Inkheart (2008) User Reviews

Imagination and fantasy with special effects galore

[ma-cortes · 7/10 · 10 May 2010]

Mo (Brendan Fraser) is good father, happily married who has a special talent to bring personages out of books. But his wife named Resa(Sienna Guillory)has disappeared. One night he brings out various characters named Capricorn and Basta from Inkheart , a book written by Fenoglio (Jim Broadbent) whose story is set in Middle Age and plenty of magical beings. As there suddenly appears Capricorn (Andy Serkis) and Basta (Jamie Foreman), two nasties, and Dustfinger (Paul Bettany), a fire-eater. Now, 10 years later Meggie (Eliza Bennett) discovers the truth and she also has supernatural powers . Meggie along with his father and grandmother confront several fantastic adventures, dangers and risks.

This exciting motion picture displays derring-do adventure, romance ,fairy tale ,and spectacular frames with phenomenal production design. The flick gets lots of bombastic special effects including supernatural apparitions, wizards ,legendary heroes and numerous images have you on the edge of your seat. As appears the heroes of tales as ¨1.001 nights¨, ¨the minotaur¨, ¨Rapunzel¨ and several others. Riveting set pieces illuminate the full-blown adventures blending witchcraft, fairies, necromancy and turns out to be extremely amusing. Stimulating adventures of ours protagonists are complemented by a breathtaking final attraction in the castle scenes with incredible appearance of an overwhelming ominous shadow. Casting is frankly extraordinary, Brendan Fraser as impetuous hero, Andy Serkis plays magnificently a shamelessly villain and Helen Mirren as likable grandmother, and brief appearance of Jennifer Connelly as Roxanne, among others. Ideal main cast is completed by phenomenal secondary actors as US as British players. The movie packs a sensational production design by John Beard , accompanied by a glamorous cinematography by Roger Pratt filmed on location, in Italian Riviera, Liguria and Shepperton Studios, Surrey, England, including a mesmerizing photography with wonderful , marvelous landscapes . Emotive soundtrack appropriately adequate to fantasy by Javier Navarrete. The picture is brilliantly directed by Ian Softley. He's a good writer, producer and director,who achieved big time with ¨The skeleton key¨, ¨K-Pax¨, ¨Backbeat¨ and Hackers¨. Rating: Better than average. Essential and indispensable watching for fantastic cinema lovers.

Can't believe no one's mentioned...

[coolclairep-1 · 7/10 · 15 December 2008]

This was a very enjoyable film; maybe not as exciting and a bit more contrived than I'd been looking forward to, but it was still very enjoyable in the main.

But one thing stood out above any other in this film; and that was: Paul Bettany's performance as Dustfinger.

He was just brilliant, and absolutely stole the film for me. I thought he was a good actor anyway, but the moment he came on I had to stop and think "wow!", and I continued to be impressed throughout the film, as his character development just got more and more interesting. I felt far more sympathy with his character than Brendan Frasers (even though I think he's fantastic!), and I felt that he was the true 'main character' of the film (in the same way as Sam is to Lord of the Rings).

If anyone is unsure about seeing Inkheart, I would suggest that it is a must-see if only for Paul Bettany's absolutely stunning performance; he is intense, emotional, funny, troubled, heroic and just plain brilliant.

Also high praise for Helen Mirren and Jim Broadbent, who were very refreshing. I did feel more could have been done with Andy Serkis and Brendan Fraser, they didn't wow me as much as I'd expected.

But overall a very enjoyable film!!

Fairly faithful, but bad ending.

[Growlyted · 7/10 · 26 December 2008]

Cornelia Funke is my favourite author and so I was nervous about the transfer to the screen. I knew there would be inevitable cuts and changes, which could take the heart out of the story. The actors (with the exception of Helen Mirren) didn't match what I had in my head. Could they capture the in depth personalities?

As it turned out, my casting concerns were unfounded, although there was an annoying line from Capricorn. (In the trailer, unfortunately.) The cuts are noticeable, but acceptable. Same goes for the majority of changes. I enjoyed the first two sections, but then came the ending. I won't say how it's changed, but it was WRONG. In fact it was so WRONG, that there will be difficulties sequel-wise.

The best way to enjoy Inkheart is to lose yourself in the book. I hope this film encourages viewers to do just that.

7/10

Intriguing concept but repetitive plotting hinders what could've been a really magical, innovative and different fantasy film...

