Well, for starters, how about having it actually be good? Oh, and throwing out "Strong Female Characters" (tm) once and for all?
It's unfortunate that we can't just talk about Amelia as a bad movie. As another unwieldy, under-characterized, over-cliched biopic trying to combine legend and humanity into one half-baked, generic panini, the kind made, inevitably, with chicken, crummy cheese and a few overwhelming hunks of roasted pepper. But when Amelia fails, it's an indictment of women's movie, of "older women's movies" (that's us ape-leaders over the magic 25) and of those with "strong female characters."
Of course, Amelia's part of a larger trend, which leads to inevitable analysis. As the NYT puts it, "For actresses, it is no longer enough to be young and beautiful onscreen, they have to be dead and famous, too - one of history's immortals." Amelia, Coco, Victoria - these are the Good Roles now, nevermind that biopics of either sex are rarely showcases for much other than scenery-chewing. (Maybe that's why a film like The Queen feels as revelatory as it did.) The WaPo piece that Hortense referenced this weekend said this: