IMDb user comments for
City of Ember (2008) More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 7:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

Index

63 comments in total

---

108 out of 137 people found the following comment useful :-
City of Ember Movie Review from The Massie Twins, 9 October 2008

Author: joel massie (GoneWithTheTwins) from www.GoneWithTheTwins.com

City of Ember employs a supremely majestic setting to unravel its end-of-the-world sci-fi adventure, but several missed opportunities keep it from escaping its family-friendly roller coaster ride feel and becoming something truly unique. However, a few too-convenient outcomes and a rushed introduction can't take away the undeniable enjoyment of solving the epic mystery of the once-grand city with the two enthusiastic leads.

When the world ended, a group of elite scientists and engineers determined that the only way to save their way of life was to build an underground city far below the decimated surface. Deciding upon a lifespan of 200 years for their city, the key to salvation was locked away in a metal box to be handed down from one mayor to the next until the time was right. But somewhere along the way the box was forgotten… Years and years have passed and the once mighty City of Ember steadily falters as corrupt officials dictate an antiquated way of life and the massive generator that powers the city frequently fails. Now it is up to two ambitious youths, Doon Harrow (Harry Treadaway) and Lina Mayfleet (Saoirse Ronan) to solve the mystery behind the origins of their city and find a way out before their world is blanketed in darkness forever.

Easily the most impressive piece of the City of Ember puzzle is the delightfully ominous science-fiction visuals. The massive sets were built in Northern Ireland in the shipyard-turned-soundstage of the location the Titanic was actually constructed in (now the largest soundstage in the world) and it's never more apparent than in the beautiful crane shots through the underground city. The CG elements are also top-notch, but the practical effects flawlessly immerse the audience in the fantasy world of pipeworks and generators.

While the setting is brilliantly realized, the characters that populate the grandiose city receive far too little development. The introduction and relationship between the two main characters feels truncated and never really furthers as the story progresses, and the origins of each remain as enigmatic as that of the shining city. The adult characters throughout never provide as much support as they should to enhance the understanding and motives behind the city's cryptic suppression. At least Bill Murray hams it up as the gluttonous mayor with a devious agenda of his own.

Like something blended from a video game universe (Bioshock in particular) and 12 Monkeys' post-apocalyptic subterranean sewer-world (or even Terminator's hypogeal bomb shelters), City of Ember packs adventure and intrigue into the wondrous exploration of a society crumbling from age and deceit. As the young heroes scour the dank passages and forgotten tunnels, it's difficult not to become immersed in the fun of uncovering clues and discovering secrets alongside the venturous duo.

- The Massie Twins

---

84 out of 135 people found the following comment useful :-
City of Ember, 10 October 2008

Author: ActOne from Orlando, FL

Having just taken 129 eighth-graders who read the book to see the premiere, everyone left the theater disappointed with what director Kil Kenan and screenwriter Caroline Thompson have given us with this translation from the page to the screen. Thompson, an accomplished screenwriter, deserves more of the blame in their (and my) opinion.

Books rarely translate better to film and this one suffers for many reasons. Jeanne DuPrau's book is an amazing trove of metaphors (candles, the library, the seed, the Pipeworks, and the city itself). When works of literature work on multiple levels, the filmmakers should at least offer us more than one. In fact, this book could be a metaphor for metaphors -- there are things below the surface that exist whether we acknowledge them or not; it is our job to find the tools to excavate the "deeper" level of what exists for others only on the surface.

Having sacrificed the novel's intellectual depth, the film version does a great disservice to the dedicated reader: we are given special effects that defy logic and re-focus the story unnaturally and unnecessarily; there are included scenes of hyped-up action they are neither satisfying nor helpful with advancing the plot; we lose some of the intricate details of character development; there's an unnecessary inclusion of giant scary creatures that offer distracting (and bizarre) thrills; and the mystery of what Ember is is destroyed in the first minute of narration.

The design of the film is great, but as in design, the beauty is found in the details. I believe that the greatest details of the book are missing, hidden away like the people of Ember. Let them come into the light!

---

54 out of 77 people found the following comment useful :-
well, I quite liked it, 27 November 2008

Author: Xanthe Young from United Kingdom

I've read quite a few negative reviews but i think some of the people who have read the book need to realise this was a children's film that would no doubt have to be simplified and draw people in from the start. It hasn't had an easy launch either because it's been competing with High School Musical 3, when i went to see it the cinema was empty apart from me because everyone else had gone to see a certain other film.