[fantasyescapist · 22 December 2008]

I saw this on Friday with my friend, and I enjoyed it more than she did(it was between this and Twilight). Thing is, although I'm a fantasy genre fan, I've not read the book but I've vaguely heard about it some years ago. It's a alright film, but does't have that special something to make it rise above others that have been released that are basically the same action adventure fantasy thing.

Acting: Fraser was decent playing his typical 'hero' role, but the surprisingly natural performance came from Bennet playing his daughter. Alright, she does't look 12 at all, more like 14/15 but considering I'm getting more used wooden acting in the likes of Potter etc, it's a welcome thing. Mirren's bad-tempered charm as the dotty bookworm aunt and a few mildly amusing lines are good to watch. Serkis was relishing his straightforward villain role, although my friend couldn't take him seriously cause of his old Gollum role. Bettany as the fire-spewing Dustfinger is also convincing, conveying depth and I liked the childlike eccentricity of Broadbent as the author, an actor who seems to be turning up in every fantasy film going. Even a small role like Guillory's is done effectively, but could've had more screen time and more back story or what happened to her at a more satisfying length. Good supporting cast of baddies at the castle as well.

Pacing: Here's my main issue - the storyline gets repetitive in the escape then heading back to the castle again. Also, certain things aren't explained that left me a bit confused as to how they came about, especially regarding the man that comes out of Arabian Nights. It does get clichéd and generic, plus the ending wraps everything up too conveniently in the climax with The Shadow, so more peril and suspense could've helped. It's an interesting story though, as I said, reading aloud and it comes alive out of the book. I just hoped for more surprises and inventiveness with such a cool central idea.

Cinematography - The special effects, especially for The Shadow(which scared me quite a bit - reminds me of a demon) and the menagerie of storybook creatures in Capricorn's castle is all done to standard expected nowadays, so it's good if not the best you've ever seen. Colourfully shot, with good set pieces. The camera shakes slightly anytime something is read out of the book.

Score: Pretty generic, really, didn't notice any themes.

Overall: A good, if repetitive family escapist fantasy film that presents an interesting concept, but does't always execute it as well as it could've. Not enough emotional impact or scenes of what happens in these books when a character or characters read out of them are no longer in the pages of the story. Easy to follow and not too long, though, with a handful of somewhat amusing lines and a Lord of the Rings sight gag, and it does have a bit of magic (like seeing well known items from famous books in the castle etc). The theme of books and reading should hopefully, inspire the audience to pick up a few to loose themselves in, which is always a positive thing. 6.4/10

A fine fantasy to start the year off

[C-Younkin · 7/10 · 20 January 2009]

"Inkheart" is based on Cornelia Funke's novel about a character who can bring anything or anyone he reads in books to life. Teenage girls with "Harry Potter" and "Twilight" posters on their walls I assume are already trying to figure out how to harness this incredible power. Fantasy is in with the kids so all indications point to "Inkheart" being a big success. And why shouldn't it? All the elements are there for an entertaining movie, including Brendan Fraser again walking into the adventurer role and having it fit like white on rice. I've not read Funke's book but I can imagine its been packed down for a better flow but screenwriter David Lindsay-Abaire always keeps track of the message and director Ian Softley does a nice job of keeping things moving.

Fraser is Mo the silver-tongue. He can make any character or object from a book come to life and on a sad note, he discovered this power too late. When his daughter was a small child, he read her the book Inkheart, unleashing the fire-juggler Dustfinger (Paul Bettany) and worse, the bandit Capricorn (Andy Serkis) and his posse. As they came out, his wife Ressa (Sienna Guillroy) went in. Now 9 years later, Mo is traveling with his daughter Meggie (Eliza Hope Bennett) to live with an Aunt (Helen Mirren), but more importantly to find another copy of the book so he can set his wife free. Just he is confronted by Dustfinger, who desperately wants to go back home, and Capricorn, who has built quite a life for himself in the real world and wants Mo to read to make him more dominant, including setting the most catastrophic villain from Inkheart, The Shadow, at his control.

It isn't hard to see the pro-reading angle in "Inkheart". So even if the plot holes in the screenplay are fairly gaping (Why can't characters write and then read their way out of danger?), how can you really hate a story that focuses on the enriching power of the written word and its ability to transport the reader? Everything is here for a quality fantasy; danger, heroism, colorful characters, and love and the direction remains fast-paced and tense always. The special effects are also brilliant and seamless. The tornado ripping through Capricorn's castle offers non-stop excitement, and The Shadow, a villain composed of dust and fire for a mouth and eyes, is both suspenseful and frightening and is one of the best-looking fantasy characters i've seen since Ralph Fiennes as Voldemort.

