City of Ember

.. but nor is it a great film.

It's an adaptation of a book and for what it is it's entertaining.

Ember is an underground city and 2.kids try to find their way out of the city. That's pretty.mich the whole plot.

It's well acted by the younger cast and it rattles.along in short order at 90moniutes.

I'm glad.i watched it, I'll not ever watch it again though.

I've read quite a few negative reviews but i think some of the people who have read the book need to realise this was a children's film that would no doubt have to be simplified and draw people in from the start. It hasn't had an easy launch either because it's been competing with High School Musical 3, when i went to see it the cinema was empty apart from me because everyone else had gone to see a certain other film.

It wasn't great and i am certain that if i had read the book i would have hated it because the characters were not brilliantly written and it was a messy mix of excellent fantasy sci-fi with the appropriate special effects and corny American generic children's movie. But it was good fun.

The girl in it displayed a superb acting performance the general set and costumes and well mise-en-scene in general was excellent and well worth watching just for that.

It was good to watch in the cinema and throughly enjoyable if a bit predictable. As i say, generally i liked it.

Having just taken 129 eighth-graders who read the book to see the premiere, everyone left the theater disappointed with what director Kil Kenan and screenwriter Caroline Thompson have given us with this translation from the page to the screen. Thompson, an accomplished screenwriter, deserves more of the blame in their (and my) opinion.

Books rarely translate better to film and this one suffers for many reasons. Jeanne DuPrau's book is an amazing trove of metaphors (candles, the library, the seed, the Pipeworks, and the city itself). When works of literature work on multiple levels, the filmmakers should at least offer us more than one. In fact, this book could be a metaphor for metaphors -- there are things below the surface that exist whether we acknowledge them or not; it is our job to find the tools to excavate the "deeper" level of what exists for others only on the surface.

Having sacrificed the novel's intellectual depth, the film version does a great disservice to the dedicated reader: we are given special effects that defy logic and re-focus the story unnaturally and unnecessarily; there are included scenes of hyped-up action they are neither satisfying nor helpful with advancing the plot; we lose some of the intricate details of character development; there's an unnecessary inclusion of giant scary creatures that offer distracting (and bizarre) thrills; and the mystery of what Ember is is destroyed in the first minute of narration.

The design of the film is great, but as in design, the beauty is found in the details. I believe that the greatest details of the book are missing, hidden away like the people of Ember. Let them come into the light!

"City of Ember", director Gil Kenan's follow up to his horror-lite for preteens "Monster House", is a fun ride that's well worth the admission price if only for the superb production design and the likable leads.

Lina Mayfleet (Saoirse Ronan) and Doon Harrow (Harry Treadaway) are two of the inhabitants of the City of Ember - an underground city designed to house humans for two centuries as an unspecified disaster takes place on the surface. But as the 200 years have passed, the generator that powers the city gradually falters, causing more frequent blackouts and scarce provisions.

When no one would listen to them, especially the city mayor - Mayor Cole (the effective yet underused Bill Murray) - it then becomes up to Lina and Doon to find the exit that leads to the surface, which is infinitely easier in theory than in practice, considering the plethora of puzzles and riddles they would have to solve.

Without having read the film's source material - Jeanne Duprau's novel - there's no way I can say if the script holds up to the narrative of its literary counterpart, but here's where the film mainly falters. The film feels like a rushed end product crammed to fit within the confines of a typical family flick. Exposition is kept in the sidelines and character development seems more of a ploy to advance the plot than genuine attempts in sculpting something more than cardboard-cut supporting characters.

But despite the narrative faults, Kenan imbues such a magical quality to the dank environment. And for a film lacking impressive turns from its more mature and established actors (including Tim Robbins as Doon's father), upcoming stars Ronan and Treadaway's animated performances save the day, right from a sweeping introduction of the claustrophobic city to a touching finale that finally affirms the characters' quest for light amidst the darkness.

Let me point out right away that this is a very good movie. Interesting topic, good acting, visually very well done, very realistic ambience, good sound and an interesting story. The film is not the best, but it is definitely for recommend. Considering the lack of good movies nowadays (most of them are polluted by the woke and diversity trend), so this movie is good to recommend and even to watch a second time. This is certainly one of those movies that you watch and stay in your memory, in fact I'm a little surprised with such a low rating for this movie, in my opinion this is a strong seven, almost eight star movie!