Inkheart Movie
| Resolution | Size | Download | ||
|
1920x814 | 8921.26 MiB | 1080p | |
|
1280x544 | 4476.2 MiB | 720p | |
|
632x336 | 699.31 MiB | divx | |
|
320x172 | 468.32 MiB | ipod | |
Storyline
TAGLINES
Every story ever written is just waiting to become real.
Mo has the special talent to bring characters out of books. One night he brings out three characters from Inkheart, a story set in medieval times and filled with magical beings. Capricorn and Basta, two villains, and Dustfinger, a fire-eater. Now, 10 years later Meggie discovers the truth and it's up to her to escape Capricorn's evil grasp.
| Brendan Fraser | Mo 'Silvertongue' Folchart |
| Andy Serkis | Capricorn |
| Eliza Bennett | Meggie Folchart |
| Paul Bettany | Dustfinger |
| Stephen Armourae | Medieval Lord |
| Toby Iyan | Black Jacket |
| Adam Bond | Prince Charming |
| Jim Broadbent | Fenoglio |
| Mike Godfrey | Capricorn Recruit |
| Jamie Foreman | Basta |
| Rafi Gavron | Farid |
| Iain Softley |
6.40 out of 10 (3391 votes)
Visitor Reviews
It's a drag,,,
posted on 30 Aug 2009I don't really know why did i exactly see this movie in first place, when Brendan Fraser is starring in a movie it's always childish and kind of dreadful to me, although he did make a few exceptions like 'The Mummy' and sequels. So i decided to watch this movie after all and i was apparently disappointed again. Story is somehow original but very badly told and interpreted to viewers in a most boring and cheesy way. I never knew that when you use so many different characters from the books that should make an interesting all-around movie it can go so wrong as it did with 'Inkheart'. Nice name for a movie also, in my opinion this film had every potential to be something good, entertaining and enjoyable, but in the end it came out to be a drag, only viewers who can like this film are those who ignore or don't even see the flaws in acting and bad storytelling, and by that i mean that this movie can only be watchable to audience of kids who are less than 12 years old...
I think Inkheart was a good movie.
posted on 28 Aug 2009I've just seen this movie today. I read the novels too. The movie got some change, but i think it was still a fine adaptation. I'm not going to tell so much about the story inside this movie, you should have a look for yourself, because I think it worth. The movie is not more than 2 hours, but this unlike other movies like Eragon or The Golden Compass.Inkheart was one of my favourite fantasy movie, begin from today......Wish you have a great movie day! Enjoy it! ^^P/s: you should not put your expectation as Lord of the Rings, open your mind, you will find there are many good movies around.
Best Song and Soundtrack?
posted on 28 Aug 2009That song with the closing credits is amazing. What a star we have here in Eliza Burnett. Could it be released as a single? Why not? The orchestral soundtrack is also just so atmospheric.I had never read any of the books but found the whole film astounding in it's imagery and story. At over 50 years of age I thought I couldn't go "wow" anymore. How wrong I was.The film had that special blend where reality starts to merge with the magical. It creeps up on you until you are taken along with the flow. Just go and experience a great film. Do not leave until the final credits have rolled so you hear "that song".
Fantastic
posted on 22 Aug 2009After years and years of waiting, I finally got to go see this movie last night. Needless to say I was extremely excited, and a little nervous. I've had my heart broken by books-into-movies before, and I really didn't want that to be the case here.Fortunately, my fears were unfounded, for the most part. I loved this movie. Absolutely adored it. I had a few problems with it, but overall it was fantastic. So let's go through the list.Dustfinger. I cannot say enough. He was perfect, exactly how I have always imagined him. It was so fantastic to see a character like him brought to life, a character that is so torn between the fate that was written for him, and his own desires. Torn between the personality that he's supposed to have, and his growing sense of honor and loyalty. Paul Bettany played it perfectly. I will forever now re-read the book with him in mind, and to me, that is a great thing. So yeah. He was awesome. *thumbs up* Now, Fenoglio. I was surprised to find myself quite annoyed by him for his first few minute of screen time, but I slowly grew to appreciate what his personality brought to the film. And he had some fantastic lines. (Look, it's Basta! Isn't he awful??) His total fascination with the world that he created, even while he was in danger made me laugh. So I'm OK with the changes to his personality.Meggie was good, not amazing, but good. She's a decent actress, and she brought out the emotion necessary. Her interaction with Farid was very cute, and I can certainly see their relationship growing if they make Inkspell.I was surprised when Farid turned out to be surprisingly good-looking. *laughs* I'm not much of a fangirl, but the people I went to see this with were fangirls, and they made lots of noise. Again, good actor, not amazing, but good, and I liked that they showed off his athletic skills with all the roof-jumping and running about. And his attachment to Dustfinger was hysterical.Elinor was very enjoyable to watch, especially when she roared down the road on her rented motorcycle. Her spunk and enthusiasm impressed me, and I wished she had gotten a bigger part.Capricorn was fun to watch, and I loved the duct tape line. He manage to pull of eerily sinister and slightly funny at the same time.Basta's mustache cracked me up. And he was so short! I would have liked if he had a bigger role as well.Mo was perfectly cast, and it was fun to see him take on the role. I was disappointed when he didn't read the ending that finished Capricorn off, and that brings me to my gripes with the movie.Meggie was not supposed to be able to write the ending. Only Fenoglio can. That kind of screws up the next book. I was disappointed with that.And, of course, the very ending. Dustfinger was NOT supposed to go back in the book. I don't care if it wasn't a happy ending! That's what the next book is for! (Although it's not a happy ending in that either.) I heard that originally they stayed true to the book, but preview-screening audiences wanted a happy ending for him, so they re-shot it. If that's true, DARN YOU, PREVIEW SCREENING AUDIENCES. Dustfinger is the tragic anti-hero! He's not supposed to have a happy ending! ARGH! On a happier note, my group and friends and I practically screamed with happiness when Fenoglio mentioned a new character he was thinking up.. a master thief, stealing like a bluejay. Subtle hinting for the next two movies?! In conclusion, I loved it, but will never watch the last five minutes again, and instead pretend they did it the way the book ends.
For once Brendan Fraser isn't the weak link, but this dull fantasy is nothing special anyway
posted on 10 Aug 2009I hadn't read very good notices for this, but I've got a weakness for "high fantasy", OK? Stuff with dungeons and dragons and tunnels and trolls, I dig it. Even the bad ones, I can often have a good time with. Unfortunately there have been an awful lot of bad ones lately - "Stardust" and "Prince Caspian" threatened me to put me off the genre for a good long while. But never say never...The first problem with this German/British coproduction is that they make the mistake (from an artistic standpoint) of casting Brendan Fraser as the lead (I guess thinking about the box-office standpoint), an antiquarian book repair specialist (!!!). Why Mr. Fraser gets these roles on a regular basis is beyond me; he seems to be somebody's idea - or some several bodies' idea - of a replacement for Harrison Ford, Douglas Fairbanks, etc: the swashbuckling hero of period adventures and medieval fantasies. Except he is just about the most resolutely 21st-century presence around - everything about the guy in every film I've seen him in screams frat-boy football star at some Midwestern state school (yes I know he's Canadian, whatever) grown up now and maybe working as a car salesman. Buying him as a specialist in old books, or an archaeologist, or any character from pre-WWII automatically requires a larger suspension of disbelief than I care to make.In this case, thankfully, he's not called upon to exist in a pre-Fraser world, and in fact he is one of the less-annoying and ill-conceived aspects of this film, despite being the only character in the film (entirely set in Europe) with an American accent for no reason that is ever explained. Essentially, Fraser is Mo Folchart, a "silvertongue" - a person born with the magical talent of making books come alive when he reads aloud from them, and he's on the run in the early part of the film from some unpleasant folks who appeared out of a book that he read aloud years before and who now want him to come to their remote castle and pull riches and power for them out of his magical book-reading. He has a teenage daughter, Meg (Eliza Bennett), and a wife who disappeared when he last read aloud a decade previous; y'see, when you bring something into this world from a book, part of our world trades places with it.So a series of adventures ensues with Fraser at first trying to protect his kid and not use his powers and later joining forces with one of the less-evil characters he's brought over, Dustfinger (Paul Bettany in the only interesting performance in the film). At the end we have a big ol' special effects showdown and all the good guys are safe and the bad guys vanquished - hey this is a kid's fantasy, I'm not spoiling anything.Flat both dialog- and action-wise, directed by Iaian Softely without panache, betraying it's relatively low budget (less than $50 million) and full of all kinds of quite vast logical errors - Folchart has to locate a copy of the very rare book that exchanged his wife for all the baddies, astonishingly named "Inkheart", but has never once in a decade thought to try to find the author? - this is nevertheless reasonably tolerable, as the actors are all professional if not interesting (even Helen Mirren has little to do) and the locations and sets are nice enough to look at. And I liked the concept though it doesn't strike me as terribly original. Maybe the book is better.