Fraser basically plays Rick O'Connell again here, just with a different name but the same likable presence he always brings. This type of role is his niche and he doesn't disappoint. Paul Bettany is called upon to do a little more and his performance is the true standout here, showing the menacing trickery and tortured desperation of a man anxiously trying to get home. Bennett is not an annoying little kid but a fairly decent young actress and Andy Serkis more than fills the need for a glowering, power-mad villain. And then you have Helen Mirren, playing Mo's feisty Aunt, and Jim Braodbent, playing the kooky author of Inkheart, both adding much needed comic relief.

"Inkheart" is the first in a trilogy of books by Funke and hopefully Hollywood goes back into this well again. It's not quite on par with "Harry Potter" but I found it more engaging than the marshmallow-y "Chronicles of Narnia". Regardless, it offers two hours of escapist fantasy and in the cold early months, that's the kind of stuff that does the body good.

Great Cast. Not-so-great movie.

[MsDame · 6/10 · 4 May 2010]

Oh, Brendan Fraser. How does one actor make so many movies that almost work but don't? He's been in a few brilliant films, a few god-awful ones, but the majority of them fall into an ever-widening pool of narrow misses.

"Inkheart" is another one of those. It's frustratingly close. You want to go up to the screen and nudge it a bit so it crosses the line. It's a fantasy-- a genre where logic is only slightly required. If this story had made a wee bit more sense, it would've hit the fantasy-acceptable mark. If the dialogue had more crackle and the characters had more contrast, it would've worked. It looks beautiful. The effects are good. There are clever moments. It's well cast with actors known to be entertaining and who are spot-on for their parts. It could've been a lovely, enjoyable family film if it had been given any amount of extra thought.

The movie tells the story of a man who finds out too late that when he reads aloud, it brings parts of the books he reads into the real world while it randomly sends real people into the book being read. When he reads the little-known children's book "Inkheart" to his wife, menacing charters fall out and his wife disappears. To have any chance of getting her back, he must have a copy of the rare book, so he packs up his young daughter and they spend years going from old bookstore to old bookstore rummaging through stacks of neglected volumes but not finding the one book he needs.

Fraser's bookbinder Mo is a likable good guy, the sort of character that's become Fraser's mainstay. Mo is a loving dad who's frightened by his unwanted ability and whose only quest is to read his wife home. It's a sweet, solid performance as Fraser plays straight man to some class-A scene-stealers. They are:

Helen Mirren-- no explanation required. She doesn't work at upstaging anyone, it just happens. Here she's the wealthy aunt of Mo's missing wife. Despite her flamboyant style, she has hermitted herself away with the collection of books she treasures, preferring to read adventures, not live them.

Jim Broadbent-- no explanation required here, either. He has one of those faces. He has one of those voices. He plays "Inkheart's" author and it's entertaining to see how much glee he gets from meeting the characters he created, even the horrible ones.

Paul Bettany-- He can't not be noticed. He's an actor who has an edgy energy about him--sort of like a younger Peter O'Toole. Twice his supporting characters have diverted attention from Russell Crowe-- as the lively college roommate in "A Beautiful Mind" and as the ship's doctor and naturalist in "Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World." Except for looking at Heath Ledger, the only joy to be had in the mess that is "A Knight's Tale" is Bettany's Chaucer. He stole the movie, or at least as much of it as he wanted. In "Inkheart" his juggler Dustfinger is referred to as scary, but he's more scoundrel than villain as he attempts to right the wrong that's been done to him.

Rafi Gavron-- As a teen thief who is thankfully of no consequence to the plot of "Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves," he's adorable and adds a welcome lightness to his scenes. He's the future of scene stealing, earning some preliminary chops here among the pros.

Needless to say, when these actors are on screen together in any combination, you don't know where to look. It's mind-bending to try to understand how anyone could make a marginal movie with this cast.

In addition to the above, Eliza Bennett plays daughter Meggie. It's not a role that requires a lot, but she does a good job of not overplaying what could have been a whiny part. Poor Andy Serkis is stuck playing the same ego-maniacally evil villain we've seen over and over. There's no imagination to his character or to his cliché band of goons. They're not even a particularly scary lot, and the lack of anyone or anything truly frightening contributes largely to making the story tepid.

"Inkheart" has a fun, unofficial running game, a sort of "Name that Tune" where you try to recognize classic children's literature based on a character or a telltale prop. Watch it with your kids, and if they can't tell you what comes from where, move away from the TV and read them a book.

