City of Ember (2008) User Reviews (155)

City of Ember

[ActOne · 6/10 · 10 October 2008]

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!

Decent Film With Good Characters & Sets, But A Little Too-Little, Too-Late

[ccthemovieman-1 · 7/10 · 3 February 2009]

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.

Decent movie, lacking some story, lacking some direction.

[steviekane · 6/10 · 9 November 2008]

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.

Flawed... but with enough of its own to separate it from the flock

[regnarghost · 7/10 · 25 February 2009]

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.

A solid family film.

[Otoboke · 12 October 2008]

When moving from book to motion picture, there are a myriad of problems associated with such a task, one of which comes from those die hard fans of the original story. Fortunately for myself I have never taken it upon myself to read the source material on which this movie is based upon, nor had I even heard of it until now. As a result I found City of Ember to be a gratifying and sensually enticing experience with brilliant performances, an endlessly captivating story and pace, and a great mix of fantastical environments and characters which pave way for subtext that is grounded in simple allegory of our own, current world. To be sure, there are moments when the film dabbles in and out of tired clichés, most of which we have seen countless times this year alone in other children's adventures; yet what distinguishes this from, say, The Chronicles of Narnia or The Spiderwick Chronicles is through its mature themes and presentation that keeps the older viewer in mind. In this respect, City of Ember is a solid family film that most audiences should enjoy regardless of age, gender or anything else; good entertainment, and a wonderful story to remember at that.

Taking place almost exclusively within the confines of Ember, Gil Kenan here presents us with a vision of a dystopian future, where mankind has been forced to live underground in order to survive. Set many years on from this event however, much of the inhabitants of Ember are unaware of their origin and all the more scared of it as a result. However, in a time of desperation, two citizens Doon Harrow (Harry Treadaway) and Lina Mayfleet (Saoirse Ronan) go on their own quest to try and find an exit from the underground city, which doesn't go down well with gluttonous Mayor Cole (Bill Murray) who just wants his next meal in peace.

What follows from here is a story that isn't entirely unfamiliar (in fact, it's dangerously close to this year's WALL-E), and yet director Gil Kenan manages to take the script and turn it into his own compelling take on a tried and trusted concept. From the arresting opening monologue to the somewhat anti-climatic ending, there is barely a spot here that feels out of place or contrived for the sake of playing to the camera. The pacing, particularly during the middle act, could have been a little tighter, and you often get the sense that there's a lot of footage missing from this cinematic cut, yet as a whole, City of Ember does enough, and with the right amount of originality in tact, to cover up the rough edges. The ending, as I stated, is a little underwhelming and all too brief, but it at least feels coherent and natural to that which comes before it.

If there's one thing that Kenan manages to get across here however, it is the imagination and vision that is present in the script and story. Immediately, and most strikingly poignant during the opening sequence, the City of Ember itself is a sight to behold; from the countless lightbulbs that give the city its light to the murky tunnels that run underneath to provide water, the production values present are superb. Furthermore, the special effects work, although a little obvious during certain sequences involving humans, is noticeably strong; particularly when a giant mole-like creature appears. Not only does the creature look disgusting and completely frightening, but the director does well to stage the beast in such a way as to bring out its realistic characteristics; saying that I got flashbacks of Jurassic Park's raptors scene and a few from Aliens certainly wouldn't be a negative link to make.

Yet as good as the CGI actors are, thankfully the more traditional skin and bones performers aren't so bad themselves. As Hollywood unknowns (to an extent) Saoirse Ronan and Harry Treadaway give convincing performances in their lead positions and very rarely give attention to their ages. Sure enough, their roles aren't the most demanding of jobs, but despite their characters' underwritten nature both fulfil the requirements of leads nicely and with enough conviction to consistently carry the film forward. Of course, it's always good to have a familiar face around, and Bill Murray, playing the obnoxious and gluttonous slob Mayor Cole, is the one to provide such a role. Murray, although arguably underused as far as his talents go, does well to establish a character that nobody is necessarily going to warm to, and uses whatever screen time he has adequately to further the movie on and to back up his lead performers.

