Why This is Good

What was good:

The wallpaper-I know that sounds odd but see the movie and you’ll know exactly what I mean. The film is set in 1976 and the décor and clothes make the 70s look a lot more chic than they really were. The visuals throughout were quite stunning, and the intense patterns of the wallpaper framed the actors and added to the uncomfortable tension.

James Marsden-I think James Marsden is adorable, and the poor guy always plays the boyfriend of the leading lady who is really in love with someone else (see The Notebook, X-Men, and Superman Returns). I was excited to see him in a leading role, and I think he proved he’s leading man material, finally.

The story-Much of the story worked well, there were constant twists, turns, scares, and surprises. Going in we all knew the intriguing Twilight Zone worthy premise-press the button and get a million dollars, but someone you don’t know will die (incidentally this story was used in a Twilight Zone episode in 1986).  The ever unfolding story behind this weird experiment went places I did not expect or predict, and kept me guessing until the end. It also made me want to read the short story on which the film was based, as I’m sure it’s even better. The story was a little big for two hours, and might have worked better as a mini-series, but overall I give the writer credit for asking a question in each scene, and following each answer with another question leading down another bizarre path.

What wasn’t so good:

The dialogue-it was clunky, repetitive, and often on-the-nose. Cheesy and melodramatic, the story would have benefited from less of it, and a rewrite to take out all of the first draft lines that read like a bad play.

The complexity of the story-I’m all for a challenging, engaging, multifaceted story, and this certainly was one. But, as I said, it was a bit too big to be contained in two hours. The twists and turns sometimes went way too far, taking us in a direction that seemed important, only to end up meaning nothing, or remain unexplained. It hinted at grander, more exciting ideas (sequels, perhaps?) that it failed to address.

There were subplots that didn’t need to be there that bogged down the thrill and the pacing, and there were levels of corruption and conspiracy that were never fully explained. A suspense thriller is necessarily complex, but it needs to be streamlined enough to keep us engaged in the forward momentum of the main story, and not distracted by subplots and unexplained details and phenomena that leave us asking what that was all about, rather than focusing on the main story.

And while a million dollars is still a lot of money and was even more so in 1976, I found it hard to believe that this well-dressed couple residing in a beautiful home (please, that designer wallpaper is not cheap!) in a quaint suburb were so hard up that they would really be tempted to kill someone for money. (Spoiler Alert) The biggest monetary woe presented in the film was that the fancy private academy at which Cameron Diaz’s character worked would no longer allow their son to attend for free. Life is rough. Given that her husband drove a beautiful brand new Corvette Stingray to his job as a rocket scientist at NASA, I wasn’t too worried about them being out on the streets had they decided to forego the million dollars. Of course, that was part of the gimmick, that we humans are so awful we would sacrifice our fellow man just to have an easier time for ourselves. It just made me resent the characters, whereas if I had truly believed they were going to lose their house, or needed some sort of life-saving operation, I would have understood their choice.

The acting-Okay I know I said I liked James Marsden, and he did well with what he was given, but it wasn’t awesome. I can see why Allie, Jean Grey, and Lois Lane all had the hots for someone else. He was a little flat.  Cameron was a bit too weepy eyed and had the same facial expression throughout the whole film. Though I was also happy to see that she’s back to her voluptuous, natural-looking state. I personally prefer the curvy Cameron of The Mask to the emaciated teenage boy look she thought was attractive a few years back.

A big part of the plot hinged on how deeply this couple loved their son. And I knew they did because they were his parents and because they said so. But I didn’t feel this love, it wasn’t authentic. Nor was their love for each other. They had no chemistry, and a sad lack of sexual tension. They seemed to have an admiration, and a brother-sister fondness for one another, and like their love for their son, their love for each other was rooted in the fact that it was written in the script and to be expected, not because they really felt it.

Overall, I would say this film was good. I was literally on the edge of my seat throughout most of it, and intrigued enough that I may go see it again. If nothing else, it accomplished what all films should-it elicited an emotional response in its viewers-I wasn’t the only one who jumped out of my seat in shock at least once. Definitely worth seeing, but if you’re also facing hardships like having to take your son out of private school in these tough economic times, maybe wait until it comes out on dvd.

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.