The Greatest Trick

Hey look, I’m writing a review! Of a film! On my own film review site! (Just in case it totally dies on me, the letter ‘G’ on my keyboard is behaving very erratically, so there might be some impromptu spelling mistakes that I fail to correct. I apologise in advance)

Miles (Paul Giamatti) and Jack (Thomas Haden Church) are middle-aged, washed up wine fanatics on a trip through California’s wine region, in the week leading up to Jack’s wedding. Miles, the divorced, introspective, failing-writer-turned-teacher, just wants to taste some good wine, play some golf and enjoy the week with his friend. Jack, the bit-part actor whose best years are behind him, is determined to have some fun (read: sex) before tying the knot - and embarks on some very ill-advised romantic entanglements that his friend has to then extricate him from. The film follows them through their week, as they spend time together and apart, and evokes charm, disbelief, humour and irritation at these characters in more or less equal measure.

Giamatti and Church do an excellent job, though it really is Giamatti’s film - thankfully, as he is the more sympathetic character to follow! In fact, it’s very difficult for me to comment on anything apart from the actual characters and their story - I don’t remember the technical / directorial aspects of the film so much, as I was caught up with being annoyed with both of them! I suppose that means the director (Alexander Payne, who also wrote the screenplay) did a good job of keeping me in the story.

And here I will digress and present the reader with a spiritual quandary that I found myself in at the end of the movie; I experienced the same thing while watching Last King of Scotland, just a few nights earlier, so maybe God’s on my case… Anyway - and here I will allude heavily to the endings of both films, so look away if you don’t want them spoiled - they both presented the viewer with characters who mess up in a major way, show little to no remorse for their dumb and dangerous actions, and yet the story offers them redemption, and they take it. In LKoS, Nick Garrigan (James McAvoy), who has most definitely sinned against Idi Amin (I’ll leave the details of that out for now), is rescued from his horrific torture by a fellow doctor who dies to give him time to leave the country; in Sideways Jack’s pre-marital infidelities are flagrant and ridiculous, and get him beaten up and forced into the first act of deception in his new marriage before it’s even started. Neither of these characters show any true remorse for what they have done, but are given a way out of their mess through the sacrifices offered to them by others. Now it’s totally clear when put that way, that they could stand in for the sinner before accepting Christ - he gave himself before we had any idea of our need for salvation. And yet, something in me is annoyed and unhappy about the fact that they are redeemed (not just offered redemption) when no repentance has taken place - and sadly there is nothing in the films that tells us that from this point on they are going to be changed characters. Is this harsh on my part? Am I being legalistic and pharisaical in my lack of grace for these characters? Or is fair and true to Christian belief to expect a change in behaviour / attitude before someone is fully saved?

Comments welcome (I think!)…

As a general rule of thumb, it’s unwise to remake a classic film. However, remaking a film that clearly had room for improvement can sometimes work. Steven Soderbergh’s remake of Oceans 11 was vastly superior to the original, the third version of The Bounty is my preferred version, and many critics who blast remakes overlook the fact that several films they refer to as classics – The Big Sleep for instance – are remakes. I am by no means justifying the many excruciatingly bad remakes that clog up multiplexes on an increasingly regular basis, but they can sometimes turn out to be a good idea.

In the case of Race to Witch Mountain, a loose remake of Disney’s 1975 Escape to Witch Mountain, both films are much of a muchness. It’s a not exactly brilliant remake of a not exactly brilliant original. That said I have fond childhood memories of the original even if the special effects do not hold up these days. Perhaps that was the reason Disney decided to give the movie a fresh lick of paint.

The plot concerns two alien children with strange powers, Sara (AnnaSophia Robb) and Seth (Alexander Ludwig), who get into the taxi of cynical Vegas cab driver Jack Bruno (Dwayne Johnson). In order to save our world, they need to get back to their crashed alien spacecraft which is hidden deep inside Witch Mountain, a top secret government facility run by men in black types led by Henry Burke (Ciaran Hinds). Along the way they are helped by astrophysicist Dr Alex Friedman (Carla Gugino), whose presentation of a genuine alien crash landing is amusingly met with scepticism at a UFO nerd’s convention. They are also hindered by the mob, Burke’s agents and a Terminator type alien bounty hunter that looks like the Anubis alien super soldiers from Stargate.