In the end however, all these elements simply come together to create one thing; an adventure. As just that, City of Ember is a very strong and convincing effort from director Gil Kenan who makes his live-action debut here. Sure enough there are countless rough edges present, and characters, although compelling in their quest, fail to resonate emotionally, but the overall adventure itself – that is, the tale – is one that will be sure to captivate imaginations and the attentions of many diverse audiences. With stunning visuals that complement the script's wonderful sense of imagination, fitting performances, and a very memorable, intelligent and socially relevant story, City of Ember is a fantastic slice of entertainment for all the family to enjoy.

• A review by Jamie Robert Ward (http://www.invocus.net)

Fading Ember

[dfranzen70 · 7/10 · 12 October 2008]

At first blush, City of Ember seems like it would be a thrilling sci-fi adventure, a page out of Jules Verne's playbook, but ultimately it fails to completely scale the dizzying heights of its creative premise. The movie does deliver some intrigue and some compelling performances (not to mention some mailed-in ones), but huge lapses in logic that might be detected even by the youngest audience member prevent it from being the heart-stopping classic it wants to be.

Some 200 years ago, life on Earth was dying, and in its waning moments great physicists, inventors, and architects designed and built a huge underground city powered by a gigantic generator. The Builders, though, possess some forethought and, assuming that someday the surface will again be inhabitable, they enclosed specific instructions for the citizens of Ember to eventually escape to the sunlight. This information was placed inside a metal box and alarmed with a 200-year timer; by the end of that time, the Builders reasoned, the surface would be habitable. This box was then handed off from mayor to mayor for nearly 200 years. But, as might be expected, the chain broke somewhere along the way, and at present the box sits in a closet, its owner unknowing of its raison d'etre. So here we are, 200 years down the road, and the lights in Ember flicker occasionally, sometimes more than occasionally, and it's apparent to a few that the generator's days are numbered.

Our story focuses on two children, Lina Mayfleet (Saoirse Ronan) and Doon Harrow (Harry Treadway). At the movie's outset, each has received his and her assigned job for life - Lina as a messenger (all verbal), and Doon working in the pipeworks, where he hopes to find a way to save the generator. During the course of their duties, as the blackouts increase, each learns about the mysterious silver box, and they team up to decipher the tattered remnants of the exit instructions. Naturally, they run into complications with Doon's father (Tim Robbins) and the current mayor (Bill Murray), and just as naturally they're eventually pursued by people who'd just as soon no one ever figured out how to leave the dark city.

For the most part, the casting is on target; Ronan seems a lot more engaging and appealing here than she did just last year in Atonement, and Treadway, although looking like a refugee from High School Musical, is just as impressive. Robbins is excellent in a small, but pivotal role, as is Martin Landau (whatever became of him?) as the requisite old-guy-who-sort-of-knows-stuff. The only puzzling casting is that of Murray as the town's jovial mayor; he seems glib and cheerful enough, but it almost feels like he's being ironic, rather than being a part of the story. Often, this sort of approach makes for a hammy performance, but Murray's too subtle here for pure hamminess; he's more like a square peg in a round hole.

The lapses in logic take some willful ignorance to, well, ignore. We see various businesses and transportation, but there's apparently no police, no cemeteries, no fresh fruit. Now, bear in mind that these people have been down there for two centuries. Sure, they have a lot of canned goods, but something tells me they'd be in poor health after a lifetime of poor eating habits. Then there's the fact that everyone seems clueless about the surface. I don't mean that they don't know what's on it; they don't even know there IS a surface. Attempting to leave the city is a jailable offense, okay, but these people don't even know there's something to escape to. And that makes no sense right there. They haven't been down there for 2000 years, just 200. That means approximately nine generations after the ones who first lived there, and in often there are three generations alive at any given time. So it's not tough to imagine the tales of the outside world being orally handed down from generation to generation, tales of Super Bowls, Shakespeare, Sex and the City, and Snoopy. But apparently the first generationers vowed never to speak of their upper lives again, or something.

City of Ember is pretty fascinating and not complex, meaning it'll grab you (and, more importantly, teens and younger) and not force you to figure things out in order to keep up with the plot. Yes, there are twists and turns, but there aren't huge lapses in logic, at least nothing to dissuade you from staying through to the end. The end, by the way, is satisfying, even beautifully rendered. This might be one time (of many) to read the book, too. Or instead.

