Review of Inkheart

Inkheart (2008)
5/10
of ferrets and dust and half-written nonsense
21 January 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Inkheart was not quite as good as I had hoped and I really did hope.

First, the Good News.

I most appreciated the acting of Eliza Hope Bennett, who played Silvertongue Mo's (pre-)pubescent Silvertongue daughter, Meggie. I next appreciated what Paul Bettany managed to accomplish with the horribly and repetitively mis-written Dustfinger. In a lesser actor's hands, Dustfinger would have become AshCans. Helen Mirren must also be thanked for her turn as the equally under-written Aunt Elinor.

It was also a very inspired bit of casting to have Jennifer Connelly play Roxanne, Dustfinger's wife. (In real life, Bettany and Connelly met and fell in love during the production of A Beautiful Mind. They are, in reality, husband and wife.) If Connelly were calling me to come back home, I would break a Hulking sweat running, if not flying, back to her. That's Motivation.

The weaknesses in this film were many.

Brendan Fraser, must be tired of phoning in the same performance over and over (Mummy 1-3, Journey to the Center of the Earth 3D) no matter what film he is actually in. Fraser's Mo could've used at least two more Stooges.

Andy Serkis, who got his big break playing the mo-cap body puppet for the CGI Gollum in Lord of the Rings, was not permitted any contortionistic body movements as arch villain Capricorn. Hence, he was about as scary as Mr Bean's Evil Twin.

What an utter and horrible waste of the talents (and beauty) of Sienna Guillory, who was stuck playing the exact opposite of Resident Evil's kick-ass Jill Valentine. What's her name? Oh, Resa.

And then there's The Shadow, which was reduced to just another Mummy-like dust storm with a vengeful personality. (Yes, I know that these were the best smoke/particle-effects CGI to date, but, dramatically, it was just another retread. You also have to wonder whenever CGI smoke requires its own choreographer. Is that much like Ang Lee mo-cap miming the angst of the Incredible Hulk?)

I sat up in the nose-bleed seats, in the midst of several families with young children. Many of these kids had to submit a drawing of their favorite character from the book in order to win family passes to see this film. Several parents were forced to try to explain the nonsensical screenplay to their bewildered tykes, who no longer recognized their beloved story. No one in their right mind thought to shush any of those valiant efforts.

For me, I never read the book and this film did not move me one bit to even think about bothering. I do not want to feed this studio franchise monster in any way, shape or form.

On the one hand, there were far too many direct cribs from the Wizard of Oz to even pretend to be original. On the other hand, there were so many plot repetitions and literal backtracking of travels/steps that I was also reminded of 12 Monkeys. (Or is that 12 Minkeys?) Only this wasn't homage. This was counterfeit.

There were way too many plot holes and story inconsistencies for a supposedly "family friendly" story/film, too. The friendliest thing one can do in a family film is to not lose the kids in all of the smoky dust.

Given whatever butchery was done to the original source, why is it that "evil" must only be destroyed as if that were an universal imperative (akin to the Hunt for Osama Bin Laden)?

If the film is going to allow Meggie to write her own ending to the story, in order for her to then be able to read it into reality, why can't she just as readily write a new and rehabilitated character/personality for Capricorn and his minions? If you've got the power of the Creator, why not save everyone, even from themselves? But, no, Meggie must destroy Capricorn & Co, with brutality.

We don't want to teach our kids about the power of salvation or even the possibility of redemption. Only cowards may be redeemed. Not any Bad Guys(TM). Hence, Inkheart.
11 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed