for her. The main conflict arose from her feeling like a sell-out while endorsing product after product, but this too was explained and accepted as necessary, and didn't create any real drama or conflict for the hero.

When the ending we all saw coming finally arrived, it was just that, the end of a story we already know, no less exciting after watching this uninspired portrayal of a woman who truly was groundbreaking and inspirational. It's a shame that the writers did not craft a more engaging Amelia for Hilary Swank to embody. The real woman was a passionate pioneer whose life was interesting, dramatic and groundbreaking. This bravery and zeal could have been captured by an actress as talented as Hilary Swank if the writers had given her a story to work with, rather than this dull retelling of facts.

Snoozefest

[treeline1 · 1 November 2009]

In the 1930s, Amelia Earhart was a pioneering woman pilot. She married a man who helped promote her flights. She went missing on the last leg of a round-the-world flight in 1937.

That's all I got from the movie, which is shockingly bad and instantly forgettable. Earhart was a national figure followed by millions, yet you'd never know why from this tepid film. While Hilary Swank seems likable as Amelia and does bear a striking resemblance to her, the script fails to make her the least bit interesting. The dialogue is tedious, the movie has no excitement or tension, and the director destroys any scenes that might have been emotionally compelling. Richard Gere has the thankless job of playing Amelia's husband and comes across as a completely dull fellow. Even the music is boring. What a colossal waste of talent.

Amelia

[Maryjnberry · 7/10 · 16 April 2017]

This movie depicts the facts of Amelia Earhart's fantastic life, her flights were nothing short of miraculous, for the times and the equipment available at the time. Not much is known about her private life, even though she had written books, those were about her flying experiences, where she had been and how it felt to fly. I disagree with one review that says that her private life was too matter of fact in the telling throughout the film, rather than making them events in and of themselves. It appears to me that Amelia wasn't forthcoming about her private life at the time, as a result, not much was known about her love life, relationships etc. certainly not enough to put into the film, if they had made it up it would have changed the designation to 'based on facts' not the bio pic it is. Putnam, the writer would or perhaps did write about his love for her, but his relationship with Amelia started out in a businesslike way and ended the same way, despite the reliance they had on each other. What stood out in this film was Amelia's first and only love -flying a plane to somewhere she had never been. The fact that Amelia was the first women to accomplish those personal goals was interesting and novel for that time period. The movie was successful in setting out Amelia's sense of adventure, courage, human spirit to excel and Amelia breaking boundaries by a woman, and in flight.

Just a false alarm...

[Lejink · 6/10 · 18 September 2011]

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.

Amelia is flying on one engine only making it a disappointing trip.

[Troy_Campbell · 4/10 · 13 November 2009]

Amelia Earhart is loved by many. Her mysterious death over the Pacific ocean was investigated and pondered over for generations. Her legacy is felt to this very day. I'm familiar with the basic information of Amelia's life, but must admit she's a historical figure I know very little about. This film goes a small way to rectifying that, not enough though. The film seems content on purely documenting her life in mere snapshots, rather than really delving into why this headstrong woman from Kansas did what she did. Sure, we get a quick scene midway through where she explains to her husband that she does it because she has to, to prove to herself that she can, but why? Where did this need of self-assurance come from? Her childhood barely gets a look in, perhaps it stems from there. Don't expect an explanation from this movie though.

The lack of any real insight makes it hard to connect with her as a movie character. The film relies on your adoration of the real Amelia to keep your interest, which just isn't good enough. Director Mira Nair gives the female pilot practically no character arc, meaning we go from start to finish and don't see or feel a change at all. Rather than being swept away in what was obviously an extraordinary life we are taken from A to B as if viewing a school project which is just trying to get full marks for showing the important stuff.

For all its downfalls this biopic isn't a complete waste of time. For starters there is the ever impressive Hilary Swank - she physically embodies her protagonist to a tee, complete with awkward beauty and undeniable charisma – and In support Richard Gere is solid as George Putnam - business man and Amelia's husband – who is dedicated, faithful and loyal to his wife, something that almost makes him more likable than the star herself. Then there is also the astounding look of the film thanks to cinematographer Stuart Dryburgh.

Amelia is flying on one engine only making it a disappointing trip.

2 out of 5 (1 - Rubbish, 2 - Ordinary, 3 - Good, 4 - Excellent, 5 - Classic)

Not Homely (dvd)

[leplatypus · 7/10 · 7 July 2011]

This movie interested me for two facts: first, it adds to Hilary's filmography. Second, it's about a world tour and as i actually write a similar novel, i was excited to see how she planned hers.

