The Hot Blog: Review: Amelia

« Soupy Sails Away | Main | BYOB Monday »

October 23, 2009

Review: Amelia

I take no joy in participating in the disappearance of Amelia. I like Mira Nair and her work. Even though she is the most surprising 2-time-Oscar-winner in history, Hilary Swank seemed to be once again well cast for an oddball role. And really, Richard Gere was a pretty good call too, though perhaps he remains a little too good-looking for it not to obscure a barely-there turn by Ewan McGregor.

But the movie feels like no one was on instruments, guiding the thing to someplace safe.

The accents by both Swank and Gere, are legendarily bad… I mean, comedic. On top of that, McGregor’s accent – whatever it is meant to be – wanders in an out, much like his character. This is the glaring, easy catch of trouble.

So you sit there and try to move past the bad accents… as though you were on a date with someone with a specific physical thing that bothers you, but that you don’t want to judge him/her on that… makes you feel shallow… and you so want the date to become something good… maybe green people with big warts on their noses and pointy black hats are really good in bed or will make you feel safe from those flying monkeys you have always feared or will change your life by teaching you how to bathe without ever having water touch your skin…

Or not.

The greatest sin of Amelia is that it is dead boring. And I do consider that a sin when you are working with a story this full of opportunity. I have no idea why no one seems to have decided what this movie was going to be about, but it is not a hagiography, nor revisionist, nor episodic, nor enlightening.

For me, ANY angle chosen could have been made into an interesting movie. Sincerely, if the movie was about how boring this woman really was while the world was busy adoring her and the hype around her, it could have been fascinating. The elements to set that up are there. She resists promotion about her that she feels is misleading… but then she gives in without ever really exploring the conflict.

Who was this woman who, in this film, professes to being as comfortable sharing her vagina as Joe Gideon is in sharing his cock in All That Jazz? I’m not kidding. (I did, however, pull a punch by not using the "c word" as a balance to the word, "cock," in that last sentence. PC me.). That is the set up here. She claims to feel free to do whatever she feels like doing. And yet, the movie is utterly sexless.

And Nair gets caught in the mega-mistake of thinking that the view from the window of a plane, which most of us have found pleasure in – even thrills - as we have flown over great landscapes or magnificent cities, is a viable movie experience. Maybe in IMAX… and maybe for 5 minutes. But in every great or good movie about flying, the filmmaker remembered that the thrill of flying is on the character of the person flying.

In The Right Stuff, Phil Kaufman did a great job taking us into the experience of Chuck Yeager as he broke the sound barrier and beyond… but it was the stick of gum he borrowed and the cocky confidence he showed while the images and score told us he should be very nervous, and the angrily defiant look in his eyes even as he passed out… and ultimately how his entire part of the film set up why flying was life for him and how his wife and other pilots got that. The script, rather brilliantly, has outsiders who don't get it - who really represent the audience, as we start the journey - while allowing the audience to feel that we are allowed to identify as people who do get it. And by the end of the film, we do get it, as these men are heroic and "just like you and me" at the same time. But the lesson is. most often, that we mere mortals feel, in those great moments of tension, differently than these men with "the right stuff." It's not about the beauty of flight. It's about how one feels in the tight prison of the cabin... how much a person wants to go faster, higher, and farther than anyone else ever has or ever will.

Closer to what Nair seems to have been going for is Out of Africa, which was not a movie about flying. It was a movie about the freedom of spirit and the flying was a manifestation of that spirit, not the source. But Amelia is carrying the load, from start to finish, of the fact that there was nothing romantic about the experience of flying that Earhart had. There is no one who matters to her who is taking to the skies with her. This is a movie in which the greatest tension about flying these routes for the first time (under varying circumstances) is getting the plane off the ground.

WHAT?!?!?!?

There just isn’t anything very dramatic about being in the air. Either you are trying to take off, trying to land, or falling out of the sky unexpectedly. So how do you make a movie about a flier that isn’t about flying?

Again… not my call… but you have to make a choice.

