Don't you hate it when movie trailers make the film look so much more interesting then it actually is? Isn't it even worse when what is promised in the trailer is, in fact, not even what the film is about?
Take "Inkheart" for example. In rewatching the trailer and listening to the "movie guy's" lines, he says of the film: "What if you had the power to bring a book to life simply by reading it aloud? But what if one book you brought to life took you to another world? Now to get back home they must escape from the book."
Um, actually... they didn't have to escape anything. Just a bunch of bad guys that came from a book.
After sitting through this movie I found that, while I enjoyed myself thoroughly, not only was I witness to a very different story than I had anticipated having not read the book, but there were some serious writing flaws that I certainly hope were not the fault of the original author.
"Inkheart" is indeed about a man named Mo (Brendan Fraser) who has a special power when it comes to reading books aloud. But it's not "bringing books to life" per se. He actually transports characters from the book's world into ours in return for a person in our world. Well... maybe not just characters... inanimate objects, animals and weather as well. And the person in our world that gets transported into their world has to be in the presence of Mo at the time of reading it... but not really, considering how many nameless lackeys get swept off to Dorothy's Kansas or the deserts of "Arabian Nights"... and it's not even necessarily people that need to be traded from world to world... it could be a bird instead maybe... and Mo apparently can bring people back to the book's world all along by reading from the book anyway... which kind of makes Paul Bettany's character kind of redundant.....
You see what I mean? In theory, it all makes sense. There are just so many holes when it comes to the rules of this world that it was very difficult to follow, let alone remain interested in these characters' fates. This film also suffers from an identity crisis: who's bloody story is it anyway? Is it Mo's, who's desperately trying to bring his lost wife back from the world of Inkheart? Is it young Eliza's, who's trying to find her mother and fill in the blanks of her past? Is it Dustfinger's, who's trying to find his way back to his own world while battling his cowardly nature? We get to experience each story, but none of them are ever fully realized to allow for complete emotional connection.
That all being said, there were some fantastic performances in "Inkheart" that almost helped you forget about trying to keep track of the rules. Helen Mirren plays a deliciously stuffy and eccentric great Aunt to Eliza, who is skillfully played by newcomer Eliza Bennett (someone who, if she could perfect an American accent, could have played Bella in "Twilight" with much more insight and interest than Kristen Stewart). Andy Serkis gleefully plays Capricorn, a villain from the world of Inkheart who desires to reign supreme in ours. His sarcastic British wit lends itself perfectly for this role, although sometimes tended to be a bit repetitive. The hero of the film is definitely Paul Bettany as Dustfinger, who is able to play every nuance of a character as tortured, indecisive and humourous as this one.
And Brendan Fraser? Well as far as I'm concerned he can battle mummies for the rest of his career and I'd be happy.
