I guess it's been about 5 years, so Hillery Swank is due for another Oscar. Later this year she can be seen as Amelia Earhart in what looks to be a very well crafted movie: Amelia.
The trailer is beautiful, and Swank looks the part.
The problem is this: Richard Gere.
Now I like Richard Gere. I think he's a perfectly likable movie star. (You might note that I didn't call him an actor--he gets grouped with Julia Roberts and Bruce Willis into the "movie star" category... they can all act, at times, but I think they do their thing best in the "movie star" space.)
It's just, well, he's not portraying Hillery Swank's dad.
He's playing her husband, George Putnam.
Amelia Earhart, born 1897
George Putnam, born 1887
Hillery Swank, born 1974
Richard Gere, born 1949
What the fuck? And, no offense Richard (cause I know he'll see this), but it's not like Gere's box office gold. And I'm sure he commands a nice salary. So maybe they should have shopped for an alternative.
Normally my issues around a difference in ages of more than 10 years have to do with studios casting actresses that are too young and not giving work to actresses (cringe) over 30. But here I'm going to advocate for a younger actor.
Earhart disappeared when she was 40, and this covers the years that lead up to the disappearance, so clearly Swank, at age 35, is well cast.
As an alternative to Gere, might I suggest:
Guy Pearce, born 1967
Billy Crudup, born 1968
Joseph Fiennes, born 1970
Patrick Wilson, born 1973
Christian Bale, born 1974
Mark Feuerstein, born 1971
Wes Bentley, born 1978
Long story short: I might have to pass on principle.