Director Andy Fickman keeps things ticking at a nice pace, and there are some genuine thrills, spills and spectacular special effects in the many chase scenes. The family friendly screenplay ensures things are exciting and dangerous but not too violent or scary, despite several opportunities for Dwayne Johnson to get into punch-ups, and the afore-mentioned alien bounty hunter sequences. The performances are all decent, and the kids aren’t annoying, despite the unwelcome inclusion of the inevitable canine helper.

As a trade-off with the original film, the visual effects and general pace in the remake are undeniably superior. However, the children also know they are aliens immediately in the new version, whereas part of the fun of the original was the mystery as to who these children really were. They had amnesia and couldn’t remember where they really came from, only that they had to get to witch mountain. What is also irritating about the new film are the constant visual references to Close Encounters of the Third Kind (witch mountain resembles the Devil’s Tower, there’s the obligatory, “it’s-a-UFO! Oh-no-its-really-a-lorry!” shot, and so on). They are annoying because they kept reminding me how staggeringly spectacular that film is in the cinema, and made me wish I was watching that instead.

That said, for family entertainment, one can do far worse. Like the original, it’s a decent, but not brilliant film.

Simon Dillon, April 2009.

Those who think the original version of The Blob (starring “Steven” McQueen with its hilarious title song “Beware of the Blob”) is a neglected classic are in for a treat with Monsters vs Aliens. It takes a love of 1950s sci-fi B-movie lore to fully appreciate its cast of colourful and bizarre characters. Each one is a nod to said 50s B-movies, including blue brainless blob B.O.B. (The Blob), a mad scientist fused with a cockroach appropriately called Dr Cockroach (The Fly), an aquatic reptilian monster called The Missing Link (The Creature from the Black Lagoon), a vast half dinosaur half insect called Insectosaurus (presumably a homage to monsters like Mothra in the Godzilla films) and finally Ginormica, a forty nine foot twelve inch woman (Attack of the Fifty Foot Woman). Incidentally her height is apparently thus because of copyright issues with fifty foot women.

Ginormica is the latest addition to a secret government facility where these monsters are housed by General WR Monger to hide them from the outside world. In her former life Ginormica was called Susan, until on her wedding day a meteor containing strange energy crashed next to her causing her to mutate into a giant at the altar. Understandably Susan is rather miffed at all this, and wants to return to her normal size so she can get back to her drippy, selfish fiancé Derek. She gets the chance to do so when the government call on her and the other monsters to repel an alien invasion by the amusingly egotistical four-eyed Gallaxhar.

Directors Rob Letterman and Conrad Vernon ensure the animation is almost up to Pixar standards, and the vocal cast – including Reese Witherspoon, Seth Rogan, Hugh Laurie, and Kiefer Sutherland – all contribute highly amusing performances. Stephen Colbert’s hilariously inept President Hathaway is also worthy of a special mention since he steals every scene he is in. From the hilarious first contact with the aliens (when the famous Close Encounters five tones don’t work, Hathaway launches into Harold Faltermeyer’s Axel F), to the Dr Strangelove inspired war room scene where the huge red button launching all nuclear warheads is directly next to an identical huge red button that makes him a cup of coffee, Colbert’s inspired lunacy ensures the adults are laughing as much as the children.

The flaw amid the fun – and its quite a serious one – is the plot. Although there are some suitably hilarious and deranged set pieces (particularly one involving a giant robot on the Golden Gate Bridge), the script is predictable and fails to grip the way a Pixar feature does. Its messages about discovering who you really are, doing things for yourself, female empowerment, friendship and so forth are not as poignantly explored as they could have been in more skilled (Pixar) hands.

That said, Monsters vs Aliens is still a fun and entertaining slice of nonsense for all the family, and well worth a look.

Simon Dillon, April 2009.

As someone who has absolutely no interest in football whatsoever, I was pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed The Damned United; the true (or true-ish) story of legendary football manager Brian Clough. It’s not really about football per se, but more a character study that doesn’t ignore Clough’s obsessive personality yet still generates sympathy for him in his long standing feud against Don Revie, the manager of Leeds.

Football matches are wisely kept offscreen most of the time, with director Tom Hooper instead opting to show Clough nervously awaiting the outcome. The 1970s atmosphere is richly conveyed through clichéd but effective means (sideburns, parker jackets etc), and Peter Morgan’s flashback structured screenplay goes some way to showing in an understated way how much football matters in Britain (though I remain unconvinced).

