Lesley Smith

The screenplay follows a listless episodic structure, in which one barely connected segment follows another without cumulatively charging the overarching story.


Director: Iain Softley
Cast: Brendan Fraser, Paul Bettany, Eliza Hope Bennet, Helen Mirren, Andy Serkis, Jim Broadbent, Sienna Guillory
MPAA rating: PG
Studio: New Line Cinema
First date: 2008
UK Release Date: 2008-12-12 (General release)
US Release Date: 2009-01-23 (General release)

Based on Cornelia Flunke’s best-selling novel of the same name, Inkheart adds a dark twist to the process of bringing books "to life." Every story character conjured into this world condemns a human being to imprisonment in a book. This traffic between worlds is controlled by Silvertongues, bibliophiles whose reading aloud dissolves the barriers between fiction and reality.

Like many Silvertongues, Mo (Brendan Fraser) stumbled onto his powers by accident. He inadvertently unleashed the amoral Capricorn (Andy Serkis) and selfish Dustfinger (Paul Bettany) from the novel Inkheart when his daughter Maggie (Eliza Hope Bennet) was a baby, and lost his wife to the story: nine years later, he and Maggie travel through Europe searching for a copy of the novel that might bring her back.

Inkheart features high octane talent, from Dame Helen Mirren as Great-Aunt Elinor to Pulitzer Prize-winning writer David Lindsay-Ahaire. But the movie succumbs to every pitfall of play-it-safe kiddie entertainment: slack storytelling, anodyne direction, a clear division between good and evil, and emphasis on the cozy nuclear family with conventional girls' roles.

The screenplay follows the listless episodic structure of the Harry Potter films, in which one barely connected segment follows another without cumulatively charging the overarching story. Apart from Capricorn and Dustfinger, the central characters are sketched at best. Mo is a mild-mannered scholar with an untapped aptitude for gung-ho heroics, a sort of Indiana Jones Lite. More importantly, Maggie’s role is underwritten for the most of the film, and depressingly archaic at its conclusion.

She accomplishes little except spy around corners and hang out at keyholes, bug her father, and tell whoever will listen that she wants to be a writer. She follows her father as he dashes from one crisis to the next, shows little initiative when imprisoned by Capricorn, and accepts her role as his instrument of destruction. Only when she is finally separated from her father, Elinor, and Dustfinger, does she act with a smidgen of autonomy and achieve her aim of writing a new world into being. However, the scriptwriter soon kills that creative aspiration, by letting all girls watching know that even if saving the world by the power of your imagination is good, finding a boy you like, even if he is an illiterate thief ejected from a fairy story, is even better.

The villains fare no better. Lively at first, both Elinor and Dustfinger succumb to altruism and self-sacrifice with very little struggle. Elinor, captured by Capricorn and swiftly rescued, declares she will never leave her books again. She repents of her selfishness, and returns to help Mo and Maggie defeat Capricorn. Fight scenes echo the excesses of John Boorman’s Excalibur, reminding viewers of just how exciting an actor Mirren can be, and how little Inkheart makes of her prodigious talents.

Much of the blame must go to director Iain Softley. His sole recipe for excitement seems to be larger, louder, and longer (especially the interminable denouement). He lets Fraser recycle the bland persona he's brought to the three Mummy movies and abandons Bennet to meander through her scenes. On the other hand, Bettany shows yet again that he’s incapable of a dull performance, turning Dustfinger’s weakness into raffish charm with a shrug or half-smile, while Serkis clearly relishes every moment on camera. Still, the film is uncomfortably unbalanced, with the most compelling scenes are those focused on the supporting characters.

Inkheart closes in a flurry of loose ends carelessly knotted, without any of the novel's suggestion that, once set in motion, events are not always amenable to human desires or actions, or that crossing between fiction and reality brings psychological as well as physical risks. In its conventionality, this movie resembles those '50s Saturday morning matinees that played in provincial movie theatres: moral lessons only slightly less threatening than the sermons that followed the next day, and perhaps just as dangerous.


So far J. J. Abrams and Rian Johnson resemble children at play, remaking the films they fell in love with. As an audience, however, we desire a fuller experience.

As recently as the lackluster episodes I-III of the Star Wars saga, the embossed gold logo followed by scrolling prologue text was cause for excitement. In the approach to the release of any of the then new prequel installments, the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare, followed by the Lucas Film logo, teased one's impulsive excitement at a glimpse into the next installment's narrative. Then sat in the movie theatre on the anticipated day of release, the sight and sound of the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare signalled the end of fevered anticipation. Whatever happened to those times? For some of us, is it a product of youth in which age now denies us the ability to lose ourselves within such adolescent pleasure? There's no answer to this question -- only the realisation that this sensation is missing and it has been since the summer of 2005. Star Wars is now a movie to tick off your to-watch list, no longer a spark in the dreary reality of the everyday. The magic has disappeared… Star Wars is spiritually dead.

Keep reading... Show less

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.