Original and Engaging Adventure

[claudio_carvalho · 7/10 · 14 November 2009]

In the end of mankind on Earth, the scientists build a self-sufficient underground city for a few people to preserve the human race for two hundred years. They leave also instructions for the future generations to return the surface of the planet in a steel box that should be kept by the mayors through the generations. However, the instructions are lost and the inhabitants stay in the city that is completely deteriorated. The power generator has problems and the blackouts are longer and more frequent and the city is running out of food that needs to be rationed. On the Assignment Day, the teenagers Lina Mayfleet (Saoirse Ronan) and Doon Harrow (Harry Treadaway) are assigned to work with the pipework and as messenger, but they swap their job positions. Lina, who is the descendant of the seventh mayor, finds the box of instructions in the house of her grandmother and shows it to her friend Doon. They decide to explore the way out of the city and they discover that the corrupt major and his henchmen are stealing food of the population. When they are hunted by the major's hoodlums, they have to find the way out of Ember to survive and save the populations from the imminent darkness and end of the city.

"City of Ember" is an original and engaging adventure and it was a great surprise for me. The dark city is a sort of combination of the environment of "Brazil, the Movie" and "Metropolis". The cast has names like Martin Landau, Tim Robbins and a hilarious Bill Murray that performs the typical politician, corrupt, selfish and manipulative. Unfortunately the fate of politicians in real world is not the same of his character. However, the unknown Saoirse Ronan steals the movie with a great performance. It is irritating the repetitive type of review that tells the obvious ("the book was better and better"). My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Cidade das Sombras" ("City of the Shadows")

A Nutshell Review: City of Ember

[DICK STEEL · 6/10 · 26 November 2008]

This film is strictly for kids. Not pimply teenagers though, but children whose parents will take comfort in knowing that this film is thoroughly family friendly fare, with nary a swear word, tame action sequences, no embarrassing physical romance they got to cook up an explanation for, and an inspiring theme that has to do with hope and working hard to achieve one's goals.

Based on the book by Jeanne Duprau, one can find plenty of parallels with the setting of the story, where a group of inhabitants get to live in an artificial colony because of the sins of the fathers (well, the human predecessors who find that their rape and plunder of the Earth have finally taken its toil), and find themselves living underground in an aptly dark world, lit by plenty of light bulbs powered by an aging generator. Stories like these are staple in Japanese manga/anime, and the recent one that I've watched was Freedom, but that involved the moon. Or think The Matrix even, but for kids and minus the kung-fu inspired fight scenes.

So the story goes that Lina Mayfleet (Saoirse Ronan, the kid from Atonement) has in her family's possession, an important piece of instruction leading to the salvation and exit of everyone from the city of Ember, given that it's been hundreds of years already and the infrastructure is crumbling. But that is if she knows that she has that information in the first place, and what exactly to do with it. So it's up to her and best friend Doon Harrow (Hary Treadaway) to figure things out, unravel the conspiracy involving their mayor Cole (Bill Murray, who's seriously in some need to snap out of sleepwalking in this role), and of course, make their way toward the clear blue skies of the surface.

But in the meantime, you can't help but to feel a little short-changed with how the story develops, or there lackof. Here's a world that's artificially built both in the story, and as well as for the film, and little time is devoted to delving into a more detailed exploration of this strange new world where people live in an environment devoid of the sun. They grow their food in greenhouses, and have in their societal system, a structure of deciding what their career path for life will be from a young age. Modern technology like the cellphone is gone, and replacing it is the good old human messenger system relying on fleet of foot, and accuracy of transmission, all for 20 coins per message.

All you get however are just very wafer thin highlights of this strange world, complete with strange creatures or their body parts, that I suspect if not for a relatively modest budget we'll see more of. At times too you do feel that scenes don't really gel and flow seamlessly from point to point, most likely getting trimmed to achieve a relatively palatable run time of just over 90 minutes. And you can tell from the modest budget too that the special effects did suffer a little in having them presented in raw terms in a major sequence involving a boat gushing down a mighty cavern river.

While there's nothing much to shout about on the performances of the two leads, the film tried to up its star factor having minute supporting roles for Tim Robbins, as well as Martin Landau, an aged pipeworks technician, who will undoubtedly get the most laughs out of his penchant to strictly stick to his job, and nothing more or less. I suppose everyone can identify with this aspect in their own working life from time to time, except perhaps for the fact that his Sul takes pride in thoroughly doing a fine job if it's something under his scope.