Now, I discovered that this movie also had great assets: Today, we take for granted plane flights but we really don't know their origin. This movie has a great historic and educative value. I never thought it was so perilous to fly during the 1940. Next, the movie is tastefully shot: great sets, costumes, editing and photography. The world seems blend in chrome and shine. It's a good choice to cut the world travel in bits because it adds to the rhythm. Furthermore, the morphing of news footage into the movie is also original. And the ending credits with pictures of the real Amelia are respectful and you can see that Hilary is really a chameleon. She is really convincing when it's about following her dreams and dare her life to live it. It's truth that visions of her travels have been expurgated (as the Madsen part, not even in the credits thus the fifteen minutes of cut scenes added).

All in all, it's a good recommendation. For sure, if you are flight-panic, this movie won't cure your fear!

Background info correction

[webskipper-749-996204 · 5/10 · 27 July 2013]

As a lover of vintage aircraft and aviation history, I enjoyed the movie for that reason alone. As far as I can tell, the movie pretty much held true to the known facts, for the most part. Some things were exaggerated, some understated, but basically factual, to the best of my knowledge. The vintage aircraft were amazingly beautiful. To me, anyway.

For most people this will seem like nitpicking, but speaking of facts, the original description by jotix100 had an error in it. Gene Vidal was a director of NorthEAST Airlines, not NorthWEST Airlines (Col. Lewis H. Brittin was the founder of Northwest). In doing a Google search to find the source of that error, I found about an equal number of references to Vidal via-a-vis Northeast and Northwest. It's apparent to me that "somebody, somewhere, sometime" made a transcription error that got perpetuated. It seems misinformation usually travels faster than actual facts.

Not Bad

[ETO_Buff · 7/10 · 24 March 2022]

I don't know how accurate it is, but Hilary Swank was very convincing, of course, and looks just like Earhart. It kind of had the feel of a made-for-TV movie, and I wish it had portrayed more of Earhart's pre-flying early life as a background, instead of just a very brief flashback. Nevertheless, it was pretty well made.

Disappointing to say the least

[marylh · 3/10 · 2 November 2009]

Being an avid reader/watcher of all things Amelia Earhart, I was really disappointed with this movie. The primary problem is the deadly dull script. I don't think I've ever seen a more tepid, boring affair portrayed as that between Earhart and Gene Vidal, but they included that rather than showing any of Amelia's self-doubts or conflicts with her flight instructors, or any of the theories as to why they missed Howland.

There's so much to her story and they picked the least interesting bits.

The Diane Keaton TV Movie, Amelia Earhard: The Final Flight, did a much better job of getting into Amelia's head and showing more of her self-doubts, and the whole aspect of being a women pilot in the 1930's. Fred Noonan also got a more interesting turn as done by Rutger Hauer.

Well done

[jsorenson777 · 8/10 · 19 April 2010]

Some people shouldn't see some movies.

This is a period piece and a character study -- both very well done. Some younger viewers may be looking for more action and maybe a happy ending. Maybe a car chase or two.

Works well as a love story between complex characters and as a depiction of Amelia and her time.

Tarentino can change history for fun and profit, but these folks did their best to try depicting truth. Gere and Swank exhibit high level acting skills here and the story moves well from scene to scene.

Not the kind of movie that is going to be popular with the average viewers and not a big money-maker, but a fine film nonetheless.

Strong acting let down by poor story line

[cooldwijen · 7/10 · 23 June 2023]

Starring Hilary Swank as the legendary aviator Amelia Earhart, the film tells the story of her groundbreaking career, her relationship with her husband George Putnam (Richard Gere), and her mysterious disappearance during a flight over the Pacific Ocean in 1937.

While Swank delivers a convincing performance as Earhart, the film as a whole falls short of its potential. The pacing is slow and the script lacks depth, leaving the audience feeling somewhat disconnected from the characters and their struggles.

That being said, the film's cinematography and production design are impressive, transporting the viewer to a bygone era of aviation and adventure. Overall, while Amelia may not be a perfect film, it is worth watching for Swank's performance and the stunning visuals.

Amelia- Since When Was Aviation this Dull? **1/2

[edwagreen · 5/10 · 9 November 2010]

The first half hour of the movie was terribly dull. You're almost rooting for Ms. Earhart to get lost over the Atlantic and end it all.

The film finally picks up at the time where Ms. Earhart, while married, begins an affair with a member of the Aeronautics Board. He has a son. By the way, was the guy divorced or a widower? This is never explained.

Richard Gere seems very uncomfortable in the role of Ms. Earhart's husband. He looks like he is in torture to say his lines.

While the real Amelia Earhart was certainly no beauty, Hilary Swank looks like she is a lesbian, especially with those broad shoulders and outlandish hairdo. While they wore their hair like that in the 1930s, it is still unbecoming to her. Even the woman who briefly portrays Eleanor Roosevelt looked better than Swank did.

Those last minutes when Earhart lost contact with the ground is never-ending. Whatever happened to Amelia Earhart? Did the Japanese shoot the plane down when she may have viewed some of their war-like intentions from the air?