City of Ember

Had some trouble deciding my rating on this one. There is much about it to like, for sure, but there are also some flaws that cant be overlooked. It has great setting and atmosphere, an intriguing plot and charm to boot. Such things scores a lot with me. The directing is at times questionable though, there is little sense of pacing and there are some parts that feel tacked on (the crazy flumride anybody)just because its supposed to be a summerfranchie. The cute little girl is completely superfluous, and Bill Murray and Treadaway's Doon doesn't make enough with their characters (or isn't allowed too). One thing is clear. Its strenghs of this film mostly resides within the source material(witch i haven't read though). Its really nice for a change to see a fantasy film without a lot of monsters, the enemies here are brain-stagnation, greed and selfishness. Some parts had me snickering. The parts where they are handed there jobs through lottery (a jab at communism?)and the old man with the pipes. THe story is actually pretty good, not original, but tightly woven and deceivingly fresh with a timely message. In short, the source-material had the brains, but the director lacked the guts (or maybe just the talent, or were assasinated by his studio) too go through with it.

Still, it beats the latest Narnia installment, and the latest Harry Potter too for that matter. Also, Ronan, the kid from Atonement, turns in a good performance.

.. 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!

If the only thing City of Ember does is show that Belfast can play host to high concept movies, then it was worthwhile, but no doubt, it was aiming for more than that. Perhaps to stand next to such fare as Harry Potter, or a Pixar flick.

Unfortunately, it falls short, but only just. This is without doubt, an exciting romp about two coming-of-age children who break out of the mold forced on them by the dying Ember, and in doing so, change everything. The acting is solid, the set design and music excellent. The concept, the builders of Ember leaving behind secret instructions to get back to the world, is genuinely engaging.

Unfortunately, they don't get to these instructions fast enough, and a lot of time is spent wandering around the, albeit, beautiful city. Often times there is a lack of a perceived threat. Despite being replete with a nefarious mayor and a mutated mole (like the massive moths, never explained), the story uses neither of these things enough, leaving some scenes to be propelled solely by the heroes following the by-the-numbers instructions left to them. Worst of all, the ending feels like a poor man's Goonies.

In the director's corner, he is guilty of some slow scenes, but what is almost unforgivable is the flat looks of the actors during intense CGI action. Somebody wasn't thinking ahead.

Nonetheless, a charming film that I hope made enough money to spawn treatment of the books sequels.