Nice, but for Fraser...
posted on 08 Aug 2009If they had used a REAL ACTOR in the main role (and, if it's not too much, one who doesn't look as if his dad accidentally sat down on his face when he was a baby), this would have been delicious movie to watch indeed! But, well, nobody (and nothing) is perfect, so we can (if we have such a selective eye-sight) edit out Brendan from the picture, and view only the fantasy show...The story is pretty ingenious and bright, although reminding us a bit too much about "Last Action Hero" - but not necessarily in a bad sense. The directing is fast-paced, snappy and stylish at places (or a bit confusing, in other places). From the cast, only Helen Mirren stands, in frustratingly underdeveloped role. But, at least, The Shadow delivers indeed. A pity they couldn't get this time either over the serious case of using five endings in a row... Well, maybe next time....Only, for God's sake: NO BRENDAN ANYMORE! Is it too much to ask? Pretty please?
You are not my God … Inkheart
posted on 04 Aug 2009I must say that I am always pleasantly surprised to watch a film without expectations, or the tiniest shred of knowledge, and be completely immersed in its world. With the new fantasy adventure film Inkheart, I experienced just that. Iain Softley's cinematic adaptation of the best-selling novel by Cornelia Funke is a fun and endearing trip. I liken the story to the Neverending Story only inverted. Rather than a boy reading a book and transporting himself into it, the characters here read the book and bring both the protagonists and antagonists to them. There is of course one caveat, for whatever comes through to Earth, something must go into the book to replace it. Said replacement being our lead's wife shows that there will be a fight for her return and the banishment of those brought over, back to the written word.A very short prologue-type moment helps orient the audience with the magic that Inkheart brings. We learn that Brendan Fraser's Mortimer Folchart is a "Silvertongue", or person who reads the written word and brings it to reality. Unknown to him until he starts reading a story to his daughter, (my one gripe is that he never found out earlier … with the horrible things he lets in later, you'd have to think something more than Red Riding Hood's cape would have come through in his past), the danger of his power isn't felt completely until two villains and a street performer from this obscure novel arrive, sending his wife Resa, (Sienna Guillory in a role I wish would have let us see more of her), into the abyss, trapped. The real story at hand begins nine years after with Folchart and his daughter who doesn't know about that past event and just believes her mother left them. Supposedly taught in boarding schools on the go—why else would she have that accent—young Meggie, played by Eliza Bennett, is an intelligent girl who follows her book repairing father as he searches for a copy of the tale that took his love away. It takes many years, but finally the copy is found; yet with it comes the rediscovery of them by that trapped street performer, Dustfinger, and the realization that Capricorn, the book's main villain, wants Folchart captured to find him power and wealth by reading aloud.What I really enjoyed about the film is that the retrieval of Resa is not the only thing it has going for it. Sure Folchart's motivations are for that alone, but you also have the needs of those people that replaced her. Dustfinger, the ever-brilliant Paul Bettany who owns each and every scene he has here, is just a corrupted man by necessity, not a true villain, only wanting to get back to the family he left behind. This role is the most fleshed out and tragic, trying desperately to get away from the reputation that precedes him from those who've read the story yet unable to break free from the selfish coward he was written as. However, nine years on Earth has changed him; his love and need for his wife has made him into something more than a thief who wields fire and as he says to the author of Inkheart, a fun Jim Broadbent, he controls his own fate. Just the fact that he is out of the book proves that the words written are not the only truth; he can overcome whatever end awaits him on the closing pages of the novel.But he isn't the only side character needing something. The other is Capricorn, a vile man looking to take over Earth as his own. Brought to life by Andy Serkis, the role exudes slime and nefarious doings, showing the talent of this actor most known for playing computer generated characters in Peter Jackson epics. Capricorn is a villain to the end and his flip remarks and lack of compassion make for some laughs as well as a worthy opponent to Fraser's manly man hero as he is a professional now at playing. Fraser is probably the weakest link of the film, but he does the part well and holds together those around him as the common connecting