City of Ember is a very straight forward film with few bells and whistles to complicate matters. Coming from Walden Media, it's an extremely safe film to bring the whole family to, and kids will undoubtedly get a kick out of this action-adventure aimed squarely at them in the name of wholesome entertainment, and it succeeds on this aspect.

well, I quite liked it

[mysteriouspersonage · 8/10 · 27 November 2008]

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.

Simple, slow and bland.. well that's the way some likes it for their cup of tea.

[wahdegreat · 6/10 · 16 March 2009]

A simple movie but nice to watch. Nice meaning not too bad and watchable if you can stand the bland storyline...

Again City of Ember is ANOTHER adaptation from a novel. sigh... Hollywood's well of originality has really run dry..

Anyway, if you are a fan of Hayao Miyazaki, you will notice certain similarities in its plot. Well, City of Ember is no anime if that's what you are asking and there's no giant flying cat or castle that can walk.

The similarity comes from its subtle environmental-message and also from the movie's setup. City of Ember's peculiar and weird 'arrangements' seems to fit very well like most of Hayao's works. Hence you don't feel the urge to ask why and how. The same that you don't question Nausicaa's way of life and you don't ask why there are wizards and witches in Howl's industrial-revo era setup. And you definitely don ask why a goldfish have a human face...

In a glance this movie is boring and slow... but its appeal comes from its simplicity. The city itself and its way of life.

I would recommend this movie to those who want an escape from all the "CG-slow-mo action and bullets that never seems to critically hit the hero" movies.

A nice and simple movie that you may wanna bring your kids to.

City of Ember: I can understand why it flopped

[Platypuschow · 4/10 · 20 February 2018]

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

Very good movie

[existenz-6 · 10/10 · 20 October 2008]

I wasn't expecting much from this film, but I ended up loving it quite a bit. It's a great kid's adventure, lots of mystery and action, good character development, and plenty of cool settings.

Bill Murray and Tim Robbins do a fine job in their roles, but they are mostly supporting cast. It's the two kids who are the real heart of the story. I also love how the filmmakers created an entirely plausible distant future where beauty still thrived despite crumbling infrastructure. Above all, this is a movie about hope for the future.

If you are looking for a good adventure similar to THE GOONIES, check this out. Great for kids, and great for folks of all ages who enjoy light adventure.

Good movie

[opticuscro · 7/10 · 28 September 2022]

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!

For a dystopian obsessed pre-teen

[kmontgomery-98515 · 3/10 · 4 February 2021]

A lot of money (~ $55 million) was spent building a city set inside of a warehouse in Ireland, so this movie was always going to have a shadow over it as it's rare for dystopian teen movies to ever make enough money to justify such high production costs. Even more of a gamble as this movie came out 4 years before Hunger Games established that real money could be made here. And as fun as the first book in this series is, it is a very niche coming of age story set in a post apocalyptic movie. In addition to the high production cost, the movie is too dark for a small child but too childish for adults or teenagers. The audience interested in this film is small and the cost was high, so it was never going to be "successful."

Saorise Ronan is great in one of her early roles but the tone feels off when compared to Bill Murray's performance. The comedy elements don't really match the dark dystopia. The childish over-explanation also don't match the dark dystopia.

I don't think the writers quite understood the draw of teenagers to dystopian fiction. College and life after high school is scary. And that jump from elementary school to high school is scary! The City of Ember offered a dystopia where someone is assigned a job and life is organized. It also fulfills that fantasy of uncovering the mystery and breaking that organization for something better. Playing the dark elements for laughs and not properly focusing on why a child would like the story is the reason I don't think this movie will ever be on anyone's nostalgia rewatch lists.

While I did like the book, I didn't like the sequels. Besides spending too much on sets and not enough on marketing, this series was never set up to be a Hunger Games or Twilight money maker as the book series isn't that great and the writers didn't add any additional elements to make the stoey better.

I only suggest this for a dystopian obsessed child. Or someone writing an article on how Saorise Ronan is a great actress.

Finally watched this movie - disappointed...

[chrisjames88 · 6/10 · 29 November 2011]

I was kind of excited about this movie because the concept seemed really interesting. Thanks to a N****x, I finally got a chance to watch it on DVD. My wife and I sat down and were really getting a little caught up in it from the start. Interesting story, impending time line set from the beginning (200 years), etc, etc.

