Mo (Brendan Fraser) and his twelve year old daughter Meggie (Eliza Bennett) spend their days travelling around Europe for Mo's job as a "book doctor". But a dark secret of Mo's is revealed when they run into a strange fire juggler named Dustfinger (Paul Bettany) and are captured by the villainous Capricorn (Andy Serkis), both of whom are after Mo's secret for completely different reasons. For Mo is a silvertongue, a man who can bring books to life, simple by reading out loud from them...
In a winter season devoid of Mr Potter, especially when we were PROMISED Mr Potter, a film such as "Inkheart" is much needed. It ticks all the right boxes: magic - check, special effects - check, based on a famous series of books - check, almost entirely British cast - check. It also doesn't have a lot of competition, its only real opponent in the holiday season being probably the much hooted "Twilight", which to my knowledge has one significant drawback: its a teen romance, and the only people who will want to go and see it in the cinema will be teenage (or tweenage) girls and their friends/unwilling boyfriends/mums. "Inkheart", like the films of H Potter, is a film for all the family.
So why doesn't it work as well as it should? Firstly the plot has an unfortunate couple of gaping holes within it, though the fact that this is based on the first book of a trilogy does suggest that many questions are meant to be left unanswered. This has become an increasing trend within these types of films; all desperate to start a franchise of their own, all falling miserably at the first hurdle. One example currently is "The Golden Compass", the first in the proposed Nothern Lights trilogy, which unfortunately seems to have stalled. This therefore leaves certain questions hanging in the open, unanswerable for the people who choose not to read the books as perhaps they find them too challenging or just can't be bothered. If anything, "Inkheart" has forced me to buy the original book by Cornelia Funke, though as a Christmas present for my sister, as I think she'll enjoy it more than I did.
That's not to say I didn't enjoy this film: far from it. There are some great ideas and moments in the film, along with some brilliant performances - Bettany's interesting "selfish" character, Eliza Bennett doing very well in her first feature that I've seen her in, and it's always good to see Andy Serkis. There's just not enough of him, and therefore not enough threat in the film. Even when the dreaded "Shawdow" arrives it feels almost like a special effect bonanza without any substance: a wasted opportunity. More could also be made with the special power that Mo has, as evidenced in the first escape attempt that is made from Capricorn's castle by the protagonists. For a film thats supposed to be about how brilliant books are, there's not a lot of them in there.
Thee is also sadly a tremendous waste of other actors in this film. Helen Mirren suffers from bad dialogue, though you feel like her great aunt Elinor could be a wonderful battle axe given better lines to say. Jim Boradbent's author is a rather ambiguous character too, all to ready and willing to believe the magnificent events that take place within the second half of the film. As for Brendan Fraser, though he does a commendable job in some of the father/daughter scenes, there is still something about some of his performance that cries "George Of The Jungle".
Still, that being said, this is our replacement for the Boy Wizzard this holiday season and, though not a film that would ever stand a chance in a duelling match with that franchise, it stands its ground remarkably well.
6/10
In a winter season devoid of Mr Potter, especially when we were PROMISED Mr Potter, a film such as "Inkheart" is much needed. It ticks all the right boxes: magic - check, special effects - check, based on a famous series of books - check, almost entirely British cast - check. It also doesn't have a lot of competition, its only real opponent in the holiday season being probably the much hooted "Twilight", which to my knowledge has one significant drawback: its a teen romance, and the only people who will want to go and see it in the cinema will be teenage (or tweenage) girls and their friends/unwilling boyfriends/mums. "Inkheart", like the films of H Potter, is a film for all the family.
So why doesn't it work as well as it should? Firstly the plot has an unfortunate couple of gaping holes within it, though the fact that this is based on the first book of a trilogy does suggest that many questions are meant to be left unanswered. This has become an increasing trend within these types of films; all desperate to start a franchise of their own, all falling miserably at the first hurdle. One example currently is "The Golden Compass", the first in the proposed Nothern Lights trilogy, which unfortunately seems to have stalled. This therefore leaves certain questions hanging in the open, unanswerable for the people who choose not to read the books as perhaps they find them too challenging or just can't be bothered. If anything, "Inkheart" has forced me to buy the original book by Cornelia Funke, though as a Christmas present for my sister, as I think she'll enjoy it more than I did.
That's not to say I didn't enjoy this film: far from it. There are some great ideas and moments in the film, along with some brilliant performances - Bettany's interesting "selfish" character, Eliza Bennett doing very well in her first feature that I've seen her in, and it's always good to see Andy Serkis. There's just not enough of him, and therefore not enough threat in the film. Even when the dreaded "Shawdow" arrives it feels almost like a special effect bonanza without any substance: a wasted opportunity. More could also be made with the special power that Mo has, as evidenced in the first escape attempt that is made from Capricorn's castle by the protagonists. For a film thats supposed to be about how brilliant books are, there's not a lot of them in there.
Thee is also sadly a tremendous waste of other actors in this film. Helen Mirren suffers from bad dialogue, though you feel like her great aunt Elinor could be a wonderful battle axe given better lines to say. Jim Boradbent's author is a rather ambiguous character too, all to ready and willing to believe the magnificent events that take place within the second half of the film. As for Brendan Fraser, though he does a commendable job in some of the father/daughter scenes, there is still something about some of his performance that cries "George Of The Jungle".
Still, that being said, this is our replacement for the Boy Wizzard this holiday season and, though not a film that would ever stand a chance in a duelling match with that franchise, it stands its ground remarkably well.
6/10