factor.Actually, everything really does end up being pretty well done across the board. It's a fun story that may be predictable, but the characters like Dustfinger are so well formed that you find yourself needing to see how their arcs end up. Even the special effects are pretty to look at, from the wispy clouds as fictional people come to our world to the smoke monster Shadow that arrives later on. And I loved seeing some of literature's best "creatures" in the flesh, held captive at Capricorn's castle. Really, besides some shoddy bluescreen work of Helen Mirren on a unicorn, there is very little to fault in those terms. Heck, the movie even had a fantastic little inside joke for cinema/Hollywood fans with a glimpse at Dustfinger's wife left alone back home. Maybe I shouldn't have laughed when her face appeared on screen, but it was a cute surprise.So, whether the film stays true to the novel, I can't say. All I can relate to filmgoers is that as a fan of family-friendly fantasy films, Inkheart certainly surprised me with its likability and warmth. Maybe not as successful as the classics, Princess Bride, or even 2007's Stardust, Softley still delivers one worth a look. And while Bettany and Serkis may steal the show, deservingly so, it's always nice to watch Brendan Fraser in a part that doesn't scream paycheck. It appears to be too few and far between lately, so I do sincerely hope this one becomes a success at the box office.
Expecting Less getting much less? Didn't think so!
posted on 04 Aug 2009Well start out the easy way, whoever read the comment of Jack should have a look onto mine too.I have to deny a few aspects of what you think is wrong or bad in the movie. Personally I find Fraser is one of the best fantasy 'Small-time'-Stars. He fits perfectly into the role of Silvertounge.Now lets keep the personal part away and let follow a quick summary of the aspects of this movie.(I didn't read the book either) The Casting: Fraser - you couldn't have chosen a better actor. My opinion. Just think about it. I mean Fraser has the experience. Remember the Mummy, Journey to the center of the Earth. He got a personality that is incomparable to other actors. Like everyone has flaws for their own. He surely has the one need for this movie. Brilliance, Humor.Guillory - though her role isn't as chatterly as all the others she fits into the genre. The movie is playing most of the time in Italy and in the beginning in Germany. Italy is known for their beauties - with dark hair. That woman is blonde - might be coincidental - but she makes the contrast to the Italian women. (if you look closer, the women in the kitchen have dark hair, except her.) Yea - of course you could have put Britney there - but seriously - that wouldn't be funny.Betanny - thoughtful, not too bad looking guy who plays a role that is in between good and bad. When you see him, you aren't sure what to think of him - which is (in my opinion) intended.Serkis - as mentioned in the other comment, I also think the director wanted to spoil LoR a bit, probably to honor it. So this character fits in so does the shadow :) Chemistry Everyone who says Fraser doesn't let the chemistry play in the movie is false. He shows he's worried about what he did when his wife disappeared. Just imagine the situation you've got into. Wouldn't you be a little bit more quiet and secrecy about everything you've got on your mind. OK he lacks a bit on the Father/Dauther-Relationship in the beginning of the movie. But that little distance is caused by the event that happened a few years earlier. He does not want to risk anything for her, so he keeps a "safe" distance.The other characters let the chemistry play along - they show "near" friendship - fear - love. Not to spoil too much.The Story: Like I said i didn't read the book. The story itself is not as transparent as you may think. It might be linear - still there are a few scenes unexpected things happens, where the involved characters do develop. (Fleeing from the castle - leaving behind Resa) In the beginning the movie is not easy to understand. Which get's clear when you find out what the movie is about. Though I think the End is a bit shortcutting. Like the Director said - Oh my god.. the movie is getting too long - lets finish this quick. Which makes this movie confusing.The happy ending - like a must for the "comedy fantasy genre" is a must - can't deny that after all.The setting: Italy - don't think you could choose a better place for lonesome castles in the middle of mountains - though Italy doesn't have too much of them.Summary: Sometimes I caught myself telling the girl to write for herself. Well - that's what I would have done after all :) The story itself is worth watching / reading. Preferably the last option. As I said, the story seems a little cut off. That's why it's only a 7 of 10.Still, if you like fantasy movies with a little different setting - you should give it a try.
Just another film...
posted on 02 Aug 2009There are really two types of films, films that are real and films that are films. There are some fantasy films that blend great acting with subtle effects with the result that they are spellbinding and they are real, Interview with the Vampire, Edward Scissorhands and Big Fish are these sorts of films. There are other films which blend big names with special effects made only to 'wow' the audience and these are just films, i promise they will not be remembered. Inkheart is definitely this sort of film.Inkheart was made because it was guaranteed to make Hollywood money. It played a successful genre quite typically and to it's own downfall. Overall it lacked grace, structure and subtlety. Why was this? Many reasons.To begin with the story was always going to be a difficult one because it was so complicated. The whole thing relied mainly on the belief that certain people known as silvertougues can simply read things straight out of a book. This concept was put to it's audience in the first few minutes and before anyone could ask for an explanation of just how that worked and how it was decided what was read out of the book and what was read in it whisked you off to the next bit.Mainly the plot revolved around the idea of the central character 'Mo' searching the world for a copy of 'Inkheart' a book he had accidentally read his wife into. There's a sentence that lacks explanation, for during the film many times Mo reads from the book as does his daughter Meggie who turns out to have inherited his gift and nothing is taken into the book.Because of this weak but complicated starting point the film calls for talent and dramatic special effects to distract the audience from the enormous gaps in the plot.Major characters are portrayed by a variety of accomplished actors including Jim Broadbent, Paul Bettany and Andy Serkis who as always deliver a performance to the best of there ability and which do fortunately breath life into there otherwise weak and confusing and in unnecessarily complicated characters.However in the central role we have Brendan Fraser a man who never fails to irritate me from the moment he appears on screen. Some people may call his performances hypnotic but if that is the case it is only because he has no control of his eye-brows. Watch them seriously, perhaps one of the reasons i can't focus on the plot is because i'm to busy watching them bounce up and down his face all the way through the film.And then there is it's other asset the special effect which whilst indeed stunning blatantly mark it out as 'a film'. Effects that from the moment they first appear on the screen cry out 'hey look at our great visual effects!' When it comes to visual and special effects i always say the biggest compliment a film can get is when nobody notices them. Take my favourite film 'Interview with the Vampire' which whilst it uses exceedingly complex and state of the art (or it was at the time the film was made) effects they are so wonderfully subtly done nobody noticed them and they won no awards, i did not notice them until i atched the directors commentary. No such luck with Inkheart.That said there is a silver lining. The film is watchable if you try not to focus on the plot and to see Andy Serkis in another one of his wonderfully wicked and vaguely amusing roles makes the film worth seeing once, as long as you are not the one paying for it. And the children took it well enough.In fact the main thing that marked it out as 'just a film' for me was actually the usual irrelevant pop song playing over the credits.
Not a good movie, I'm sad to say.
posted on 29 Jul 2009This movie had me thinking that a new Stardust could within reach, but how I was mistaken...Inkheart is from the very beginning very similar to a TV-series first episode, the pilot. No depth, no background of the characters, no nothing. Within seconds the "story" is rolling at high speed but not with very much comfort, since it keeps on going like the first 2 minutes. Bad special effects, somewhat poor actors (Paul Bettany and Helen Mirren are as always outstanding!) and actually a pretty dull ending all in all.Watch this movie if you must, but I do recommend Stardust instead as entertainment on a Saturday night with the family. Inkheart will most likely leave you all with a bitter taste of "What was that?" in your mouths...4 out of 10 is my vote, and that is only for the actors Paul Bettany and Helen Mirren.
INKHEART is a treasured film to view over and again!
posted on 27 Jul 2009Starring Brendan Fraser & Dame Helen Mirren, who as the eccentric aunt glows throughout every scene she's in, INKHEART is a grand fantasy that literally sweeps you into its story within an nth of a second. Each character tells a story within itself and the INKHEART author character (Jim Broadbent) is magnificent to the point you pray for him to have written more copies! I love this film! No screenwriter has given an audience such delight in a long time and should be writing another soon with "Meggie" as the "Silvertongue" that does more than the usual "gifted" reader does! The first frame had me sitting up straight and forgetting the world existed. I had no headaches or potty breaks. INKHEART absorbs you to the point when the house lights come up afterward; you sit silently smiling then leave still smiling for hours! INKHEART makes you search IMDb for not only the screenplay writer and all else, they wrote but also the novel's author and director. If they can create together these unforgettable characters, then what other magic do they have on screen? For those who seek a MYTHOLOGICAL HERO, they find not one but one in each character who evolves within INKHEART whether they are good or evil!
Makes no sense..
posted on 25 Jul 2009Cornelia Funke, German novelist and children's book writer, supposedly had Brendan Fraser in mind when she wrote this story. OK. Is Brendan Fraser a big star in Germany? I can imagine having John Malkovich or Al Pacino in mind when writing a book - but Fraser? Hmm..Funke, who wrote The Thief Lord and Die Wilden Huhner, based this story on a simple idea: characters come to life from books when read by a specific someone. After about an hour into the film I totally lost the plot. Such a simple idea, and being unable to tell a good story around it makes it remarkably pale and thin. I didn't understand and didn't care for all the characters that were 'read' out of the book, some were happy, others wanted to go back into the book. First there was only one person who could bring characters to life, then all of a sudden there were three.Then there was the writer of the book (who didn't have one copy of it) - then there was an evil creature. And what was the old woman's purpose on the motorbike? Eliza Bennet, who is cute, doesn't fit the role of a beautiful princess (as a tomboy like she played in the Contractor she shined) seems to be equipped with only one (1!) facial expression. A cry face. Even when she smiled she couldn't hide it.Javier Navarrete, usually a very solid composer, created one of the most bland and unidentifiable scores of his career. Knitted together some little tatters to a gray mass of boring sostenuto.Nope. Overall, this is not a great movie and could have been so much better. You may avoid.
All the more disappointing...
posted on 25 Jul 2009...because it could have been so good.I adore this book. I've read it simply countless times. Farid was my fictitious boyfriend. I literally screamed when I discovered the sequel, Inkspell, and I waited anxiously and impatiently for the final volume, Inkdeath - which was a horrendous disappointment as a book but the thought of how wonderful a film it would be sent shivers down my spine. It didn't help alleviate the obsession that my name is Meggie.So when I heard about the film, I freaked. I hyperventilated, and I sent in an audition tape for the part of Meggie Folchart. I was disappointed of course when I didn't get that dream-come-true opportunity, but I was furious when a previously established actress (for lack of a better term) got the part and the "open auditions" for it turned out to be a publicity stunt, to gain hype for the movie. But I deigned to reserve judgment for when I saw the finished product.I went the day it premiered, with four of my closest friend, three of which were fanatics such as myself, and I saw it. It was spectacular. The plot was starkly different from the book, but it still stayed true to the major points of it. The movie was a separate entity from the book, but it still made me squeal with insane joy. There were a few things I was extremely upset about, however, the main ones being that Eliza Bennett, while certainly not horrible, just wasn't good, and moreover, wasn't convincing, and the fact that in the book Meggie refers to her father as "Mo" rather than "Dad," and (when they get her back) her mother as "Resa" instead of "Mum." But in the movie, she calls them by their familial titles, which changes the relationship established so clearly in the book to something totally different I simply couldn't grasp in the 106 minutes I was in that theater. Despite this major hiccup, I was enjoying the movie immensely, mentally calculating how many times I could convince my parents to take me to see it over the weekend, but then the train crashed headlong into the mountainside, causing an avalanche in which thirteen hundred townspeople and forty goats were massacred.The ending soured the entire experience for me. It was all wrong. Not only did they end the *film*, they ended the *series.* Unforgivable crimes against literature were made against Inkheart in this film, and I intend to make sure that everyone knows what a failure this film was.And the thing that upsets me the most? It was such a wonderful movie. If you only stay for the first 90 minutes.