Man, were we disappointed. This movie had so many unanswered questions, unimportant plot points, weird pacing, and 'just-in-the-nick-of-time' moments that we couldn't really say we liked it in the end. I love movies like this (story-wise) but this one was not executed well. It also seemed like a movie that wasn't sure what it wanted to be. Adventure (not really), action (little), comedy (awkward), suspenseful (never achieved it)...

Also disappointed in the choice of male lead (Doon). He was not engaging nor believable. However, Saoirse Ronan was great! Which makes this whole review even more sad. This movie seems like such a waste.

For reference, I have not read the original story. I gave this a 6 out of 10 because the sets were cool, the idea was very cool, but direction, story, character development were all lacking.

Enjoyable but short on excitement

[neil-476 · 6/10 · 15 October 2008]

A prologue explains that, in order to save mankind, the underground city of Ember is built, where the survivors of the human race will have to live before emerging back onto the surface. The secret of how this return should be effected is entrusted to the Mayor of Ember and successors in a locked case. Unfortunately, things go wrong, the case disappears, 200 years and more go by, and the underground city starts to fall to bits. And so our story starts.

The central characters are a pair of discontented youngsters, one of whom happens to have the case (the lock is a 200-year timelock, and the case is now unlocked). Unfortunately, the population of Ember is now firmly taken up with the idea that there is nothing beyond the city, even though food is running out and the generator which provides them with power is failing increasingly often. Added to this, the current Mayor has a distinct lack of will to do anything about the situation (mainly because he has a well-stocked little hideyhole), which means the youngsters are on their own.

Bill Murray is the Mayor, and Tim Robbins is the father of young hero Doon. There are a number of well-known British character actors in supporting roles, and the young girl who has the case and all its secrets is Saoirse Ronan, the young Irish actress from Atonement. The production design is fabulous - the underground city, and the physical aspects of everyday life for these underground dwellers, are all stunningly well realised. And the story, of course, is a riff on Logan's Run.

Everything is well set up for this to be a fun fantasy ride. So what went wrong? Well, not that much actually, but there are several things you can put your finger on. Murray is one of them. The character of the Mayor should be publicly lovable and privately slimy. Murray's customary air of genial mild sleaziness prevents him being fully effective at either end of the spectrum. Harry Treadaway, who plays Doon, never really engages as a credible protagonist. The conclusion leaves you going, "Oh. And...?" And, to be frank, with the exception of the final 20 minutes or so, the film just isn't exciting enough (the last 20 minutes is exciting but confusing).

I was also worried by the fact that the city of Ember is - how can I put this? - a bit small. The entire future of the human race rests on the reproductive efforts of, what, 500 people? I enjoyed it, but it should have been better. My 11-year old companion liked it just fine.

Missed opportunity

[basgast · 6/10 · 18 February 2009]

I went into this movie without knowing anything about it or about the book. It started of good in my opinion, a city under the ground because above ground humans made a mess of it all.... And that's about all I liked about this movie, you never get to hear why exactly they went underground which is a shame and why they have to stay there so long. Plus the story started real slow and never quite seemed to pick up speed, it was like watching a high speed chase involving snails and turtles. The actors were good but the story the characters had just weren't that interesting and I never had any feelings with them. It was like all the actors in the movie had an equel role in the movie and that role was not to stand out to much.. All in all a shame because I really liked the setting.

plato? Paranoia? etc

[nujuv · 6/10 · 11 October 2008]

I must read the book....

and stop going to 'kids'movies....

and judging them as more than just kids movies...........

...or should I? Is Bill Murray a 'kids movie' regular? or Martin Landau for that matter? I think that large parts of this movie (i haven't read the book) is a hit at modern politics and are squarly aimed at adults.

It is cynical and depressing, without being gory, and paints a very complelling setting of people obediently keeping traditions even when their world is coming to bits.

It falls flat in that it leaves HUGE holes in the story on screen, and despite bringing up some deep ideas on society vs the individual as the crux of the film, it stops short of putting flesh on the ideas.

Might be a certification thing.

Good looking film. Doesn't seem to want to deal with the thoughts it conjours up, though.

Young actors save the day for the city

[Jay_Exiomo · 8/10 · 29 October 2008]

"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.

" Your ship has come in, unfortunately you're on the way out "

[thinker1691 · 7/10 · 2 January 2010]

What the humanists among us are thinking is varied and deep. Among those same great thinkers are a group dedicated to the thought of what would happen to Mankind's children if the ultimate disaster should strike the populations of the earth. Here is one movie which is straight out of a science fiction novel. The futuristic film is called " City of Ember " and purports to suggest what futuristics plan to insure survival. In this story, a group of future planners conceive, design and implement the construction of an underground city which accepts a sample of people to safeguard for a period of 200 hundred years. As always, not every contingent has been prepared for. To insure the people's return to the surface of the planet, the instructions for said return is stored within a small metal box. Then the box is given to the Mayor of Ember and is thereafter passed on down through the generations. Like all good plans a flaw is discovered when a succeeding mayor dies without passing on the box. After two hundred years and the information stands lost, it falls to two youngsters Doon Harrow (Harry Treadaway) and Lina Mayfleet (Saoirse Ronan) to save their town. Not trusting the corrupt mayor (Bill Murray) Doon seeks his father's (Tim Robbins) advice and help from an aging plumbing worker (Martin Landau). The movie is an excellent vehicle for entertainment and with the addition of Landau and Murray, they accomplish that. Although the film is slightly flawed in several places, the overall movie is dramatically cohesive. Easilly recommended for adults and youngsters alike. ****

very disappointing

[jakelovesdmartel · 1/10 · 22 December 2011]

Ill start out by stating that this review is coming from a fan of the novel. I've read the book at least five times and it will forever be one of my favorite stories. when i heard that they were making a movie out of it i was on pins and needles for months waiting for it too come out. in the theater i was quickly disappointed. how could they mess it up this badly? lets list some of the screw ups

1. there were no robots in the book 2. were did the giant mole and other animals come from? 3. what was with the escape? they escaped in a different way then in the book.

all in all, they changed so much from the original book, which was simple, engaging, and fun. the only other movie I've been this disappointed in was eragon. avoid this movie and go read the book.

more to a bottle cap

[barpbarp33 · 10/10 · 13 October 2008]

Fox you fools!!! you have a real gem of a movie here and you are wasting it –there may be 'more to a bottle cap than keeping liquid escaping' –however there is also more than selling a movie than the odd random TV spot! This may be a film that succeeds in capturing the magic of the family film glory days of the 80's, (it took me right back to when I was ten years old and for the first time in years allowed me to become totally engrossed in the world that was portrayed before me) this does not mean you have to stay true to the 80's in your marketing campaign !!! Merchandise?Billboards?Internet?Giveaways?Video games? …………….. ………..No- just a lame trailer! Its 2008 get with it FOX! This movie will no doubt become one of those titles that the next generation discovers by chance who will pour upon it the real attention it deserves –strangely much like the box in the movie –how ironic! 9 out 10

Burns quite brightly

[simonparker1990 · 7/10 · 11 October 2008]

City of Ember is a movie I fear that is destined not to do very well. When I saw it today there was a grand total of five people in my screen, three of which were me and my friends. Neither of my friends had ever heard of the movie, none of my family had a clue what it was about, and the only person that appeared to know anything about it had said the trailer looked a pile of garbage. So I wasn't expecting all that much from the movie, however City of Ember is not by any means a bad movie. In fact it verges on being a very good one, but the ending kicks the audience in the teeth and then makes it just a slightly above average one. The movie works very well for the majority of the film, the cast is extremely strong and the movie is by no means ever dull. Unfortunately the plot is the problem, while it is intriguing, an underground city that reaches the end of its life, unfortunately the writer doesn't seem to go very far with it. The sense of menace is never really there, while the sudden blackouts add a bit of oomph to the movie, apart from that, and a very big mole (don't ask) there never seems a sense of urgency to escaping. Still this is bound to entertain kids, and for once the kid actors don't grate at all, in fact its some of the adult members that I found much more annoying. Anyway its Half Term fodder, and while it isn't Potter or Narnia standards this will entertain kids.

So onto the cast. Well the headlining star from all the publicity I have seen, would have to be Bill Murray, despite the fact he isn't in it all that much. Murray actually isn't all that bad here, if I'm honest I expected him to phone in another performance much like he did for Garfield. Instead he does seem to be having a bit of fun, and his character is interesting and develops more towards the end. Still there isn't an awful lot to say about him as he has roughly twenty minutes screen time in total. The main kids are played by Harry Treadway and Saoirise Ronan (from Atonement), both of whom are very good. Treadway is particularly good, while his character is basically the usual stereotype, a boy who feels he is more than what he really is, who wants to make a difference, goes on a grand adventure. He has fantasy lead written all over it, all he needed was to be a farm boy and we might as well have called him Skywalker. Anyway Treadway makes him a very interesting and layered character. He also has considerable chemistry with Ronan, who delivers an equally as impressive performance. Her American accent is pitch perfect, and while she isn't as good as she was in Atonement, she still gets the job done. Tim Robbins shows up in a relatively pointless role as Doon's father. Martin Landau is great as Doon's mentor in the pipeworks, and in my opinion deserves the most praise in the movie. Finally Mackenzie Cook also is pretty damned brilliant, once again putting on an American accent that sounds very legitimate.

City of Ember might have a strong cast, but as I have said the storyline is at times questionable. The start of the movie is perfectly fine, we're given a lot of back-story about how Ember came to be, and how a box was passed down from generation of mayor to the next (very well filmed scene). The storyline in fact works perfectly fine until after the kids decide to do something. Once they get their hands on the box and go on their quest not an awful lot seems to happen. In fact the instructions they receive are so damned simple it makes you wonder whether that part really deserves as much screen time as it does? Also everything seems a tad to convenient, one scene towards the end made me roll my eyes in annoyance because I could not believe nobody had turned a certain wheel for over 200 years. The ending as well is god awful. I accept happy endings, I have no problem with them, but the ending here made me want to vomit. Anyway this is nitpicking, mostly the storyline is engrossing, even though the inclusion of the mole is really questionable. The action isn't half bad, although the CGI for a bit in a boat is pretty poor. But the set designs are the real star, not since Del Toro have I seen sets to beautiful.

Overall City of Ember is a movie that I did really enjoy, and would happily watch again. But the storyline must be taken with a pinch of salt, and be prepared for an ending that most people will just be a bit dumbstruck by.

To use a term the kids are throwing around these days... epic fail.

[The_Dead_See · 3/10 · 24 January 2009]

Bill Murray and Tim Robbins together in a sci-fi adventure. Could I have asked for more?

Before I saw it, I might have said no, that will do nicely thank you very much. Does it need a great script? No, of course not... it's the simplest most clichéd sci-fi story in existence: A group of survivors isolated from the rest of the world embark on adventure to reach the outside world. Logans Run for kids.

Can't go wrong...

But what I hadn't anticipated was how every scene would be magically devoid of any energy, momentum, or interest. Even the "set pieces" - and it's an incredible stretch to call them that - were so bland it was like eating boiled vegetables.

Nor had I anticipated some of the biggest continuity flaws and plot holes I have ever seen in a movie. Here's one example (SPOILER ALERT)... to get out of the city, the kids take a roller coaster boat ride down multiple ramps, down chutes, down waterfalls... down down down... then miraculously emerge 1 mile directly ABOVE the city. So directly above it, in fact, that they can drop a rock straight down into the streets below. "Huh?" you say? Yes, that's what I said too.

And trust me, this is just one of countless such logical boo-boos throughout the movie. I could probably forgive it if common-sense had been abandoned in order to cram in some exciting action scenes; but in a movie this mind-numbingly dull, plot holes were just extra nails in the coffin.

A huge fan of the book gives his opinion

[Poke504 · 7/10 · 11 July 2009]

I read this book years ago for a school assignment, and it become my favorite. The plot is simple, an underground city where people were sent to be saved from the end of the world and two children find the directions out. Doesn't that sound like a good plot for a NOVEL? Which brings me to my opinion of the anticipated (for me) film adaptation of my favorite book of the year. Being as it is a movie based on the book, there will always be somethings changed. But this one stayed pretty close . . . as I could point out the three or four alterations while viewing the film. I had hoped for this to become a movie for a long time, and I say to you do not listen to the low box office. It is a good film, thought predictable and screams out "There's a novel better than this!" throughout the whole film. For a fan of the novel, it's good.