Inkheart

[98nurdinm-1 · 6/10 · 19 December 2008]

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

You will like it if you liked Stardust

[arif215-1 · 6/10 · 19 April 2009]

I only watched this movie because the trailer looked new and the idea was an interesting one. I liked the movie but throughout the first half, you get the feeling that there is something big coming up and you just can't wait till it does. The ending was quite satisfactory considering what happens.

The actors were all well chosen for the roles they portray. The bad guys led by the evil Capricorn fulfill their role as a motley crew. There is a hidden humor amongst them which does not bore. The CGI animations were very well done especially the magical creatures and alike.

Overall, I would say that if you like Stardust, you will enjoy this one. Although, Stardust is still better in my opinion.

I give it 6 only because the first half drags on a bit long and takes sometime to move onto the real story.

If You Liked the Harry Potter Books, Read the Inkworld Series

[Fritz_Gerlich · 4/10 · 2 February 2009]

I was really excited about the release of this movie as I think the Inkheart books are some of the best YA fiction around. The books are dark and suspenseful and filled with twists and surprises. The books are not funny or light hearted; children are killed, men die, women lament, and evil is very very threatening and scary. The characters likewise are complex (for YA literature) and provide much in the way complex behaviour. And you can't guess the ending unless you're really clever (which I, sadly, am not). I couldn't stop reading these books and finished them off in a week.

OK, that's the books, what about the movie. Well the movie is light-hearted, the villains goofy, and the suspense completely lacking. The people I saw the movie with knew what kind of ending they were in for from the first 10 minutes of the movie. There was none of the fear and dread and darkness of the books. The movie was a lukewarm puffball, and the ratings on IMDb show that nobody was taken with the movie. 6.? is really bad for a movie here. And it's not surprising. What is there to be enthused about in the movie except for the cast and the locations, both of which are fantastic. The story is a limp noodle that offers no emotional involvement or suspense. It's just another kid's movie with no heart or faith in the audience.

It should be noted that the first Inkheart book is by far the weakest in the trilogy and after I finished it I was on the fence as to whether I was going to finish the series. But I had bought the set and so I started book number 2. And that's when things get really good and inventive. So it's really disappointing that Inkworld and Inkdeath are never going to get a cinematic treatment, but at least we have the books. And really, after watching this movie, maybe it's a good thing because if they did the 'goofy lighthearted predictable' thing on books number 2 and 3, I would have been really disappointed.

I would only recommend this movie to people that have read the series and are interested in seeing what Hollywood did with the source material. I would not recommend this movie to anyone looking to get a memorable cinematic experience. I pretty much guarantee that most people will have forgotten this movie by the following morning, it is that inconsequential.

So in summary, avoid the movie and if you liked the Harry Potter books, give the Inkheart books a whirl.

Nice story but lacked action

[nikbik · 6/10 · 18 December 2008]

Inkheart is not a bad film, but not too wonderful either. I went in expecting far more than I got. Brendan Fraser is pretty good, but Paul Bettany absolutely acts him off the screen as Dustfinger, proving yet again what a versatile actor he is.

I expected more fantasy action scenes and got the feeling that the film was building up to 'get going' but never really did. Even in the final scenes it all seems rather restrained and you leave feeling like there was so much more that could have been done. Andy Serkis is suitably scary but reminds me of a Bond villain, whilst Jim Broadbent and John Thomson are woefully under-used. What this film needs is more Elinor riding unicorns, Dustfinger juggling fire and more characters brought to life from books; rather than plodding along not really making any waves.

I Had To Use Every Ounce Of Strength Not To Walk Out!

[liberalgems · 1/10 · 28 January 2009]

I hate it when all I can think of while watching any movie is: "when will it end?" & "I could be doing something much more productive with my time!" Along with constantly hoping it will get better sometime soon!

Inkheart didn't have to be such a boring and dopey mess! There certainly is an interesting premise: A person who reads a story inadvertently has the magical power to bring people and objects from the story into real life. But instead of writing an interesting & imaginative story that makes some sense within the world the writer has created, Hollywood choose instead to create a tedious, dumbed-down story that will satisfy no demographic group - be it child, teen or adult!

If you like endless clichés, sheer stupidity, mindless threatening, poor editing, cardboard characters, skimping on the special effects, constant frowning & pouting and sheer boredom - then Inkheart is for you!

Inkheart is a highly enjoyable film. But it is NOT the book.

[FiendishDramaturgy · 8/10 · 2 February 2009]

Let me begin by saying I have read the book and most of the second. When I saw the trailer, there were so many elements I could not place that I presumed this film would be some combination of all three books, and almost did not see it as I had not yet read the last book. I'm glad I did not succumb to this temptation.

