Adaptation unintentionally proves action doesn't speak louder than words

on January 22, 2009 at 10:00 PM, updated January 23, 2009 at 11:18 AM
Farid (Rafi Gavron), Mo (Brendan Fraser), Meggie (Eliza Hope Bennett), Dustfinger (Paul Bettany) and Elinor (Helen Mirren) hide out from the Black Jackets in 'Inkheart.'

Inkheart (PG) Warner Bros. (106 min.). Directed by Iain Softley. With Brendan Fraser, Helen Mirren. Now playing in New Jersey. TWO AND A HALF STARS

Books are alive.

Anyone who loves them knows that. They're full of people and laughter and sorrow. They sit you down and tell you stories. They take you by the hand and bring you on journeys.

But living things can also be dangerous.

"Inkheart" is about a family that realizes that. The father has a rare and magical power -- the ability to make the stories he reads literally come to life. But what happens if you read the wrong stories?

Well, maybe your wife disappears. Maybe some very nasty creatures appear -- and demand you keep reading.

That was the fable at the center of "Inkheart," a best-selling fantasy from Cornelia Funke that's spawned two sequels and an army of dedicated young fans -- including two I took to a screening.

Their considered opinion of this big-screen adaptation was -- pretty good.

That's high praise from such loyal readers. (The 10-year-old one is still grumbling about all the changes Hollywood made to his beloved "Eragon.") This time, they said, the movie-makers got it nearly right.

Of course, making things faithful isn't quite the same thing as making them work.

For example, it was almost inevitable that Brendan Fraser would be cast. Funke has even said that he was her role model when she was writing the book. It's the rare example of an actor playing a character he inspired.

Yet by now Fraser has done so many of these matinee adventures he's beginning to become a kiddie-movie cliche. A slightly edgier presence might have provided more life and surprise.

Similarly the movie's by-the-book dutifulness overstuffs things at times. As in the Harry Potter adaptations, there's a worry about taking liberties. No one wants to leave out a fan's favorite character or scene.

The result, though, is that sometimes the movie falters as it tries to fit everything in. The screen is occasionally crowded with people who are brought on (Helen Mirren's cranky family friend, say) and then given little to do.

Other aspects of the film are far more satisfying. Director Iain Softley -- who made the lush "The Wings of the Dove" a while back -- has an appreciative eye. Although there are the usual CGI fiends, that's real rural Italy the characters are running through, not some software simulacrum.

Even more charmingly, the movie -- like its inspiration -- reveres words, and wittily repurposes other fantasies from "The Arabian Nights" to "The Wizard of Oz." (When they unleash the flying monkeys, duck.) It shows that books are lively, living things.

Fragile, magical things too that aren't always neatly captured with a camera and a few lines of dialogue. That was good, my two young companions pronounced after the screening, "but the book was better." As, they've begun to realize in these circumstances, they usually are.

But that doesn't mean that the movie adaptations can't be fun. Or, in their own way, introduce a new audience to a fine and imaginative world waiting for them afterward -- trapped briefly between covers, waiting to project a private picture show upon demand.

Rating note: The film contains violence and some scary images.