And I have to say, for a woman who takes on two male lovers – one being her husband – and in a film that keeps trying to sell Earhart as a heterosexual being… whenever she gets around women, she seems happier and focused and like the most obvious closeted lesbian in movie history. Really. Every time the feminism idea turns up – and it’s yet another half-followed thread – Amelia lights up. I would have been fine with Amelia: The First Feminist as a movie. But the movie always seems to want to scurry back to convention.

And THAT would make a good movie too. “She wanted to be all these things, but she was raised to be a good girl, so she went along, and the only time she could find herself was alone in the sky or letting other women know that they could break their good girl bonds.”

Well, that would make a Phil Kaufman movie. Uma as Amelia, Maria de Medeiros as her dark, burrowing, little-seen, most intimate lover, and Fred Ward as her cuckolded wealthy husband who built her legend but never could give her an orgasm... and really wanted to.

But I digress…

People who are willing to accept travelogues with actors who are likeable might not gag on this thick, clunky, unaccomplished bit of mutton. Aside from the painful accents, there is nothing in this film that pokes you in the eye. But if you expect anything of any weight or lasting value out of a movie experience, you will have to be deeply disappointed in Amelia. The movie is, simply, lost.

Posted by dpoland at October 23, 2009 08:11 AM

Comments

So, it's a movie about Amelia Earhart, which does NOT focus on her great (and historic) accomplishments? Unbelievable.

Posted by: DeafBrownTrashPunk at October 23, 2009 09:01 AM

They're all in there... they just don't stick in any emotional way.

Posted by: David Poland at October 23, 2009 09:03 AM

I know a lot about the Amelia Earhart story, and would be very interested in almost any version of that story told on film, EXCEPT this kind of lame romantic Oscar grab nonsense.

Posted by: martin at October 23, 2009 09:37 AM

Hey, if it's not some culture-clash romance where the free-spirited young Indian gal wants to be with a dude from another caste/race/culture, but her traditional parents want her to marry a nice Indian boy, then it's got a leg up on Nair's 100,000 other terrible movies.

Also: Swank tends to give me a boner in 50% of her movies, and in the other 50% she's usually mugging or doing some cornpone accent or cutting her hair short. This looks like a NON-boner Swank movie.

VIVA LA REAPING!

Posted by: LexG at October 23, 2009 12:22 PM

Here's how it could have been a good film: Swank is an asshole with everybody as she climbs to the top of the flying business, until one day as she fly across a dangerous part of Africa there is a storm that destroy her plane in mid-air. The fall breaks her ankle and death will be certain but she's discovered by a tribe of Pygmies. She lives with them bitching and screaming for hot coffee until one day she realize she have to be nice with people because its the right thing to do. She opens her eyes and sees all the love around her that she ignored, all the broken hearts. She takes the journey back home, fighting tigers and elephants, just in time to prevent his husband to marry her best friend girl. Climatic ending at the church, confusion and tears. They kiss the end.

Posted by: Kelby at October 23, 2009 02:46 PM

Sounds good, I'll agree with the others and say that it should have been directed by Michael Bay.

Posted by: martin at October 23, 2009 02:58 PM

This review has me thinking one thing: stay away from the theater this weekend, and instead settle down with THE RIGHT STUFF on DVD... a movie I can watch over and over again for the rest of my life without ever getting bored.

But going back to Amelia... I think people would find an adaptation of the novel "I Was Amelia Earhart" more entertaining -- seeing how it's so much conjecture about her surviving her "final" flight, going all castaway on a remote island, having torrid jungle sex with her navigator... who wouldn't watch that?

Posted by: Mr. F. at October 23, 2009 05:17 PM

The first clue should have been:

FEMALE DIRECTOR ALARM!

(BUZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ)

Posted by: LexG at October 23, 2009 07:44 PM

is that the sound of you electric-shaving your pubes to make yer willy more noticeable?

Posted by: leahnz at October 23, 2009 08:57 PM

Oh snap I just got zinged by Zoe Bell.

No, it's the sound of another woman FAILING. Which is always funny.