The movie itself is loosely based on Funke's book. That's right, "book." It is actually NOT based on all three books, but rather, just as the title implies, the initial Inkheart. The elements I could not identify were never in the book. So...If you're a book fan and are unable to separate the literary story from a film adaptation, you WILL be disappointed. But honestly, if you're looking for something that bears more than a slight resemblance to the book, you still may be disappointed by the omissions, rearrangements, and substitutions.

But do let me say that Brendan Frasier is a wonderful Mo. The casting choice of Eliza Hope Bennett as Meggie was a bit of a surprise, but she is lovely and does very well as Meggie. Paul Bettany is a beautifully tragic Dustfinger. Wow, what a performance Bettany gives! I was also surprised by Helen Mirren's casting as Aunt Elinor, but she was a capable and endearing Elinor. I was even impressed by Rafi Gavron's Farid. I can't wait to see where HIS career leads him. He has great promise. They, and the supporting cast, were wonderful. Not one stiff performance. Andy Serkis was also good as Capricorn. I can't say he was "awesome," as he was not nearly as scary as the literary version, and seemed somewhat of a victim of his own circumstances herein, but he was enjoyable, nonetheless.

If you have never read the books, however, you may find this as I did; an enchanting lovely fantasy with enigmatic characters and a slick execution style. I enjoyed this work far more than I should have, considering the plethora of WIDE variances from the literary source.

All in all, while Inkheart is a highly enjoyable film, it is NOT the book. My advice? Watch the movie. Love the movie. Then read the book and find a hundred new reasons to love it again.

It's still fun, it's still wonderful, and it's still enchanting.

It rates an 8.2/10 on the movie scale.

It rates a 3.5/10 on the adaptation scale.

It rates an 8.4/10 on the fantasy scale from...

the Fiend :.

Enjoyable and Pleasant Adventure

[claudio_carvalho · 7/10 · 11 July 2009]

Mortimer "Mo" Folchart (Brendan Fraser) raises his thirteen years old daughter Meggie (Eliza Hope Bennett) alone after the disappearance of his wife Resa (Sienna Guillory). He works restoring books and travels with Meegie seeking an old book called "Inkheart" in antique bookshops in Europe. When he is approached by a weird man called Dustfinger (Paul Bettany), she overhears that her father is called 'Silvertongue' and finds later that he has the ability of bringing characters out of the books to the real world. They escape from Dustfinger heading to Italy to the manor of Meggie's aunt Elinor Loredan (Helen Mirren), where the men of the evil Capricorn (Andy Serkis) abduct them with the intention to force Mo to bring the powerful Shadow to Earth.

"Inkheart" is an enjoyable and pleasant adventure. Despite the flaws, the story is original and entertaining, and the outstanding Paul Bettany performs an anti-hero with flawed character since he is selfish and coward. His wife Jennifer Connelly has a cameo in the role of his beloved Roxanne. I watched this movie with my wife and friends and everybody enjoyed it. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Coração de Tinta – O Livro Mágico" ("Inkheart – The Magic Book")

of ferrets and dust and half-written nonsense

[alerter · 5/10 · 21 January 2009]

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.

An entertaining yet heavily flawed fantasy film

[Reel_starz · 6/10 · 25 January 2009]

As with the majority of recent fantasy movies, Inkheart makes the mistake of catering solely to young children. Having read the book on which it was based, this is not surprising seeing as the novel IS meant for kids, but it felt like the necessity of keeping everything PG somewhat limited the creativity of the artists. A bit too fantastical and whimsical, the suspense and tension of the book almost completely disappears, leaving behind a movie that is little more than a visual effects-laden fairy tale. While some of the scenery is stunning, the sets look and feel too much like, well, sets. Nothing feels really real or, therefore, threatening enough to give the audience the sense that the characters are in real danger.

Eliza Hope Bennett, who plays Meggie, the main character, looks - and is - sixteen, even though she is playing a twelve-year-old girl. While some acting talent shines through, she feels miscast and often comes off as whiny and annoying instead of innocent and scared. Andy Serkis, as the chief villain, Capricorn, failed to create a villain worth hating or cowering from, although, in his defense, Capricorn was always a rather weak and whimsical villain to begin with. It's a pity because his performance as Bill Sykes in the Masterpiece Theater version of 'Oliver Twist' was absolutely fantastic and proves to skeptics that his magnificent performance as Gollum in Lord of the Rings was not an accident or mere luck. On the other hand, while Helen Mirren and Brendan Fraser also turn in adequate performances, the movie's main saving grace is Paul Bettany's turn as the fire-wielding Dustfinger (who, by the way, was my favorite character in the book and also the most well-developed). He effectively conveys the desperation and conflicting emotions of a man willing to do anything to return home. In the end, I cared more about him than about Meggie or Mo, her father.