Nice special effects, nice general ideas...
posted on 23 Jul 2009...even most of the characters were depicted/played pretty good, but the script and/or story writer failed HORRIBLY.The characters called "Silvertongues" basically have the power to induce the Apocalypse at any given time by reading Fantasy/Sci-Fi Books aloud and yet they mostly just dick around, risking their own lives and the lives of their loved ones by trying to go solo against an army of bad guys.The villain is about as scary as a paper-cut and seems to be one of those sorts of comic-book villains that can never really get things done even though he has almost infinite resources (to not say anything about him not being able to keep some civilians under lock)...Also the writing something down and reading it aloud was a major plot point that bugged me throughout the whole movie... they could've basically done anything from writing his wife back to summoning a death-star to kill the bad guy when they first found out about him. Yet again they fail to do so throughout till the very end (and when they do it is for something completely stupid, like wishing by a storm that could kill them and actually RUNNING through it while there's cars being torn into the air and falling down besides them instead of say a magical shield so they cannot be harmed or an Archangel or whatever to help them out a bit), in which they don't seem to be very keen of getting it over with quick but indulge in poetical rhymes, similes and alliterations while they're just about to get SLAUGHTERED. There's a plot-point that they can't influence events of one book if it isn't written in the same style (albeit somewhat stupid but okay) it doesn't exclude elements out of other books in the real world to counter them... After all Toto & all those mythical creatures attacked the bad guys near the end... yeah Toto seems to have been the ultimate killing machine they could've thought of throughout xD It could've also been a lot nicer if the whole thing didn't focus on a barely selling bad fantasy novel called Inkheart, just dripping with cheesy and seemingly slightly retarded characters to start with, but I guess that's another thing. (I'm talking about the book "Inkheart" as depicted in the movie, which they're constantly searching for to read stuff out of it not the "real" one the movie is based on.)Somewhere between a 4-5/10 for me.
Enjoyable and Pleasant Adventure
posted on 23 Jul 2009Mortimer "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")
C'mon, Naysayers! Give it a break!
posted on 21 Jul 2009I didn't read the book before I saw this movie but I was pleasantly surprised and it makes me mad with all these people that are totally bashing it! I'm a Jr. High Sunday school teacher who is constantly on the look out for movies to recommend to my kids and this is definitely one! It has no sex, no foul language, creative storyline and I thought it was quite good! And Brendan Frasier? He probably makes more kid friendly movies like the Mummy Trilogy, Journey to the Center of the Earth, George of the Jungle (totally hilarious)just to name some, than anyone else out there and that makes him an Ace in my book! Get on the bandwagon and let's start thinking about what our kids are watching before you bash a good movie like this one. That said, I really enjoyed this movie but was very disappointed it wasn't out longer than it was. Good action, good storyline and to be honest, I'm having a hard time following the book. The movie was easier to understand. Go and see it and I think you will have a good time. Oh, and take some kids. I know they'll love it!
Love Books? Inkheart!
posted on 15 Jul 2009They had me at "Hay". Hay-on-Wye, that is, the English town that's riddled with antiquarian bookstores, and where Inkheart begins — surrounded with books. There are books wall to wall. We're awash in books. Buried in books. Whispering books, talking books (and no, I don't mean the recorded kind), living books. As in Jasper Fforde's Thursday Next series, it's possible for people in the bookworld to enter ours, and vice versa. But what it takes is a silvertongue, a person who can read aloud and make the printed word come to life. Brendan Fraser, Eliza Hope Bennett, Paul Bettany, Andy Serkis, and Helen Mirren are the featured actors, and they're all excellent, but the real star of this film is the written word in all its glory, joy, majesty, power, and beauty. A wonderful film in every sense of the word. Word!
