A quick perusal of the Wikipedia page for Amelia Earhart indicates a
complex character best suited for the close analysis of a 400-page
book, not a two-hour movie that will certainly include Earhart’s
(played here by Hilary Swank) “greatest hits,” like her solo flying
accomplishments and the attendant fame and fortune, her
lovers—husband George Puttnam (Richard Gere) and colleague Gene Vidal
(Ewan McGregor)—and her mysterious death, but will strip away the
texture of those moments for the sake of cramming them all in.
Amelia is a totally subtext-free film; a clumsy, risk-free and
emotionally one-note exercise in biopic filmmaking. Earhart’s entire
life is watered down, when any one moment could have been explored and
mined for the very essence of the woman.
This article appears in Oct 29 – Nov 4, 2009.
Another good review!
Thank you!
Hey, Hilary, you should get a Rotten Tomatoes account. Your one paragraph assessment of a feature length film would fit in there quite well.
I bet a one paragraph assessment is all it deserves/requires.
Hillary, have you actually seen the film yet? I haven’t, so I’m not saying you’re wrong here, but your review seems to strongly suggest what the film *might* be, not what it actually *is* (in your opinion, of course).
Almost all of the Coast’s movie reviews are one paragraph long, Dr. Fever.
Jennier— have you ever read Palermo’s reviews? He hates everything that isn’t an art film or doesn’t reference film making culture, but at least they’re readable, and not one paragraph long.
I think the one paragraph blurbs are an editorial decision is what I think Jenner is getting at, fever. Titley’s done longer reviews. For mundane films like Amelia its appropriate, I figure. I think the studios were handed a lemon and didn’t want to shoot down (ha ha) swank’s career or sabotage Gere’s attempt at rescuing his (has he done anything good since An Officer and a Gentleman?) by sending it straight to the Walmart Discount Bin.
I just think that if the Coast is going to make an “editorial” decision to give poor or short reviews to mainstream, pop culture films, then stick to art films. Both Palermo’s and Titley’s reviews of art films (or non-mainstream) are far more interesting and in depth than anything Hollywood churns out. If the film’s a stinker, then say why it’s a stinker, don’t just say it sucks and link a bleedin’ Wikipedia page.
While I agree that Amelia probably is as you say, I just think the reviews could be better executed. Either do it right, or don’t do it at all.
we live in Halifax. all we get are mainstream, pop culture films. You couldn’t fill a paper with the “art films” that come here. And unless you’re reading Entertainment Weekly, or a crap daily paper filled with movie reviews off the wire from an American critic that rhymes with rebert, no one has indepth local movie reviews anymore.