All in all, while it was sufficiently enjoyable and occasionally stunning to look at, there is little that sets Inkheart above any of the other fantasy novels recently turned into movies. It looks like for New Line Cinema, which, for the past several years, has been searching for the next Lord of the Rings, the search is not yet over.

Good, but not good enough

[kneiss1 · 6/10 · 26 August 2010]

Overall the movie is decent. It's beautiful and fun to watch. There is a great cast, but... mostly poor characters. The two main-persons, father and daughter, pretty much had no character at all. All characters seemed underwritten. Especially the evil characters made a purely stupid impression on me. Even the looks sucked for them. Those guys might have been the most boring evil counterpart that I have seen in any fantasy movie. (Which is odd.. since you have unlimited freedom to create them in a fantasy movie.) The only great and interesting character has been Dustfinger – and that simply isn't enough.

****Spoileralert****

The other seriously negative thing, beside characters, has been the ending of the story. The story itself was decent before that... but the last 10 minutes of the movie simply have been ridiculous. For me, the whole logic of the movie has been destroyed along with it. The logic of the movie goes like this: A few people are able to make books real by their amazing story telling. They can't always control this, so the results are pretty random. In the end of the movie, all of this is thrown over board. Now the main actress 1: Is able to write and read her own "story" and make it true. 2. She can control everything and form everything just the way she wants it to be formed. - Why didn't they do that earlier? And what kind of absurd super power is that? She simply turned omnipotent! With this sort of power, there is no danger, no tension and no story possible.

The Good, The Bad, The Ugly

[manny-97 · 6/10 · 21 January 2009]

Once upon a time, many moons ago, author Cornelia Funke wrote her beloved best-selling book Inkheart with actor Brendan Fraser in mind. Funke pictured the character Mo with Fraser's face and voice.

Almost six years later, the film version of the book arrives in theaters bearing Fraser's marquee name. While Funke was definitely right in being inspired by the actor, the book deserved a far better adaptation worthy of its rich material.

"Inkheart" is a fantasy adventure that tells the story of a father and his daughter and their quests through worlds both real and imagined. Fraser stars as Mortimer "Mo" Folchart and his 12-year old daughter, Meggie, is played by newcomer Eliza Hope Bennett.

Mo and Meggie not only share a passion for books, they also share an extraordinary gift for bringing literary characters to life when they read aloud. They're known as "Silvertongues." One night, while Meggie was still a much smaller girl, Mo accidentally banished his wife, Resa (Sienna Guillory), while reading a fantasy book conveniently called Inkheart. He also mistakenly summoned some of the novel's characters such as the homesick fire juggler Dustfinger (Paul Bettany), the evil Capricorn (Andy Serkis), and his knife-wielding confederate, Basta (Jamie Foreman).

Bettany, who stole the show from Tom Hanks in "The DaVinci Code" by playing a deranged monk is quite memorable in "Inkheart." His fire juggling character is presented like a rock star down to his funky outfit. Viewers will be able to identify with Dustfinger's motivation – his yearning to go home.

Serkis, on the other hand, who was so great as the man behind Gollum in "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy, failed to create terror and suspense as the film's villain. A movie about the eternal battle between good and evil must have a strong, well-written villain to succeed.

And don't even get me started on Helen Mirren who plays Meggie's aunt Elinor Loredan. The fantastic actress who brought me to my knees with "The Queen" followed up her triumphant success with lukewarm films such as "National Treasure: Book of Secrets" and now, "Inkheart." But the film is not without commendable merits. First, I strongly admire "Inkheart's" message. Like the book, the movie's theme is the magic of reading. I also like Fraser's loving chemistry with Bennett.

I still believe Fraser is a good actor (watch "Gods and Monsters" if you doubt me) in search of a good movie. But his soothing yet commanding voice is perfect for the role of a man who brings fictional characters to life just by reading aloud.

Inkheart, the book, is the first of three novels but scriptwriter David Lindsay-Abaire revealed some plot points that were not introduced until the second one. But the fans of the series will enjoy seeing their favorite characters come alive on the big screen.

Directed by Iain Softley ("The Wings of the Dove," "The Skeleton Key"), "Inkheart" is missing one important ingredient – magic. But there are some clever concoctions especially when Toto from "The Wizard of Oz" comes alive or when we see the sight of Dorothy's flying house complete with a twister.