Posted by: LexG at October 23, 2009 09:07 PM

Wait, this is as boring as Out of Africa (which is the second worst BP winner of all time, just behind Broadway Melody)?!

damn, I was still considering going.

and in a way I sort of should go, because boring films are much much easier to watch in a theatre than at home.

Posted by: movielocke at October 24, 2009 01:20 AM

What a brilliant thought ... somebody whacking off to a piece of Oscar Bait that's become a shoo-in for the Razzies.

Posted by: Chucky in Jersey at October 24, 2009 04:34 AM

"Amelia" is godawful, but I don't think it's as boring as "Out of Africa." It's shorter, for one thing, and it does contain some stuff that's fun to ponder: Swank's teeth, McGregor's bizarre accent, the fantastic but little-used Mia Wasikowska and Cherry Jones.

Posted by: chris at October 24, 2009 01:06 PM

Chucky, what is it with your obsession over other people masturbating?

Posted by: jeffmcm at October 24, 2009 02:01 PM

jeffmcm, what is it with your obsession over analyzing other people's posts? So tiresome.

Posted by: mallon at October 24, 2009 08:36 PM

Someone has to make this joke. So here it goes. What's the problem with an obsessive masturbation habit? COME ON! I'VE GOT NEEDS, PEOPLE! I'VE GOT NEEDS!

Posted by: IOIOIOI at October 24, 2009 10:04 PM

Hey, LexG - two points for you:

1. The Hurt Locker is the best film of the year, so far, and directed by a woman - it will OWN your ass!

2. Try not to judge Mira Nair too harshly - with regards to your desire for more and more boners, may I point you to Kama Sutra, one of the best pieces of mainstream software filmmaking of the past 20 years.

Posted by: Geoff at October 24, 2009 10:36 PM

Hey, LexG - two points for you:

1. The Hurt Locker is the best film of the year, so far, and directed by a woman - it will OWN your ass!

2. Try not to judge Mira Nair too harshly - with regards to your desire for more and more boners, may I point you to Kama Sutra, one of the best pieces of mainstream softcore filmmaking of the past 20 years.

Posted by: Geoff at October 24, 2009 10:36 PM

Hey, LexG - two points for you:

1. The Hurt Locker is the best film of the year, so far, and directed by a woman - it will OWN your ass!

Posted by: Geoff at October 24, 2009 10:37 PM

Sorry, triple post. By the way, saw Paranormal Activity, last night - WOW! Best horror film since 28 Days Later - well acted, well shot, just pure scary. Now, this is coming from a fan of Blair Witch and I can see why that film pissed off so many with its slowbuild. But sorry, this film delivers the goods.

Yes, the ending is a bit cheesy, but it all works!

Posted by: Geoff at October 24, 2009 10:40 PM

I know it's not polite to say this but I will NEVER understand how Swank won 2 Oscars. I know how and why she did but is there another multiple Oscar winner who has been in more crap? Or, I should say, just doesn't seem like she belongs in movies?

Posted by: EOTW at October 24, 2009 11:08 PM

Geoff, obviously HURT LOCKER and the AWESOME Kathryn Bigelow are exceptions to the rule. It's in my top 2 or 3 for the year... and Near Dark, Blue Steel, Point Break and Strange Days are some all-time classic shit.

"Jennifer's Body" had a chick director and it's also in my top 5 for the year. I even said a few weeks back I perfectly enjoyed Barrymore's roller chick movie... I usually like Jane Campion movies, too. And I like Kim Peirce. So obviously there's a touch of theater involved in the shtick, but for the most part, like all generalizations, it's GENERALLY TRUE.

Posted by: LexG at October 25, 2009 12:50 AM

"jeffmcm, what is it with your obsession over analyzing other people's posts? So tiresome."

Excuse the fuck out of me for actually thinking about what other people are posting. Chucky is an insistent idiot; therefore, he should be exposed as an idiot. Sorry if you feel he should be treated otherwise.

"Best horror film since 28 Days Later"

Sorry to sound like Jeff Wells, but this kind of comment automatically renders you suspect.

