For generations, the people of the City of Ember have flourished in an amazing world of glittering lights. But Ember's once powerful generator is failing and the great lamps that illuminate ... Read allFor generations, the people of the City of Ember have flourished in an amazing world of glittering lights. But Ember's once powerful generator is failing and the great lamps that illuminate the city are starting to flicker.For generations, the people of the City of Ember have flourished in an amazing world of glittering lights. But Ember's once powerful generator is failing and the great lamps that illuminate the city are starting to flicker.
- Awards
- 6 nominations total
Matt Ayleigh
- Joss
- (as Matt Jessup)
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
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!
6pfne
.. 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.
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.
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!
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!
Overall, this was an "okay" film; not bad, but nothing that memorable. I enjoyed the sets of the subterranean city and the teen kids were likable, but it took a little long before anything happened and when it did it was a little too far-fetched with poor special-effects. Nonetheless, the visuals and acting were fine and supporting performances by the always-goofy Bill Murray and Tim Robbins were somewhat entertaining.
The most intriguing actor, to me, was Saoirse Ronan, as "Lina Mayfleet." At first she minded me a bit of Peggy Ann Garner in "A Tree Grows In Brooklyn," but maybe two years older. Ronan has a plain but expressive and intelligent face, a la a very young Cate Blanchett. She looks like she's on her way to a good career.
Her counterpart, the male teen "Doon Harrow," was played nicely by Harry Treadaway.
Although it's a nice, safe family film, I think a lot of kids will be bored by the time anything happens, and adults will be so-so on it. I stuck around for the visuals, mainly, but was disappointed in how amateurish the action scenes in the last 20 minutes looked.
The most intriguing actor, to me, was Saoirse Ronan, as "Lina Mayfleet." At first she minded me a bit of Peggy Ann Garner in "A Tree Grows In Brooklyn," but maybe two years older. Ronan has a plain but expressive and intelligent face, a la a very young Cate Blanchett. She looks like she's on her way to a good career.
Her counterpart, the male teen "Doon Harrow," was played nicely by Harry Treadaway.
Although it's a nice, safe family film, I think a lot of kids will be bored by the time anything happens, and adults will be so-so on it. I stuck around for the visuals, mainly, but was disappointed in how amateurish the action scenes in the last 20 minutes looked.
This infamous box office failure is one of those films I never fancied and after finally giving it a chance I understand why.
With a fantastic cast including Bill Murray, Tim Robbins and Saoirse Ronan this family friendly adventure tale tells the story of an underground society governed my a selfish greedy Mayor who is hiding several truths from his people.
Bill Murray feels wasted, considering he's the movies antagonist he is barely present and when he is it feels like the role could have been given to anybody.
Ronan is great as always the same as Robbins, but a stellar cast couldn't save City Of Ember.
It's not that it's a bad film, it's just too far from being a good one. The story is played out poorly, it all looks kind of hokey and in my opinion it needed to be longer.
City Of Ember was a huge commerical bust and lost its studio a fair few pennies, I'm sure that the fans of the book were not happy either.
The Good:
Very impressive cast
The Bad:
Looks worse than it should
Murray is wasted
Things I Learnt From This Movie:
I want a giant moth
With a fantastic cast including Bill Murray, Tim Robbins and Saoirse Ronan this family friendly adventure tale tells the story of an underground society governed my a selfish greedy Mayor who is hiding several truths from his people.
Bill Murray feels wasted, considering he's the movies antagonist he is barely present and when he is it feels like the role could have been given to anybody.
Ronan is great as always the same as Robbins, but a stellar cast couldn't save City Of Ember.
It's not that it's a bad film, it's just too far from being a good one. The story is played out poorly, it all looks kind of hokey and in my opinion it needed to be longer.
City Of Ember was a huge commerical bust and lost its studio a fair few pennies, I'm sure that the fans of the book were not happy either.
The Good:
Very impressive cast
The Bad:
Looks worse than it should
Murray is wasted
Things I Learnt From This Movie:
I want a giant moth
Did you know
- TriviaThere were so many sets built for this movie that some of them wound up never being used. They do sometimes feature prominently in the background, like the hairdressers, but they play no part in the story.
- GoofsThe scene where Doon is watching the boat follow its track, the boat automatically launches into the water. Yet when the three get into the boat, the boat does not launch until Doon pulls a lever.
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Official site
- Language
- Also known as
- Ember: La ciudad perdida
- Filming locations
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- $55,000,000 (estimated)
- Gross US & Canada
- $7,873,007
- Opening weekend US & Canada
- $3,129,473
- Oct 12, 2008
- Gross worldwide
- $17,929,684
- Runtime
- 1h 30m(90 min)
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 2.35 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content