It wasn't great and i am certain that if i had read the book i would have hated it because the characters were not brilliantly written and it was a messy mix of excellent fantasy sci-fi with the appropriate special effects and corny American generic children's movie. But it was good fun.

The girl in it displayed a superb acting performance the general set and costumes and well mise-en-scene in general was excellent and well worth watching just for that.

It was good to watch in the cinema and throughly enjoyable if a bit predictable. As i say, generally i liked it.

---

53 out of 82 people found the following comment useful :-
A solid family film., 12 October 2008

Author: Jamie Ward from United Kingdom

When moving from book to motion picture, there are a myriad of problems associated with such a task, one of which comes from those die hard fans of the original story. Fortunately for myself I have never taken it upon myself to read the source material on which this movie is based upon, nor had I even heard of it until now. As a result I found City of Ember to be a gratifying and sensually enticing experience with brilliant performances, an endlessly captivating story and pace, and a great mix of fantastical environments and characters which pave way for subtext that is grounded in simple allegory of our own, current world. To be sure, there are moments when the film dabbles in and out of tired clichés, most of which we have seen countless times this year alone in other children's adventures; yet what distinguishes this from, say, The Chronicles of Narnia or The Spiderwick Chronicles is through its mature themes and presentation that keeps the older viewer in mind. In this respect, City of Ember is a solid family film that most audiences should enjoy regardless of age, gender or anything else; good entertainment, and a wonderful story to remember at that.

Taking place almost exclusively within the confines of Ember, Gil Kenan here presents us with a vision of a dystopian future, where mankind has been forced to live underground in order to survive. Set many years on from this event however, much of the inhabitants of Ember are unaware of their origin and all the more scared of it as a result. However, in a time of desperation, two citizens Doon Harrow (Harry Treadaway) and Lina Mayfleet (Saoirse Ronan) go on their own quest to try and find an exit from the underground city, which doesn't go down well with gluttonous Mayor Cole (Bill Murray) who just wants his next meal in peace.

What follows from here is a story that isn't entirely unfamiliar (in fact, it's dangerously close to this year's WALL-E), and yet director Gil Kenan manages to take the script and turn it into his own compelling take on a tried and trusted concept. From the arresting opening monologue to the somewhat anti-climatic ending, there is barely a spot here that feels out of place or contrived for the sake of playing to the camera. The pacing, particularly during the middle act, could have been a little tighter, and you often get the sense that there's a lot of footage missing from this cinematic cut, yet as a whole, City of Ember does enough, and with the right amount of originality in tact, to cover up the rough edges. The ending, as I stated, is a little underwhelming and all too brief, but it at least feels coherent and natural to that which comes before it.

If there's one thing that Kenan manages to get across here however, it is the imagination and vision that is present in the script and story. Immediately, and most strikingly poignant during the opening sequence, the City of Ember itself is a sight to behold; from the countless lightbulbs that give the city its light to the murky tunnels that run underneath to provide water, the production values present are superb. Furthermore, the special effects work, although a little obvious during certain sequences involving humans, is noticeably strong; particularly when a giant mole-like creature appears. Not only does the creature look disgusting and completely frightening, but the director does well to stage the beast in such a way as to bring out its realistic characteristics; saying that I got flashbacks of Jurassic Park's raptors scene and a few from Aliens certainly wouldn't be a negative link to make.

Yet as good as the CGI actors are, thankfully the more traditional skin and bones performers aren't so bad themselves. As Hollywood unknowns (to an extent) Saoirse Ronan and Harry Treadaway give convincing performances in their lead positions and very rarely give attention to their ages. Sure enough, their roles aren't the most demanding of jobs, but despite their characters' underwritten nature both fulfil the requirements of leads nicely and with enough conviction to consistently carry the film forward. Of course, it's always good to have a familiar face around, and Bill Murray, playing the obnoxious and gluttonous slob Mayor Cole, is the one to provide such a role. Murray, although arguably underused as far as his talents go, does well to establish a character that nobody is necessarily going to warm to, and uses whatever screen time he has adequately to further the movie on and to back up his lead performers.

In the end however, all these elements simply come together to create one thing; an adventure. As just that, City of Ember is a very strong and convincing effort from director Gil Kenan who makes his live-action debut here. Sure enough there are countless rough edges present, and characters, although compelling in their quest, fail to resonate emotionally, but the overall adventure itself – that is, the tale – is one that will be sure to captivate imaginations and the attentions of many diverse audiences. With stunning visuals that complement the script's wonderful sense of imagination, fitting performances, and a very memorable, intelligent and socially relevant story, City of Ember is a fantastic slice of entertainment for all the family to enjoy.

- A review by Jamie Robert Ward (http://www.invocus.net)

---

21 out of 25 people found the following comment useful :-
Decent Film With Good Characters & Sets, But A Little Too-Little, Too-Late, 3 February 2009

Author: ccthemovieman-1 from Lockport, NY, United States

Overall, this was an "okay" film; not bad, but nothing that memorable. I enjoyed the sets of the subterranean city and the teen kids were likable, but it took a little long before anything happened and when it did it was a little too far-fetched with poor special-effects. Nonetheless, the visuals and acting were fine and supporting performances by the always-goofy Bill Murray and Tim Robbins were somewhat entertaining.

The most intriguing actor, to me, was Saoirse Ronan, as "Lina Mayfleet." At first she minded me a bit of Peggy Ann Garner in "A Tree Grows In Brooklyn," but maybe two years older. Ronan has a plain but expressive and intelligent face, a la a very young Cate Blanchett. She looks like she's on her way to a good career.

Her counterpart, the male teen "Doon Harrow," was played nicely by Harry Treadaway.

Although it's a nice, safe family film, I think a lot of kids will be bored by the time anything happens, and adults will be so-so on it. I stuck around for the visuals, mainly, but was disappointed in how amateurish the action scenes in the last 20 minutes looked.

---

29 out of 43 people found the following comment useful :-
Very good movie, 20 October 2008

Author: existenz-6 from Hollywood, CA

I wasn't expecting much from this film, but I ended up loving it quite a bit. It's a great kid's adventure, lots of mystery and action, good character development, and plenty of cool settings.

Bill Murray and Tim Robbins do a fine job in their roles, but they are mostly supporting cast. It's the two kids who are the real heart of the story. I also love how the filmmakers created an entirely plausible distant future where beauty still thrived despite crumbling infrastructure. Above all, this is a movie about hope for the future.

If you are looking for a good adventure similar to THE GOONIES, check this out. Great for kids, and great for folks of all ages who enjoy light adventure.

---

44 out of 76 people found the following comment useful :-
it's not a horrible movie. Just a bland one., 12 December 2008

Author: jmgalvan-1 from United States

City of Ember is one of those films that had some potential and some good initiative but ultimately succumbed to the fact that it was poorly-written, poorly-directed and resulted in being flat-out boring. The film tells the story of an unspecified moment in the future of humankind, where a few hundred people move underground and construct a subterranean city and after a while, their power supply is beginning to fail and two young children must seek the way back to the surface, which, for some reason, is forbidden.

It's based on a book by Jeanne Duprau, and while I have not actually read it myself, I can tell there was a lot of imperative material left out when they adapted its content into a script, resulting in many glaring plot holes and enormous questions that do not get answered for us at any moment during the film's running time, which is considerably longer than it needs to be.

According to one of my peers, in the book, it describes that humankind becomes locked in an intercontinental war and is quickly wiping out all life on the planet. This is the reason why the small number of people construct a giant city underground. In the movie, there is no explanation and so it seems to us that they just decided to build the City of Ember just for the experience.

Visually, City of Ember is an acceptable accomplishment. There are some nice special effects sequences—excluding this gigantic, over-sized star-nosed mole that serves as one of the film's boring antagonists. The city's name is clear in its appearance. It glows an attractive ember-like color. The streets are dirty, the people are often unwashed, and their living conditions are by our standards, deplorable. So the filmmakers accomplished their task at making a convincing looking, end-of-the-world city.

What they did not succeed in was using this set and its characters to keep us entertained or even generally interested. The film did not spark any interest for me. I was yawning twenty minutes into the film and I did not stop until the credits began to roll. The characters are all typical, two-dimensional figures who simply exist to fill up screen time and move the dull plot along toward the ending. It's a shame, for there are some great actors, including a few favorites of mine. But they're all boring characters. Bill Murray, commonly an interesting actor, was rather boring as the movie's major villain. Tim Robbins, one of my favorite actors, really served no purpose and thus his presence was nothing more than an unnoticed luxury. Probably the best character is Martin Landau's and he's only on screen for about fifteen minutes or so. And keep in mind, this is a movie that relies on its characters to keep moving. And so, if the characters are bland, the movie is bland.

And that describes the film entire. It's not a horrible movie in any regards. It's just a bland one. And bland films don't entertain.