Poorly done, thus quite uninteresting.
posted on 13 Jul 2009Great - what a poorly done movie. I am a person who adores any kind of literature and loves good movies. The film being an adaptation of a fantasy trilogy that I haven't read, and the movie itself promising an interesting story that just advertises for the old paper medium, I just had to rent it on DVD to give it a shot. I should have rented the books, I assume.There was no tension present over the whole length of 102 minutes, since the story just drags on an on without ever catching the audience's interest. This is mainly due to its poorly executed characters and uninteresting actors. Biggest disappointment was Andy Serkis, who totally failed giving birth to the story's main villain. Adding to this major flaw, a terrible script that is even outdone by most TV series nowadays helps to oppress any magic that might wanted to be conjured to the screen. Even the CGI effects were badly done - and too rare to be even worth mentioning. Yet concerning the genre of this movie and the possibilities of its source material, some nicely done CGI effects were the least fans could have expected. And, most significantly, since it completely fails to conjure any magic to the screen, CGI might have helped to create at least a visual spectacle - like many other mediocre movies do.All in all it deserves 2 stars out of 10 for being totally uninteresting and boring, to a point even annoying. And all this though, sadly enough, I do love books and movies...
Could have been better
posted on 01 Jul 2009I have read the books and it is not too bad an adaptation, except the film barely touches the second and third books. I thought Brendan Fraser and Andy Serkis should have been the mainstay of the film, but were in fact the weaknesses. Fraser was flat and lifeless, and Serkis felt like a pantomime villain. The star of the film for me was Paul Bettany as Dustfinger (incidentally, the book's best character, too); he was totally convincing and heartbreaking as the fire-dancer. Jim Broadbent did well with Fenoglio, but only because he managed to annoy me as much as the character does in the book. It would have been much, much better had Fraser injected a little more life into Mo, and Serkis convinced as an evil villain, but it was still watchable.
Charming film, possibly a better read?
posted on 30 Aug 2009Brendan Fraser: the new archetypical action hero, he is rough, he is rugged and he is always reliable, here too, in his latest action hero film, Inkheart, he is ready, willing and able. Playing father to young Eliza Bennett, this German penned fantasy takes a darker side whenever we hear Mo 'Silvertongue' Folchart (Fraser) reading out aloud from books. His ability to bring to life, to export, to release figures out of the pages and into the real world is only relevant when the darker side of his stories appear to reek havoc and destruction.The story centres around the book of the same name; Inkheart. While, as a child, Meggie Folchart's (Eliza Bennett) father read to her great stories, and in the process learnt the sinister side to this gift, what comes out of "the book", something, someone, must go in, here, it is Resa (Sienna Guillory), wife and mother to both Mo and Meggie who is sacrificed. This is the quest to find the long lost book and to re-read its pages in order to undo the wrongs.While at heart a concept that seems an adventure to behold, figures' from the literary world, such as J. M. Barrie's ticking crocodile, L. Frank Baum's flying monkeys from The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. We see too, the Minotaur, the Unicorn are all but fleeting, and a love interest that involves one of the Forty Thieves from Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves, the whole shebang seems great on paper but when transcended onto celluloid it then become too lacklustre, too tame.With an involving English cast as Andy Serkis, Jim Broadbent and Helen Mirren to project a fine taste to the proceedings, one cannot feel a little let down by the lack of quality toward its direction. There seems to be that little "something" missing, and that little "something" seems obvious as the film carries on: excitement. Of course, there are the wonderful CGI effects and the superb acting of Messer's Serkis and Broadbent and the charm of Dame Mirren. We also see a held back performance of Brendan Fraser, all extrovert and keen, it is his overall inability to pull himself up to the standards of his co-stars that seem to make him just another clichéd hero performer. A one level performance that is out shone by his comrades. He tries his best.What Inkheart does do is an amount of good to promote Books, reading and the enjoyment of imagination of the written word and the worlds that can be travelled and enthralled contained in books. It is all apparent and nice to see, but at the same time, the thrill of books here is simply blowing into the wind when its counterpart, film, is overstretched to its limits and even heroes and thieves cannot bring this to a level of intrigue. The main problem here is that this film is simply too long for what we see, it is at one level, visually nice and in concept fun and vaguely interesting, but it just does not bite.Children will love the themes, the fun of Dame Mirren, the niceness of Jim Broadbent and the callousness of Mr. Serkis and his amusing henchmen, the fantastic creatures' from the imaginations of the greatest stories ever written, but adults may find it a little long in the tooth, maybe. A charming film that holds up to the courage of its convictions, that through Books, reading and writing, a world of fun and excitement may be discovered. Maybe too, the Cornelia Funke novel may provide the missing link between the celluloid and the written word, which is it to be? Cinema or bookshop? Or perhaps both? I don't see why not.