I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

This film is a rather creaky melodrama inspired by the Amelia Earhart story. Rosalind Russell plays Tonie Carter who has to put up with prejudice as she learns to fly but pretty soon is setting flight records. Carter falls in love with ace pilot Randy Britton (Fred MacMurray) who is one of the people who is sexist to her at the beginning but they then drift apart. However she then plans to race around the world solo after she promises to marry her flight instructor Paul Turner (Herbert Marshall.)As the film was made during the second world war, there are elements of propaganda weaved into the plot as Carter is agrees to undertake a secret mission on behalf of the navy where she would get lost in her flight and the rescue mission would allow reconnaissance pictures to betaken under the noses of the Japanese. This mission reunited her with Britton who declares to Carter what she means to him.The film really did not start off well, rather plodding I thought but it does get better in the final segments and like the rather campy but sinister turn by the Japanese hotel manager, who seemed to have channelled the great Peter Lorre.Poor Paul Turner he was so happy to have snagged Carter has his fiancé but it was never going to happen.

Movies like these were typical of the time. You must put this movie in that context. Too many critics compare the old movies and their politics with today's views. Flight for Freedom like so many films in the 1940's had a purpose; to win the hearts and minds of the average American who may have had doubts about why we were fighting. Amelia Earhart was an icon of the American spirit and therefore, by demonizing the Japanese military who may or may not have killed her; the US government could whip up a frenzy of resolve to fight the war on to the finish. Ironically, espionage is a capital offense in most countries and it was typical to be awarded a long sentence or a possible death penalty. But it makes good drama, since the thought of killing a female for such a crime is yet another possible reason for FDR to get the US into the war.

This film is influenced by the patriotism during the great struggle of The Second World War. It is accurate in depicting the spirit of the great Emelia Earhart. A film made today might choose to focus on other aspects but that is more an indication of the difference in attitudes from the 40s to now. This is an interesting film for youngsters and adults.

The film is badly directed and acted propaganda but all this is put in the shade by an extraordinary scene towards the end.I don't want to spoil the plot, so I will just say:The pilot heroine of the film Tonie Carter finds herself on a remote pacific island with a strange mission ahead of her, over the course of one night on the island, a lot changes in her life, both in considering her past and her present situation, and she decides on her course of action for when she leaves the island the next morning.This scene is mysterious and evocative, there is very little detail and almost everything we see is significant so the island takes on the quality of a dream. The various characters which come her way seem like ghosts; their significance is in what they whisper to her, reminds her of her responsibilities and memories.Now comes the ending of the film but with an unforseen direction born of the night on the island, this leads to some bitter sweet ironies which undercut in a way the propaganda of the film.So this is another one to add to the class of awful films which emerge with the most imaginative visions, but by some who-knows-how accident, its certainly not due to the director or actors. In this respect its much like 'The Eye of the Beholder '(1999 )by Stephan Elliot.If Lothar Mendes was aware of what he created I wonder how he felt, pleased but perhaps also a little guilty and frustrated.