Tell us what you thought of ‘Amelia’

Posted by · 10:50 am · October 23rd, 2009

Hilary Swank in Amelia

I’ve already added my thoughts on today’s big release, both off the cuff and then in detail in this morning’s installment of Oscar Talk. Enough about me, what about you? If you happen to see the film over the weekend (though a rough critical assessment might have driven those numbers down), come on back here and tell us your thoughts.

→ 36 Comments Tags: | Filed in: Daily

36 responses so far

  • 1 10-23-2009 at 11:00 am

    Loyal said...

    boring boring boring. That’s the biggest cinematic sin of all. At least being really bad gives you something to talk about.

    Also, and I understand its may be a small issue, but I disliked the fact that when Amelia flew over Gambia they made it look like the Serengeti.

    I was in Gambia earlier this year, it’s the smallest African country by far, and if you want to see wildlife, you’d need a copy of BBC’s Planet Earth. Real sloppy filmmaking there and perhaps indicative of the larger issues at play.

    Anyway, here are the rest of my thoughts on the film:

  • 2 10-23-2009 at 11:22 am

    Harmonica said...

    Terrible. If this gets any Oscar consideration (apart from, maybe, cinematography and art direction), I will lose all of my remaining faith in the Academy. Total waste of time.

  • 3 10-23-2009 at 11:28 am

    mark said...

    So this is the dog we are all gonna kick this year.

  • 4 10-23-2009 at 11:33 am

    david said...

    I’ve liked a great deal of Mira Nair’s work in the past…hard for me to believe that this film is the complete dog many critics are making it out to be.

  • 5 10-23-2009 at 12:02 pm

    Adam Smith said...

    What did I think? I thought the trailer was shite, so I didn’t see it. Yay saving money!

  • 6 10-23-2009 at 12:07 pm

    Joel said...

    About to go see if it’s as bad as Kris and everyone, except Roger Ebert and Dustin Putman, have said. Oh and The Hollywood Reporter.

  • 7 10-23-2009 at 12:15 pm

    Anon said...


  • 8 10-23-2009 at 12:50 pm

    AmericanRequiem said...

    17 on rotten tomatoes, 13 on top critics, and a wooping 38 on metacritic, i know guy doesnt like to go by these numbers, but this has turned out to not just be poorly reviewed but worse then almost any other movie this year, and thats a big deal. These reviews have killed Amelias box office, and a movie getting this thrashed shouldnt be nominated for even one oscar, it will be forgotten too quickly, so i wont be seeing it

  • 9 10-23-2009 at 1:06 pm

    Darbicus said...

    I share kris’ sentiments, only swapping out Street Fighter with Dragonball Evolution. Good god this was all kinds of horrible.

  • 10 10-23-2009 at 1:14 pm

    One Movie, Five Views said...

    I guess everyone has different opinions. Over at One Movie, Five Views, we were all in the same boat as Roger Ebert and the others who have recommended it.

    While it’s not the Best Picture nominee everyone was expecting, it was still a good film in it’s own right.

  • 11 10-23-2009 at 1:16 pm

    One Movie, Five Views said...

    I forgot to stink a link to our reviews. Anyway, you can read all of our full thoughts on the film here:

  • 12 10-23-2009 at 1:48 pm

    Sawyer said...

    10-23-2009 at 12:50 pm

    AmericanRequiem said…

    17 on rotten tomatoes, 13 on top critics, and a wooping 38 on metacritic, i know guy doesnt like to go by these numbers, but this has turned out to not just be poorly reviewed but worse then almost any other movie this year, and thats a big deal. These reviews have killed Amelias box office, and a movie getting this thrashed shouldnt be nominated for even one oscar, it will be forgotten too quickly, so i wont be seeing it

    Elizabeth: The Golden Turd was nominated for 2 Oscars. Anything’s possible.

  • 13 10-23-2009 at 2:27 pm

    Loyal said...

    I should add though, people did clap at my screening earlier this week.

    I dont put it past older safe white people in middle america to kinda dig Amelia’s blah PG vibe.

  • 14 10-23-2009 at 2:58 pm

    The Other James D. said...

    Let’s just hope that this isn’t Elizabeth: The Golden Suckage II, otherwise we’ll have another uninspired Actress nominee wasting space while other talent is omitted.

    Still, I don’t shrug off every movie just ’cause it’s not either awardsy or small-but-worthy-of being awardsy. I feel like I should still see it just so I could either think “It’s more like a D than an F” or so that I can have something to call my worst of the year.

  • 15 10-23-2009 at 2:58 pm

    Cameron said...

    And Requiem, don’t forget The Black Dahlia, Norbit, Wyatt Earp…shall I go on?

  • 16 10-23-2009 at 2:59 pm

    Cameron said...

    And Requiem, don’t forget The Black Dahlia, Norbit, Wyatt Earp, Heaven’s Gate…shall I go on?

  • 17 10-23-2009 at 3:08 pm

    AmericanRequiem said...

    ha guys, ya, but blanchett is fantastic and the costumes were pretty beautiful in golden age, and update 16 on rotten, 12 for top critics

  • 18 10-23-2009 at 3:11 pm

    The Other James D. said...

    It all balanced out, because she was fantastic in Benjamin Button–one of few high points about that hollow, bland film–but was snubbed because they didn’t want to nominate her again; hence, Jolie got in.

    I’m not angry about it though. Honestly, I’m glad she was there, because her facial expressions when Marion Cotillard won were simply legendary.

  • 19 10-23-2009 at 3:44 pm

    Joel said...

    Pretty much a huge dullard of a movie. The last ten minutes picked up, but that’s all that the movie had going for it. And Hilary Swank? Bad, bad performance. And my god what a boring, listless movie. Rips off “The Aviator” while basically being a massively inferior clone of it.

  • 20 10-23-2009 at 4:28 pm

    Dave B said...

    It’s not the worst movie of the year by any means, but it’s so average. Swank does her best but is totally limited by pedestrian direction and an uninspired screenplay. Frankly, the story of Amelia Earhart is a fascinating one and the movie doesn’t live up to it. Little chemistry between Swank and Gere doesn’t help either. Oscar nods look to technical: Cinematography, Costumes, maybe Art Direction and Score. That should be about it.

  • 21 10-23-2009 at 5:03 pm

    James D. said...

    I went to go see it but saw Zombieland instead.

  • 22 10-23-2009 at 5:08 pm

    Chad Hartigan said...

    Where were all these comments when Ray and Walk the Line came out to raves? Those movies are the same garbage.

  • 23 10-23-2009 at 5:31 pm

    Speaking English said...

    I didn’t see it, but I did see “An Education,” which didn’t really do much for me. I fail to see what you and others found so exceptional about this strangely middle-of-the-road, typical coming-of-age story that never gains any dramatic traction as it rushes through its narrative. Blah. Mulligan was great though.

  • 24 10-23-2009 at 5:51 pm

    James D. said...

    Walk the Line was a good movie though, Chad.

  • 25 10-23-2009 at 7:09 pm

    Kristopher Tapley said...

    Chad: That’s silly. Ray and Walk the Line are much, much, MUCH better. Seriously, there’s an art to a greatest hits biopic and however average those two films happen to be, they are, at the end of the day, entertaining. Amelia is like a quick stone skipping through the greatest hits and boring from start to finish.

    English: Middle of the road? LOL.

  • 26 10-23-2009 at 7:28 pm

    Speaking English said...

    I’d love to be convinced otherwise, but there was absolutely nothing in the movie that wasn’t totally conventional and paint-by-the-numbers (okay, MAYBE the big Sarsgaard revelation towards the end, but then we get that facile little ending and reservations are confirmed).

    I really just don’t get it. As far as coming-of-age tales this one lacks any sort of originality or innovation.

  • 27 10-23-2009 at 8:04 pm

    Andrew L. said...

    Not to continue this OT, but An Education was quite underwhelming for me too–it was enjoyable, but nothing too substantial. Beautiful look, Mulligan and Pike are great, Molina and Sarsgaard are adequate.

    Completely agree with the fact that it “never gains any dramatic traction as it rushes through its narrative.” Things are completely glossed over and there are too many stock characters for my taste.

  • 28 10-23-2009 at 8:08 pm

    Andrew L. said...


    Acceptance letters the size of postcards? Really?

    And an impromptu epilogue voiceover? WTF?

  • 29 10-23-2009 at 9:47 pm

    Chase K. said...

    I try to see everything, but what’s the point with “Amelia”?

    Saw “The Damned United” today, which is quite solid. Easily Michael Sheen’s best performance. In similar fashion to “Frost/Nixon”, there is a big opening-up scene in front of a television camera at the end, and Tom Hooper’s film felt more alive and resonant.

  • 30 10-23-2009 at 9:49 pm

    JR said...

    This evening, I watched “Cheri.” Though I wouldn’t call it all -out Oscar-worthy, it’s a reminder of how underuse Michelle Pfeiffer is in Hollywood. For gawd’s sake, her latest movie is premiering on Lifetime! Why is this wonderful actress not getting the offers like Streep/Kidman/et al,???

  • 31 10-23-2009 at 10:04 pm

    Ed of WEHO said...

    BLAH. So Hillary Swank is officially out of the Best Actress race. It solidifies Meryl Streep’s win!

  • 32 10-23-2009 at 10:27 pm

    Matthew said...

    I agree with Speaking English. I mean, I thought the movie was enjoyable, but it was not this moving piece of art that it is being touted as. Certainly art, but… I’m confusing myself. I liked the movie, but I did not love it. I thought it was good, but I didn’t think it was great. I’d like to see it again. Maybe I’ll see it then.

    What’s sad though is that now that those who did not like it are speaking up, I’m worried this will be construed as a backlash. Let it be said now: This isn’t a backlash, I just genuinely didn’t see what was amazing about it.

    Mulligan was pretty great though.

  • 33 10-23-2009 at 10:34 pm

    Matthew said...

    Oh, but I did just see “A Serious Man.” THAT I need to see again. Unbelievable. Amazing. Other adjectives of astonishment.

  • 34 10-24-2009 at 1:44 am

    jess said...

    I think there would have been more chemistry between Gere and McGreggor than between Swank and any of these two.

  • 35 10-24-2009 at 2:01 am

    Kristopher Tapley said...

    Interesting to hear the Education dissent. Nothing is an across-the-board favorite but, eh, I fell in love with it. I think it’s a shame hype might have harmed it slightly. I fear the same could happen with Up in the Air.

  • 36 10-24-2009 at 8:44 am

    Ben M. said...

    Yeah, I suppose there is a chance with the PG rating I could wind up seeing it with my nephew cause I want to take him to something and for a kid he likes history a lot, but I plan on passing even if I was interested a while ago.

    I saw Red Cliff on VOD instead, pretty good overall but there was questionable editing in the first half (perhaps due to cutting the film significantly for the US cut) and it is a film that is really meant to be seen in theatres.