City of Ember Fails to Ignite Excitement

I'm
sick of movies getting labeled "kids" movies. Just because the target
demographic lacks scraggly stubble or supple bosoms doesn't give a
director a free pass to make a sub-par film. Yet the recent trend of
kid friendly flix seems to favor pandering to parents over integrity to
the art. For a weekly movie-goer like myself, the steady diet of
nihilism, explosions and sex can leave you longing for the innocence of
cinema with a lighter quality, and while
"City of Ember" isn't a "Spy Kids" insult to cinematic decency, it feels as if the writers played the "kids film" card a little too often.

First off, I LOVED the milieu of this film. The concept of a
Fallout-esque vault city built to house a post apocalyptic is incredibly appealing, especially with the
recent insurgence of the "steam punk" genre in games like Bioshock.
The movie actually feels like it borrows a lot from the Fallout franchise, even down
to the blue and yellow color motif which crops up from time to time. In fact, I think the art design and setting alone
make this movie worth seeing if you are at all a junkie for this kind
of science fiction setting. But while the film is filled with conceptual
gems (I especially like the idea of replacing telephones with a
department of on-foot messengers whose service can be hailed from
street) its execution degrades it from good science fiction movie to merely "kids
movie."

The story is also "conceptually" solid. The city was meant to house
humans for 200 hundred years, but over the course of time the concept
of re-emergence has been lost. However, how that concept gets lost in
the first place is just the beginning of a long line of tangled snags
that makes the plot progression comically absurd. Every event that
pushes the plot forward is a deus ex machina, unbelievably convenient
and not sold as part of any higher concept of fate or determinism.
This continues all the way to the incredibly anticlimactic ending which
causes you question how on earth the city ever lost touch with what was
going on in the world above them. Maybe I'm looking at this through
the eyes of an adult and maybe these convenient turn of events are
easier to swallow for a younger audience, but as the squirming kid in
the seat in front of me would seem to confirm, children don't buy it
either (that or he had to pee).
The acting, and hate to further
the connotation of this word, was "child" acting. This is something
that you have come to grips with in films with young actors. If they
aren't Hailey Joel Osmond or Dakota Fanning, they aren't going to give
an oscar worthy performance. "But Dustin, what about Abigail Breslin
in Little Miss Sunshine? She got an Oscar nod!" Yeah and so did the
girl from "Whale Rider," and how many oscars did they win? Oh that's
right, ZERO. It also pained me to see Bill Murray in this movie, as
I've actually become of huge fan of his "Lost in Translation" era acting.
Anyone with a SAG card can perform an oblique portrayal of a corrupt
politician. Either bring something unique to table, or just let Jim
Carrey play the rest of your series of unfortunate adult characters.

So what's the final verdict? If you have a hankering for a lightweight adventure in a beautifully crafted environment, read the books on which the film was based, or simply find yourself unable to watch the latest harlequin corset ripper or Iraqi war gripper, I would easily recommend "City of Ember." Family friendly films are a necessary part of a balanced cinematic diet, and while this is no crème brûlée Pixar flick, "City of Ember" scores at least a Jolly Rancher of the film food world. Sweet, simple, and if you think too hard about what it is your ingesting, you'll probably spit it out.