As Clough, Michael Sheen once again excels. After a terrific run of mimic performances (Tony Blair and David Frost are among those in his back catalogue), one wonders if he will ever succeed as well playing a fictional character. The supporting cast are also good – particularly Colm Meaney’s Revie, Jim Broadbent as Derby County Chairman Sam Longson and best of all the excellent Timothy Spall as Clough’s assistant manager Peter Taylor. The relationship between Clough and Taylor is the film’s main focus and an interesting study in how one person can need another to succeed (as Clough’s disastrous management attempt without Taylor to back him up ultimately proves).

Admittedly, this is a slight tale, and feels more like a two act than three act film. Another minus for some Christian audiences will be the swearing (the F word is given a thorough workout). That said, The Damned United does enough for the unconverted (or uninterested) to keep them watching. In fact, a complete ignorance of the facts is probably a bonus as it adds a degree of suspense to the story, although even I knew that Leeds had – and still have – a reputation for dirty tactics on the pitch. I have no idea how much of this is fabrication, but despite protests from Clough’s family who did not approve of the film (or David Peace’s book on which it was based), it does still have redemptive elements that paint Clough as an arrogant, flawed but brilliant man.

Simon Dillon, April 2009.

First, let me say the critics are wrong about this film. Knowing has been slated just about everywhere, with some calling it the worst film ever made when it’s actually a perfectly decent Twilight Zone-type slice of apocalyptic hokum.

The plot concerns a time capsule sealed in 1959 when some children buried their drawings of what they thought the future would look like. Fifty years later, the capsule is dug up and for various reasons one of the drawings ends up in the hands of recently widowed University lecturer John Koestler (Nicolas Cage) and his young son Caleb. Except it’s not a drawing but a series of numbers which predict – Bible Code style – every major catastrophe from the fifty years with perfect accuracy, and there are another three still to come.

John becomes increasingly obsessed with this numeric code, and tracks down the daughter of the girl who wrote the code in the first place, Diana Wayland (played by Rose Byrne, best known for her role in excellent TV series Damages). He tries to get some answers from her, but she is reluctant to give them. In the meantime, there is a subplot involving Caleb and Diana’s daughter Abby, who are being approached by mysterious and seemingly menacing strangers.

That’s about as much as I can say about the plot without spoiling it. However I must reiterate: do not believe the critics. Although Nicolas Cage’s performance is a little wooden at times and some of the special effects don’t fully convince, this is a surprisingly gripping picture that presses all the right Doomsday buttons and has the guts to follow the grim premise through to its logical conclusion. Yes, it’s hugely derivative of 1950s sci-fi movies like Where Worlds Collide, as well as other more recent silly films about numbers like The Number 23, but anyone who calls it the worst film ever made has obviously only ever seen brilliant films. Alex Proyas, who directed I, Robot and more interestingly Dark City (which had a similar premise to The Matrix, but preceded it) calls the shots, and does a decent job of generating suspense and scares.

However, the main reason I believe Knowing is a significant film is because I believe it is prophetic. By that, I don’t mean that it’s theologically accurate. There have been many misguided articles in the Christian press attacking the film on a number of theological levels, but this is a story, not a sermon. It’s a parable.

What do I mean by prophetic? That’s not the same as when a film reflects the times we live in, which of course countless films do. By prophetic, I mean they depict not so much events but images of things that are yet to come. Fight Club is a good recent example, with its hauntingly prophetic images of a falling skyscraper that anticipating 9/11. How is this possible? Well, it says in the Bible that God has appointed pastors, evangelists, prophets, teachers and apostles. But these offices exist outside the church as well as inside. Bill Gates for example is an apostle in the business world. Steven Spielberg is a prophet to the media, and so on. And we are made in the image of God, which means through art, business or whatever field we are in, we will reflect his glory and truth to some degree whether we want to or not, albeit sometimes in a peculiarly distorted way.

SPOILER WARNING: From this point, I am going to discuss in detail the ending of the film, so do not read on unless you want it spoilt for you.

The film concludes with the destruction of the entire world, caused by a massive solar flare. At the same time, the mysterious strangers that have been appearing to the children are actually angels or aliens (it’s never made clear which, although there are suggestions that they are the angels Ezekiel describes in Ezekiel chapter 1). They offer the children a chance to escape and start again on a new world. The adults however are left behind to die.

