Amelia

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.

Nice attempt to capture the feeling of the time of the flying legend Amelia Earhard, who was an important aviation pioneer in the late 20s and 30s, a time that relegated women to second class citizens in many respects. I thought it was a well done film but not a film for everybody-maybe a film for anyone who has ever had an interest in planes and the history of important people in that genre. Excellent shots of early planes and the roaring days of flying in the 20s and 30s. Sad ending, which could not be avoided considering the tragic way Amelia Earhard vanished on the way to a tiny island in the vastness of the Pacific ocean in 1937. I read somewhere that someone found a pair of flying boots washed up on a small atoll in that area of the Pacific back there somewhere timewise, that some folk think might have originated with the last flight of AE. There are thousands of small islands in the Pacific, but not much where AE was flying, according to what I have read about her. Well, all in all, a film for history buffs and aviation fans, not for everybody, but not bad at all if you like that type of thing.People were not the same back then and I think the film strives to capture the way people were, and perhaps now, they appears stuffy, but I think they were that way.

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 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.

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.