Inkheart
BY Ryan LaMarca / 2009-08-17
Fantasy comes to life in the movie adaptation of "Inkheart," based on the book by Cornelia Funke. However, for a movie marketed as something so magical, the imagination in "Inkheart" is almost nonexistent. It is a long-winded and long-drawn fairy tale with no scope or range whatsoever. Leaving the viewer bored more than anything else, "Inkheart" severely misfires in its attempts to become the next big fantasy franchise.
Mortimer "Mo" Folchart (Brendan Fraser) and his daughter Meggie (Eliza Bennett) are searching Europe for a rare book titled "Inkheart," a book that holds a very special connection to the family. After nine years of looking, Mo finally comes across a copy in an outdoor market when Meggie is approached by a strange man by the name of Dustfinger (Paul Bettany). But the strange thing about Dustfinger is that he hails from within the pages of "Inkheart" and was brought into the real world by Mo twelve years earlier. This is possible because Mo is a "Silver Tongue," a person capable of bringing literature to life through reading aloud.
On the night that Dustfinger came alive out of the pages of "Inkheart," a band of villains led by Capricorn (Andy Serkis) were also let out while Mo's wife Resa (Sienna Guillory) was sent back in. Ever since that night, Mo has been looking for a copy of the book in an attempt to rescue his wife and restore the villains to the page.
Largely, the most glaring obstacle for "Inkheart" to overcome is its storyline. Not the most interesting of plots, the story of "Inkheart" doesn't nearly provide as much magic or fantasy to get things fired up. Instead, only a handful of relevant scenes are employed to actually further the movie. The rest of the film remains bogged down in nonsense dealing with the stragglers sent out of the pages of the book.
As for that, the characters from the fictitious book "Inkheart" are incredibly bland and clichéd. Looking more like leftover background characters from better fantasy films, they bear no distinct personalities. Most, in fact, are lackeys working for one central villain, a character so nondescript, he could easily be confused with any one of his henchmen. The book's hero, if you could even call him that, is equally dull and dreadful. He is barely heroic and is only interested in returning to the confines of the pages of "Inkheart," the only one of his kind who actually cares to do so.
According to author Cornelia Funke, Brendan Fraser was the inspiration for the book's protagonist, Mo Folchart. With that in mind, who better to play the character than Mr. Fraser himself? With so many fantasy films under his belt so far, Mr. Fraser is never a hindrance to "Inkheart," but the script makes him invariably weak and mostly useless, as it does to everyone but the young child, Meggie. More useless characters are thrown into the story all too often for no apparent reason, including Helen Mirren as the snooty old aunt of Mo and Jim Broadbent as the author of the "Inkheart" book. His appearance especially is unwarranted and quite ridiculous as he just happened to be living in the nearby area where the story was taking place.
While the idea of the ability to make books come to life by simply reading them is a curious and intriguing notion, the manifestation of the powers is inconsistent at best. How does one become a "Silver Tongue" as they are called? Obviously, a person is born with the power, so it appears to be hereditary. But would that mean all of the readers are related? And how is it that some family members have the power and others don't? And while it is easy for one to be removed from a book by having a "Silver Tongue" read a passage, how exactly does one re-enter the book other than the hasty way the film explains in its brief conclusion? And what happens to the story in the book when characters and objects are removed? These kinds of questions came about because the story simply failed to capture my interest, leaving my mind to wander.
Moreover, in the movie, it is nearly impossible for the characters to track down a copy of the precious "Inkheart" book. Since the film appears to be set in modern times, what exactly is the problem? Instead of traveling around Europe for nine years going to antique book shops, couldn't they have tried looking on eBay or Amazon.com first?
And finally, "Inkheart" is crippled by clichés and platitudes, and its ending is a complete cop-out. Without spoiling it for those still eager to see the film, it is the most absurd deus ex machina ending, suffices to say, where the power of the "Silver Tongue" is put to good use. This further cements the inconsistencies within the physics of how this power works. I guess we can just chalk it up to good old fashioned magic and never mind it. Had the movie taken time to delineate the inner workings of the mythology, it would have greatly benefited its ending.
The concept of "Inkheart" does not suit the screen well at all. Its entire premise is based on the idea of books coming to life. Therefore, much time is devoted to reading and watching the actors read aloud. Watching people read books on camera and seeing only bits and pieces come to life does not necessarily make for great entertainment value. And while its premise is much too hokey for its own good, the special effects lack imagination and much of its cast is largely unnecessary. "Inkheart" is most assuredly a story that was not equipped for a big screen treatment.
Post Your Comment
Avatar
Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel