Distributed by "New Line Cinema"
Directed by Iain Softley
Based upon the book "Inkheart" by Cornelia Funke
I mentioned having a fond memory of this film in my first posting for today. I did since it was a film I enjoyed when I watched it upon my first sitting with it. This time I have to say that I was not as easily entertained with it and it was purely because I had read the book. The book has soiled my love of this film unfortunately. This would be a case of having a fond memory of something and having it stripped away because you are more mature or grown up than when you watched it the first time.
The reason that I had an issue with this film was because the aspects that were changed made almost little to not sense in regards to storytelling. They did not add and in many respects they made certain characters either weaker or appear meaner than they were in the original work. Funke spent a lot of time creating characters that had layers to them and this film seemed to strip that all away.
The character that I felt they really screwed up with this film was the character of Dustfinger (played by Paul Bettany):
In the book he felt like he had one singular purpose and you understood that was his motivating factor for his actions, but in the film it feels like his actions sometimes are just to be mean. They lack true motivation because scenes that allowed you access to that emotional side of her were stripped from the movie. These scenes could have easily been added to the film as well without taking away from any important element that they created, but alas they did not which made this character suffer greatly. He was not the same character, which was through no fault of the actor. This was just poor writing choices on the part of the writers of the film.
Another character that felt like it was greatly weakened by the writing of the film was the character of Mo, which was the primary character for much of the book. Mo was played by Brendan Fraser, whom you can see in the picture above. His character was a backbone of the book and here it felt like he was a weakling that had to rely on others instead of being a strong character that had previously went up against the evil Capricorn. This I do somewhat fault the actor for because I do not feel that he fit in with the other chosen cast. There was a "British" feel to this film and this was definitely felt with the stylistic choices of the film and the vast majority of casting decisions, but then it was like they threw a dart at a dart board on who the main casting choice for Mo should be and only went with prominent American male actors of the time. He did not fit well with the film and due to this the film suffered. I have enjoyed Brendan Fraser in other works, but this simply was not his best film work.
There was also an omitted story that I felt would have added much to making Capricorn into a much more evil character. I do not want to spoil too much for those that may want to read the book eventually, but it involves this character, Mortola:
The inclusion of her missing story would have greatly added a needed element to the entire overall plot to show has dastardly and evil Capricorn was. I feel like they took the best parts of the book and stripped them out and kept all of the worse elements, which is saying something because in my mind there were no bad elements to the actual book. The good elements, however, were changed in drastic ways, such as in the film "The Wizard of Oz" for some reason was used instead of other stories. "The Wizard of Oz" was, as far as I recall, never used in the book and definitely not in the ways that it is used here. These changes did not do the movie any favors, so I am not sure why these choices were made.
Overall, I have to say that I wish I had not went back and watched the film afterwards because I can now say that I will probably never watch this film again. The fond memory of this was erased for me because now I can see the flaws that were contained within it. This is fine though because sometimes we do develop our senses and our love of something may change as a result of growing. I feel that this is the case with this particular film, but I now have a deep appreciation for the book. This I did not have before, so I guess I just traded one for the other, which is fine by me. I like books more anyways ;-) hehe
WHO I WOULD RECOMMEND THIS FILM TO: Fantasy lovers, Book Lovers, People who have not read the book, and those that enjoy Brendan Fraser.
WHO I WOULD NOT RECOMMEND THIS FILM TO: People who have read the book, People who do not like overly "British" feeling films, and Fantasy Haters as this is purely fantasy through and through.
Here is the trailer for "Inkheart" if you want to see it:
My next post will be on Saturday and is a VIDEO contiuation of
I had the pleasure of seeing the movie "Inkheart" when it first came out on DVD, which I imagine for the original theatrical release date of 2008 was shortly after that. My uncle, John, had checked the film out from the local video store (Dave's Video I believe) and told me that I should see the film. I watched it that night. I was pleasantly surprised, as I remember it. This is what led me to finally decide to read the book because I thought it would be interesting to see finally what the main differences between the two were.
As I went to the library to see if they had it, since it was not a book I was keen on owning at that particular point, I was apprehensive. I know that a lot of books that are made into films simply do not translate correctly, for whatever reason. I was hoping that my love would not change for the movie. I discovered the library had all three of the books in the series (Inkspell and Inkdeath are sequel books). That is when I got a bit of a shock! The book was over 500 pages in length. I am not one that usually reads a book of that size. I am about 350 max on most of my reads. I, however, accepted the challenge to read it anyways.
This is the cover of the edition that I read:
I brought the book home and began reading it. It took me about 18 days to read this book. I started on September 1 and finished it on September 18th. Which shows that I am building up these blogs on purpose, so that I have some content for you all to read or watch. :) It took me that long to read not because it was a bad book, but because I just am a slow reader. As I got into this book I was finding myself drawn into this world that Funke created. She created a rather rich world. I have never been one to enjoy books with a heavy emphasis on fantasy, which is partially because I was not allowed to read books outside of specific types. This resulted in me not appreciating these fantastical elements as much as someone that has say read "The Hobbit" or "Lord of the Rings" series, which I never have. This being said I was still highly impressed with this book. The action drew me in and Funke sprinkled it throughout the massive volume to keep the reader wanting more. Just when I was starting to think it was getting a bit boring she would have another element be revealed or have another character have something happen to them to draw me back in.
