Coeur d'encre

'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.

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

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 :.

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.

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!!