This sounds harsh, and the no-adults policy of the aliens/angels is one of the reasons the film has been criticised by Christians attacking its theological veracity. However, as I am at pains to point out, this is a parable, not a sermon. The fact that it is only children who are allowed to escape is deliberately provocative for a number of reasons. First, Jesus spoke of how we need to enter the Kingdom of God like a little child. Second, because throughout scripture the people of Israel or the Church are never once referred to as God’s adults. We are all God’s children. The rapture-esque idea of angels taking children away to what is effectively a new Heavens and a new Earth has obvious scriptural overtones, regardless of one’s eschatology, but the children still have to choose to go, just as well all have to choose to accept Christ or not.

It is also interesting to see the anguish of those “left behind”. In contrast to the children, who do not seem to view the impending destruction with any fear (despite obviously being horrified at what the aliens/angels show them is coming), the adults go completely crazy in the final moments, particularly Diana whose fear-dictated actions lead to her demise. This reminded me of the scriptures that indicate how Christians in the last days will be at peace, anticipating their redemption, whereas those in the world will have their hearts fail them for fear.

However, in spite of this, the film carefully closes with a moment of family reunion and forgiveness. John has not spoken to his pastor father in years for reasons that are never made entirely clear, but he does so seconds before annihilation. This, and the way the angels/aliens inform Abby that her now dead mother is “safe” is perhaps a way of alluding to the salvation of those that come to faith after the rapture but are martyred, as described in Revelation chapter 7. Furthermore, the imagery of fiery destruction caused by the sun does remind one of Revelation chapter 16, during the final phase of God’s wrath when the sun is given power to scorch the Earth dwellers.

Of course, there is a counter argument that can be made; that Knowing ignores completely the concept of a loving God. The angels/aliens make no attempt to save the world, and scenes depicting fiery death (particularly in a plane crash), nightmarish visions given to the children by the aliens/angels and general scariness could give some Christians pause. However, to my mind this counter argument is mistaken. I don’t think Knowing completely ignores the idea that God loves us, but it does major on the fact that eventually he will have to judge the world because he is just.

Again there is nothing theologically accurate about Knowing, but because the film contains these apocalyptic concepts, it becomes an ideal film for the non-churched as a springboard for discussion. That’s assuming of course that Christians are prepared to do so, for those pesky, apocalyptic bits of the Bible are often brushed under the carpet by Christians who are perhaps embarrassed by them. But as someone who believes the Bible – including the book of Revelation – says what it means and means what it says, I have personally found the non-churched are often most interested in these sections, and watching a film like Knowing is a great way to open up discussions about them, ultimately pointing the way to salvation through Jesus Christ. If Knowing can be used in such a way, then it is the ideal prophetic film.

Simon Dillon, March 2009.

Director Tony Gilroy is perhaps best known for his Oscar nominated Michael Clayton. Not a bad little film and one that featured excellent performances from George Clooney and Tom Wilkinson. For his next film Duplicity, Gilroy is on altogether lighter territory, albeit still within the world of corporate skulduggery.

The tone here is similar to Oceans 11 or Charade, although not as good as either of the aforementioned caper classics. Clive Owen and Julia Roberts play corporate spies Ray and Claire who share a steamy past. They decide to pull off an elaborate multi-million dollar con on their respective employers, but can they trust each other?

Clive Owen is good, and Julia Roberts isn’t bad either (though not up to the standard of her more interesting Erin Brockovitch type roles). The excellent Tom Wilkinson and Paul Giamatti offer good support as Claire and Ray’s feuding bosses and there are a host of interesting bit parts from the likes of David Shumbris, Oleg Shtefanko, Kathleen Chalfant and Wayne Duvall.

The screenplay feels a little forced in the first half, but it picks up a good head of steam in the second, leading to an entertaining, moderately exciting climax. There are countless betrayals, twists and turns, each of which are progressively more implausible but that’s part of the fun. However, I did have some issues with the way it was directed. The split screen technique seemed rather forced, and on a more trivial note I really don’t need four separate shots of Nelsons Column, Big Ben, Tower Bridge, a red bus and an onscreen subtitle to tell me the location we’re seeing is London.

There are also some sexual references which may irritate some Christians, but nothing too severe. In short, this is fluff, but entertaining fluff.

Simon Dillon, March 2009

Kate Winslet once appeared in Ricky Gervais’ satirical TV series Extras playing a cynical, opportunistic version of herself. In it, she had deliberately taken a role in a Holocaust drama because she thought it automatically meant an Oscar win. Therefore it is not without irony that she has just won an Oscar for a role in a Holocaust drama, The Reader. Said role is good, but frankly far from Winslet at her best, and although hers is the kind of epic, showy performance Oscar voters love, I was massively disappointed that Angelina Jolie didn’t win instead for her extraordinary and vastly superior turn in Changeling.

With Winslet’s hilarious role in Extras forever lodged in my mind, I found it impossible to approach The Reader without a degree of cynicism. Based on Bernhard Schlink’s novel, the plot concerns an affair between 15-year old German schoolboy Michael Berg and tram ticket collector Hannah, in 1958 Berlin. This brief, summer romance so traumatises the impressionable Michael that it has profound effects on the rest of his life; effects that take a dark turn when it is later revealed that Hannah was an SS guard in Nazi death camps and is placed on trial for war crimes.

My father once described the first act of the otherwise rather good 1986 thriller No Way Out as “one long fornication” and that also more or less sums up the initial scenes in The Reader. However, once the all too familiar (and arguably pornographic) youthful rites of passage are dispensed with, there are some intermittently powerful sequences – Michael’s visit to the death camps, the reason why Hannah loves to be read to, and a brilliant penultimate scene featuring a Holocaust survivor in Michael’s older years that made far more of an impression that anything Kate Winslet was responsible for.

Director Stephen Daldry, who made the excellent Billy Elliot, directs with quiet, sombre restraint which suits the subject matter. However it’s a shame that as a film The Reader is such an infuriately mixed bag. Obviously it is very serious, but David Hare’s screenplay doesn’t generate a sufficient head of dramatic tension, and feels overlong. Whether that’s the result of being too faithful to the book or departing from it I can’t say, as I haven’t read it, but this is nowhere near the same league as – say – The Pianist, Schindler’s List, Life is Beautiful or even last years immensely powerful if improbable The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas.

Thankfully, the actors go a long way to make up for such shortcomings. David Kross is particularly good as the vulnerable young Michael. Repressed, guilt-ridden and scarred by his infatuation with Hannah, he then cannot interact properly with girls his own age, and subsequently fails at marriage later in life. As the older version of Michael, the always brilliant Ralph Fiennes contributes another superb performance. And to be fair to Kate Winslet, she does do very well in the difficult role of Hannah. I just don’t think she should have won an Oscar for it.

Still, there can never be too many films about the Holocaust. The Reader is a deeply flawed but nevertheless interesting study of guilt, obsession and repressed emotion. Some Christians will no doubt take it to task for excessive sex and nudity, but taken as a whole this is a bleak but moral tale, especially considering how Michael’s youthful passions ultimately destroy his entire life.

Simon Dillon, February 2009.

Families on the lookout for a half term cinematic diversion can do a lot worse than Bolt, the latest animated feature from Disney.

The eponymous Bolt has been raised to believe the action packed television programme he stars in is real, and that he really has superpowers. His teenage owner Penny is reluctantly complicit in this Truman Show-esque hoax, but every time she gets a twinge of conscience her agent persuades her (and her mother) that it’s for the best, since the programme makers are getting a level of De Niro-esque canine acting that has never been seen before.

However, when a series of unexpected circumstances leaves Bolt stranded in New York City, he is forced to face up to the truth as well as the big wide world. Determined to return west to Penny, he joins up with cynical feline Mittens, and a somewhat deranged hamster called Rhino, who is obsessed with Bolt’s TV series.

This is essentially The Incredible Journey with a post-modern hi-tech twist. But directors Byron Howard and Chris Williams pack the film with fun chases, big laughs (especially from Rhino who steals every scene he is in, and a kryptonite type gag involving styrofoam), and a few poignant moments. It’s as predictable as its worthy but familiar messages about friendship and believing in oneself, but still manages to give the audience what it wants in ways it doesn’t always expect.

The animation is almost as detailed and convincing as a Pixar film, though not as visually unique or stylish. Vocal talents from the likes of John Travolta, Miley Cyrus and Malcolm McDowell are put to good use, and though this isn’t destined for classic status, it’s a fun romp for all the family that will fill the gap nicely until Pixar’s next offering Up, due later this year.