But the most important effect the movie had on me? It made me think of which literary character I want to see bring back to life. My heart says Tinkerbell so she can fly me to faraway places. Now that's an exciting adventure.

And for that, "Inkheart" gets 2 ½ not quite magical kisses To see my full one-on-one interviews with the cast, log on to www.mannythemovieguy.com

Vanishing Ink

[Chrysanthepop · 1 June 2011]

'Inkheart' initially gave me the impression of being just another fantasy film. However, once the premise is presented, it becomes interesting. The concept is intriguing but the plot is repetitive. Although it's not done to the point of ruining the movie, had the pacing been well maintained, this would have had potential of being a wonderful film experience. Much of the script and its execution is quite generic. The story is also lacking in depth due to convenient plot-conclusions and there are plot holes. The ending is rushed. Many of the characters and plot turns are poorly developed. For example, I would have liked to know what had actually happened to Resa and how she had ended up there. The special effects and cinematography are passable but I enjoyed the vibrant colours. The acting is pretty good overall. Brendan Fraser and Paul Bettany are good enough. Eliza Bennett is impressive. Sienna Guillory is very effective in a small role. Andy Serkis is fairly adequate. Helen Mirren and Jim Broadbent provide brilliant comic relief. Even though the film hasn't reached its potential, given the novel and intriguing concept, it manages to still be a decent entertainer for the entire family.

A Nutshell Review: Inkheart

[DICK STEEL · 6/10 · 22 January 2009]

It's an interesting premise to begin with, having the power to bring to life characters and events to the real world by just reading relevant passages. I can figure it out already, where to get fame and fortune from the right literature to read out loud. But with great power comes realization and responsibility, and because there's no such thing as a free lunch, there's always payback in the most unexpected forms.

While I haven't read the book by Cornelia Funke, what got translated on screen did get a little boring, bogged down by bad lines, uninteresting characters, and humour which fell flat each time. The trailer might have painted an epic adventure with boundless possibilities from plundering the premise, but too bad a lot of books got burnt from the start, leaving The Wizard of Oz the highlight of the lot. It was fun while it lasted though, in trying to identify characters and objects from various well known stories, such as the Gingerbread House, but these sprung out like little nuggets for those in the know to spot with glee.

Otherwise, we're left with Brandan Fraser's Mo Folchart, nicknamed "Silvertongue" by the characters he brought to life because of his innate gift, which had banished his wife to the books to take the place of those that came out. With his daughter Meggie (Eliza Hope Bennett), they scour the corners of the world to look for the same book Inkheart, in the hopes of figuring out how to reverse the changes, and get back their loved one, wife Resa (Sienna Guillory). Fraser is being Fraser the big budgeted blockbuster hero, and doesn't show much expression from his repertoire of movies from the Mummy Franchise to flicks like Journey to the Center of the Earth, playing very much the concerned dad.

And if you think a bland hero is bad, a bland villain is miles worst. There are countless of villainous characters here, courtesy of the Inkheart book, that pepper the story, and they are the standard dumb goons. Even Andy Serkis' Capricorn is nothing more than an average cowardly henchman status with the sole objective of wealth accumulation, and hams it up so much that the villain becomes a comedian, and a bad one at that. Shades of Lord of the Rings come courtesy of his attempt to bring to life "The Shadow", the pale cousin to the Dark Lord Sauron.

Surprisingly, a string of recognizable stars are involved in this film, such as Helen Mirren playing Meggie's grand aunt Elinor Loredan, equipped with a big mouth that whines too much, and Jim Broadbent as Inkheart's author, who relished every moment of interacting with his characters, yearning for a chance to try and get into the book because whatever glimpses he had over in the real world, was an orgasmic walk into his own imagination, as he quipped. But I felt the best character here was Paul Bettany's Dustfiner, a lone figure marred in melancholy who for nine torturous years, had unsuccessfully tried to convince Mo to send him back.

Kudos to Bettany's acting of course, with so much pain in his expression he makes you pity his character, put in a world not to his liking, and very much against his wishes, because like Mo, he yearns to reconcile with his family, and what more when his wife Roxanne is played by his real wife Jennifer Connelly in a cameo role. In fact, his Dustfinger got put into more interesting situations in the film compared to the rest, and thus inevitably steals the show with a character motivation that's easily identified with. And he really showed off his range of emotions when he inevitably had to hear spoilers, which was the only time in the entire movie which I felt genuinely though tragically comedic.