There were several passages in this book where I literally said "Wow, I can picture exactly what Funke is talking about." I felt transported into the Inkheart book myself. The premise of the book is also a strong one, which goes back to the sentence I just said "transported into the Inkheart book". One of the main characters has the ability to read people in and out of books, which I am comfortable stating because this is discovered fairly early on in the book and also is mentioned in the book jacket synopsis. This premise was interesting, fresh, and allowed for great plot moments throughout.
My favorite character in this book was probably Dustfinger. He was a heavily flawed character, but one that had one simple desire. This made him easy to relate to and also allowed me to see clearly how every action was driven by that one desire. You never had to question why he was doing something because it was very obvious. I enjoyed this as almost a character analysis and how well a character can be written when given a purpose.
My least favorite character had to be one of the main characters, Mo. I understood that he was a big part of the driving force of the story, but he just seemed to be taking up precious story time from other characters that I liked more. I also could not see why he would need to be in subsequent books with the way that the story ends. It felt like much of his story was resolved.
WHO I WOULD RECOMMEND THIS BOOK TO: Fantasy book lovers, new fantasy readers, young adults, children, book lovers, book collectors, and those that simply want to have an enjoyable long read.
WHO I WOULD NOT RECOMMEND THIS BOOK TO: People who do not appreciate books (why are you even reading if this is you? #sorrynotsorry), people who do not like books with any truly dark characters or non-redeemable qualities to a character, and anyone that feels that fantasy is not a genre up their alley.
My next blog posting will be today and will be about:
While I was growing up I had heard of the film "Once Upon A Forest", but I had never had the opportunity to watch it. I saw it at the library recently, so I picked it up since I started this project. The film is one of those children environmental movies. It discusses how chemicals can hurt animals, but it is really also about the adventures of three small animal children that want to save a friend. The friend is this character in the film: (this all happens relatively early on in the film, so I am not spoiling anything major in the film)
The characters are being taught by a badger character (see below) that has went through a similar issue in his own past. He sends the children that are well on an adventure to find specific ingredients to help cure the hurt child.
The story is a little blase in many ways. It feels like it has been done better in other stories, like "Ferngully: The Last Rainforst" or "Secret of NIMH". I will say, however, that this is probably because I am an adult. The story is very much geared towards a child with no real redeeming qualities for an adult. There are some movies that are able to seamlessly incorporate jokes or aspects that are slight nods to the parent that is bringing the child to the movie, but this is not one of those types of movies. This is a child's movie pure and simple. I can appreciate it for a great children's movie though. I can see a mother sitting with her child on her lap and watching this film with them. It is perfect for that type of night, but it is not a good film for someone like me at this particular moment of my life.
The three characters are the following:
None of them really stuck with me above the others, so I cannot say that I have a favorite character in this particular film. This being said I also am not able to say that any of them is my least favorite character either. They all sort of meld together. Though the characters are given distinct personalities that are tropes, in my opinion, of children movies. The mouse is brave, the mole is the "geek", and the hedgehog is the "foodie" character. These are all character types that are better done in other films and there are no qualities that make these characteristics unique for this film. There are ways to make these characteristics work in new and interesting ways, but that does not occur in "Once Upon A Forest". They are just used to make a movie and not in interesting ways.
There was one moment in the film that I enjoyed though. There is a moment where the children come across what appears to be a funeral procession lead by the bird above. This moment is hilarious in many ways when you discover what was really happening. It also was a great moment that showed the strength of the characters in their limited way. If it was not for this particular moment the film would have had little to no redeemable qualities for me.
While it may have not had a lot of redeeming qualities to me I understand that this is the journey that I want to go on. I want to see things that I did not see as a child or do. This was one of them. I feel like I can mark off this film from my "Never Seen Films" list, especially in the era of my childhood. I am sure there will be others that I will not find a lot of redeemable qualities in, but will ultimately feel better for having watched them. I will not have that "did I miss something?" feeling looming over my head after I finish each of these films.
Are there films from the 90s that you would recommend watching for someone that has not seen a lot of films from their childhood? What are some of your favorites? I am very interested in seeing what is recommended and seeing what I may have seen that I am not even aware that I have.
WHO I WOULD RECOMMEND TO: Children, Parents, and people who like environmental issue movies.
WHO I WOULD NOT RECOMMEND TO: Adults without children and those not interested in environmental issue movies.
This is the blog of the person that got me to think about doing this blog, which was mentioned in one of the videos uploaded for this tag: http://collectorsuniverse.blogspot.com/
Music used with permission from freemusicarchive.org. All rights to the original music are Chris Zabriskie's and the song title is "Readers! Do You Read?"
You can find me on Goodreads at https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/59000535-cassandra-winters
NOTE: This video does briefly discuss issues related to childhood abuse, if this is a trigger please be advised. Otherwise enjoy!
Music used with permission from freemusicarchive.org. All rights to the original music are Chris Zabriskie's and the song title is "Readers! Do You Read?"
You can find me on goodreads at https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/59000535-cassandra-winters