Simon Dillon, February 2009.

“God promised Abraham he would not destroy Sodom if he could find just ten righteous people in it. I am afraid that for Germany, it may come down to one.” So says Kenneth Branagh’s Major General Henning von Tresckow in director Bryan Singer’s Valkyrie; a film that finally tells the true story one of World War II’s great unsung heroes Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg, and those like von Tresckow who conspired with him to assassinate Hitler in his bunker at the Wolf’s Lair.

As Stauffenberg, Tom Cruise is perhaps not the ideal choice, but I maintain that he is underrated as an actor, and nevertheless good in the role. He is ably supported by Branagh, Bill Nighy, Tom Wilkinson, Terence Stamp, Eddie Izzard, Tom Hollander, Thomas Kretschmann and David Bamber among others. Much has been made of their non-German accents, but I found the US and British voices generally did not detract from the story.

Singer’s film has been steeped in controversy and troubled production history. He was not allowed to shoot at various historic locations in Germany as the Germans have a particular dislike for Scientology (Tom Cruise’s religion of choice). This somewhat irrational reason for putting a spanner in the works (its not as though this film has anything to do with Scientology) meant Singer had to compromise. But that was not the end of his problems. Early test screenings were not good, and reshoots were ordered.

Typically such problems mean the finished result is garbage, but despite bad reviews, I am going to fight a rearguard action on this one. Although it has a slightly awkward first half hour, Valkyrie quickly improves once the conspiracy is underway. The audience may know the ending, but Nathan Alexander and Christopher McQuarrie’s screenplay builds up considerable suspense, and certain sequences really underscore how the coup could have gone either way. One sequence in particular, involving teletypists, shows how minor workers in the Reich held the balance of power in their hands, deciding which of the contradictory orders they were receiving to pass on. These contradictory orders had to be enacted by the officer in charge of the reservists (the brilliant Thomas Kretschmann, who deserves a special mention for his pivotal role).

On a moral, spiritual level, this is exemplary – a true story from history about bravery, conscience and when it is right to rebel against authority. One is reminded of when the apostles said they must obey God rather than man when the law of the land is immoral. Everything Stauffenberg does is for the good of Germany, because he knows the only way to truly serve its interests is to get rid of the Fuhrer. That he failed makes him no less heroic.

In final analysis, this is a flawed but tense thriller, well worth a look and certainly a lot better than critics have said.

Simon Dillon, February 2009.

Terry Gilliam once said of Time Bandits that he wanted a film that was intelligent enough for children and exciting enough for adults. I took my four year old son to see Inkheart, and whilst I found it a little talky and light on action, he was riveted. Now I understand what Gilliam meant. Inkheart is not good as Time Bandits, but it’s a good solid children’s fantasy film; exciting, unpatronising and properly scary. I wouldn’t recommend it for most four year olds (my son has Dillon DNA, so his ability to enjoy the frightening scenes is probably not typical for children his age), but older children and adults will find much to entertain them.

Based on a novel by Cornelia Funke which I’ve not read, Inkheart tells of Mo Folchart and his twelve year old daughter Meggie. Mo lost his wife in mysterious circumstances when Meggie was a baby, and has not told Meggie what happened. They spend their time travelling the world searching old bookshops for a rare book called Inkheart. The eponymous novel holds the key to finding Mo’s wife, and when they happen upon a copy in the first few minutes of the film, it is revealed that Mo is a Silvertongue – someone who can bring characters and events from stories into our world when they read aloud.

In the film at least, the Silvertongue concept is good, but not as well thought out as it could have been. The plot is also a little predictable and as mentioned previously, I would have liked more outrageous action sequences. That said, what action there is works well, including an exciting twister sequence that has been read out of The Wizard of Oz. Iain Softley is quite an underrated director, and he lends the film a modicum of style.

Cast wise, Brendan Fraser is appealing as Mo, though not quite as entertaining as he is in films like The Mummy. Eliza Bennett is better as Meggie, and there are a smattering of enjoyable eccentric supporting roles from the likes of Helen Mirren, Paul Bettany, Jim Broadbent and Andy Serkis.

It all builds to an enjoyable messy finale involving a huge Balrog type monster, where most of the plot threads are clumsily resolved. For all its faults, Inkheart is an entertaining and somewhat underrated film, destined no doubt to find a bigger audience on television.

Simon Dillon, December 2008.