Inkheart is like an adult fairy tale, and could have been like Stardust which I had enjoyed, with its star power and unique premise. A pity though that it was delivered rather plainly and had neither the depth nor anything unexpected to ruffle what essentially was a one-way train going through the motions on its tracks from start to end.

Could have been so much more

[wibblefactor2000-1 · 1/10 · 23 January 2009]

I went to see this when it first came out at my local cinema, I was excited about the movie it looked like it could have been great. I read the book before going to the cinema, probably one of the best and worst things that I did.

The person I went to see it with had never heard of the book but was excited about the film.

So we went, and watched, and I cringed in horror, and he looked on in puzzlement. The plot was convoluted to the point of not being able to follow what was going on. It seemed to now know whether to be a comedy, a fantasy or something else entirely. They took some of the most fearsome characters from the book and made them ridiculous, they made dustfinger into something less than he is in the books.

I just don't understand where they went so wrong, it was almost as if they had 4 different directors each directing just a part of it without following the rest of the plot.

The effects were good when they were in existence but they were so few and far between that it was almost pointless having them, they could have saved themselves a lot of money by doing some creative shooting and just axing the SFX.

If you loved the book I beg you please don't go to see this. It's not worth paying Cinema prices for, if you feel you have to see it wait for it to be out on DVD and rent it with a group of friends!

Decent Fantasy Fare

[gary-444 · 6/10 · 24 December 2008]

A well told story of an imaginative novel by Cornelia Funke.Strongly cast, it runs perhaps twenty minutes long at an hour and three quarters, but never outstays its welcome. Funke creates a magical world where books come alive, characters literally leap off the page, and the major characters have to do all they can to make sure normality, and justice, are restored.

Paul Bethany as Dustfinger steals the film as the heroic/tragic character lifted out of the pages of "Inkheart" into the "real world". Apparently author Funke insisted on Brendan Fraser as "Silvertongue", the man who can make books come alive by narrating them.Perversely, he is the weak link, giving a strangely insipid performance alongside Bethany, Broadbent as Finolglio the author of "Inkheart", and Helen Mirren playing a wonderful cameo as Aunt Elinor in a part which could have used more screen time.

Eliza Bennett is a convincing child lead as Meggie, Silvertongue's daughter, and the cast of baddies looks as though it has been stolen from the cast of "Pirates of the Caribbean" extras!Interesting, and erudite, the film falls just short of classic status, mainly due to Fraser.Nonetheless,it remains a strong story, well told and will appeal to children of all ages, as well as adults who are young at heart.

Much better than I was expecting

[Rectangular_businessman · 8/10 · 12 July 2010]

When I saw the first trailer from "Inkheart", I thought that it was going to be a dumb fantasy film just like that unfunny comedy with Adam Sandler, "Bedtime Stories". And also, it was directed by Ian Softley, the director of the atrocious drama "K-Pax". Fortunately, "Inkheart" was a quite enjoyable fantasy, with an interesting premise and likable (if not very original characters) While the performances and the visual aspect of this movie are just adequate, it's the funny and charming story that makes this work. I must confess that I've never read the original "Inkheart" books by Cornelia Funke, but this made me interested into reading them.

I give this movie eight stars because it was pretty funny to watch.

Simple but Beautiful (7.0)

[eberkerbatur · 7/10 · 12 April 2020]

A movie that I watched with pleasure in my childhood,I think a nice movie might be a little bit simple, but it was a successful work, including visual effects.

Actors were good especially Brendan Fraser In movies at that time would be great. a movie that can be watched with pleasure, it has some nonsense but this it doesn't bother much.

Not what i expected as a book reader, but good nonetheless.

[deaplaku · 5/10 · 24 April 2020]

I have read only two of the books and i feel like the movie wasn't based on them at all. The storyline was different, elements were different. The acting and casting was great, but the adaption had many problems.

Adequately entertaining but occasionally irritating

[Gordon-11 · 9 April 2009]

This film is about a man who possesses a magical power that can bring the characters of books into real life.

The story is simple and predictable, which also means it is followable and understandable. Paul Bettany's role and his performance is the best out of all the characters, he really brings his character to life. Brendan Fraser, on the other hand, is bland and uninteresting. I am very much annoyed by the author Fenoglio, played by Jim Broadbent. This author character is stupid and ruins everything! And how come Jennifer Connelly receives a higher place on the credit than Jim Broadbent, when Jennifer Connelly is in the film for only two seconds? "Inkheart" is an adequately entertaining fantasy film, but irritating at times.