---

13 out of 16 people found the following comment useful :-
Decent movie, lacking some story, lacking some direction., 9 November 2008

Author: steviekane from United States

If the only thing City of Ember does is show that Belfast can play host to high concept movies, then it was worthwhile, but no doubt, it was aiming for more than that. Perhaps to stand next to such fare as Harry Potter, or a Pixar flick.

Unfortunately, it falls short, but only just. This is without doubt, an exciting romp about two coming-of-age children who break out of the mold forced on them by the dying Ember, and in doing so, change everything. The acting is solid, the set design and music excellent. The concept, the builders of Ember leaving behind secret instructions to get back to the world, is genuinely engaging.

Unfortunately, they don't get to these instructions fast enough, and a lot of time is spent wandering around the, albeit, beautiful city. Often times there is a lack of a perceived threat. Despite being replete with a nefarious mayor and a mutated mole (like the massive moths, never explained), the story uses neither of these things enough, leaving some scenes to be propelled solely by the heroes following the by-the-numbers instructions left to them. Worst of all, the ending feels like a poor man's Goonies.

In the director's corner, he is guilty of some slow scenes, but what is almost unforgivable is the flat looks of the actors during intense CGI action. Somebody wasn't thinking ahead.

Nonetheless, a charming film that I hope made enough money to spawn treatment of the books sequels.

---

17 out of 27 people found the following comment useful :-
Young actors save the day for the city, 29 October 2008

Author: badidosh from Philippines

"City of Ember", director Gil Kenan's follow up to his horror-lite for preteens "Monster House", is a fun ride that's well worth the admission price if only for the superb production design and the likable leads.

Lina Mayfleet (Saoirse Ronan) and Doon Harrow (Harry Treadaway) are two of the inhabitants of the City of Ember - an underground city designed to house humans for two centuries as an unspecified disaster takes place on the surface. But as the 200 years have passed, the generator that powers the city gradually falters, causing more frequent blackouts and scarce provisions.

When no one would listen to them, especially the city mayor - Mayor Cole (the effective yet underused Bill Murray) - it then becomes up to Lina and Doon to find the exit that leads to the surface, which is infinitely easier in theory than in practice, considering the plethora of puzzles and riddles they would have to solve.

Without having read the film's source material - Jeanne Duprau's novel - there's no way I can say if the script holds up to the narrative of its literary counterpart, but here's where the film mainly falters. The film feels like a rushed end product crammed to fit within the confines of a typical family flick. Exposition is kept in the sidelines and character development seems more of a ploy to advance the plot than genuine attempts in sculpting something more than cardboard-cut supporting characters.

But despite the narrative faults, Kenan imbues such a magical quality to the dank environment. And for a film lacking impressive turns from its more mature and established actors (including Tim Robbins as Doon's father), upcoming stars Ronan and Treadaway's animated performances save the day, right from a sweeping introduction of the claustrophobic city to a touching finale that finally affirms the characters' quest for light amidst the darkness.

---

8 out of 10 people found the following comment useful :-
Pretty good but..., 2 November 2008

Author: smartX2 from United States

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

What I liked- 1. The city was perfect! Just how I imagined it. I loved the way it looked from above, the street lights, Harken Square, Lina's house.

2. The acting was great. The character weren't changed much from the book. I would have liked to see the characters and their relationships develop a little more (Lina and Doon seemed to already be friends)

What I didn't like- 1. If there were giant moles running around, why was everyone worried (okay not as worried as in the book) about running out of food when they could just go hunting for moles? That thing could feed the entire city a few meals. Yumm... mole stakes!

2. If moles, moths and beetles evolved so much in 200 year why didn't people? And while I'm on the subject why did these things evolve? Things evolve out of a need, they don't just get bigger.

3. That flare thing they shot up when a blackout occurred- I don't recall that from the book. If the people of Ember had fire, why didn't they use it to light up the darkness?

4. The whole mystery didn't seem as intense as it was in the book. The whole thing seemed too easy. Just go here and then go here and you'll find this and that'll do it!

5. I didn't like the telephone thing- why have messengers? And the robots were weird.

I would have liked to see the People of Ember emerging from the cave at the end of the credits.

All and all it was a pretty good movie. It had a good, clean story line, no dirty words or teenage love stories.

---

---

Page 1 of 7:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Plot synopsis	Ratings
Awards	External reviews	Parents Guide
Official site	Plot keywords	Main details
Your user comments	Your vote history