Posted by: jeffmcm at October 25, 2009 02:21 AM

EOTW, you make a good point about Swank - I always have found her kind of overrated, too, beyond her amazing work in Boys Don't Cry. Still, such a unique role and movie.

But let's not single her out for Oscar winners starring in crap - need I point you towards the careers of Michael Caine and Gene Hackman? Love both actors, but they have been in a TON of crap. And let's take a look at the recent output of DeNiro and Pacino - they should almost be forced to give those earlier Oscars back.

And JeffMCM, I am not a horror buff nor I do I probably see more than a couple of true horror films a year. But I really don't think you can be so dismissive of any one who praises 28 Days Later - the film obviously has a very devoted following (as does the sequel) and I can confidentally say it's probably one of the more influential horror films of the past decade.

Posted by: Geoff at October 25, 2009 06:30 AM

In the 80s, it seemed like Hackman and Caine would do just about anything for a paycheck. Hell, they were in some of my student films. All I had to do was spring for some pizza and a few six-packs.

Posted by: yancyskancy at October 25, 2009 11:03 AM

Is it possible, in this PC day age,

for an actor to write it into their CONTRACT that they'll be PAID IN VAG?

I know I'm repeating this hilarious material, but if I was an A-list star, I'd forego cash and just ask for payment in VAGHINE.

Remember in BORAT when those dudes said it would rule if you could have HOT CHICKS as slaves?

FUNNIEST SHIT EEEEEEEVER.

Posted by: LexG at October 25, 2009 04:17 PM

Geoff, sorry about that earlier comment, I was in a bad mood when I wrote it.

Posted by: jeffmcm at October 25, 2009 05:16 PM

JeffMCM, it's quite alright - I was not really that offended, but thanks for the thought. I've been in my share of bad moods too, recently.

Might be asking for further ridicule on this one, but Seven Pounds has just started on cable rotation and sorry, I think it's an excellent film.

It's far from perfect, the Rosario Dawson (though she gives an excellent performance) is written a little too precious, but the movie packs a wallop. I do not get the hatred for this film - Will Smith is probably the reason, but he does a really nice job, too.

Posted by: Geoff at October 25, 2009 05:34 PM

i think jeff's hatred for '28 days later...' is about as legend as LYT's love for 'saw'. life is a rich tapestry

Posted by: leahnz at October 25, 2009 06:06 PM

ROSARIO DAWSON = SMOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOKIN'!

Posted by: LexG at October 26, 2009 12:26 AM

28 Days Later is a great movie. I must suspect anyone who hates that movie and likes the horrible, stupid sequel. At least the first one had atmosphere, character, and a story that mattered. The sequel was a cheap "churn 'em out" piece of trash, not that much removed from Saw 5.

Posted by: The Big Perm at October 26, 2009 06:11 AM

I don't hate 28 Days Later - I just think it's mediocre, and therefore overrated. 28 Weeks Later, on the other hand, is a near-masterpiece in my mind because it has more interesting characters, greater control of tension, more interesting stakes, and one great joke.

I do kind of hate Danny Boyle though.

Posted by: jeffmcm at October 26, 2009 10:48 PM

is it his alarmingly large forehead/skull? that sort of freaks me out

(renner rules '28 weeks')

Posted by: leahnz at October 26, 2009 11:20 PM

McDouche, you're a bitch.

Leah, you're old by woman standards.

Posted by: LexG at October 27, 2009 05:26 AM

I think the fact that there weren't any characters of note in 28 Weeks Later is what killed it for me. They're just people to run around, I didn't get much of a feel for them. I honestly don't see a real difference between that and a horrible sequel like Hills Have Eyes 2. They're just an excuse to make people run around as the camera shakes a lot with the crazy shutter speeds, and then you have the dumb ending setting up a sequel. Thanks, movie! As a filmgoer, you know how I hate actual endings!

Posted by: The Big Perm at October 27, 2009 06:41 AM

I thought the relationship between the two siblings, and their dad, was stronger than the miscellaneous hipsters of 28 Days Later.

Posted by: jeffmcm at October 27, 2009 01:43 PM

The Hot Blog

October 23, 2009

Review: Amelia

Comments

Post a comment