I enjoyed reading the books before watching this movie. They were well written. This movie follows the books very closely and is very entertaining. Sure, there is some stupid, but at least its very well done for the most part. I would recommend watching this movie.

I read the summary of this movie and I thought that it's going to be good. I loved the idea of someone bringing books to life. I would be totally in for that. So back to the movie. I liked the acting and the casting. There weren't Oscar worthing acting but they were good for the movie. As for the story, I haven't read the books so I don't know how the story actually goes, but I would have loved to see an instalment or two to this movie. It was a little bit rushed when it is the kind-of-series material. But in general, it is definitely a movie for a Saturday afternoon with the family. It will leave you with a smile on your face.

a remarkable cast. inspired locations. and a novel. that is basis. and single virtue of film. because it is a hard work to adapt Inkheart and this product is fundamental proof. sure, it is not really bad but it is not good. only exercise who may be good advertising for rediscover books and discover great novels as source of unforgettable miracles. but is it enough ? because powerful pillars as Helen Mirren or Andy Serkis, the experience of Mumies for Brendan Fraser, are important but the building has not roof. a cast is not great choice without a solid story. and in this case, the story seems be a sketch from Inkheart. in same time, it is not waist of time. only entertainment for children. and nice support for expect a better version.

This movie is pretty much identical to the 1981 movie though the special effects are worthy of a modern movie and the plot seems to be somewhat tighter than the previous film. However, pretty much the themes and the plot remains the same. The story is really about how humanity has turned its back on the gods and declared war against them, believing that they are now the rightful rulers of the world. This is the theme that runs through the bible, however the difference is that in the bible, it is God who has been wronged, whereas in the film it is a matter of a power struggle between the gods and man, and sympathy tends to lie with men.The background is (which sort of follows the Greek Myth) that the original rulers were the Titans, who were the parents of the current Greek pantheon. However, the gods, led by Zues, warred against the Titans and defeated them, and Zeus claimed rulership over Olympus. However, Zeus created humanity so that they might worship them, and that their prayers would be the fuel for their power. Hades, one of the three major gods, was tricked into becoming ruler of the underworld, and as such has arisen (in this film at least) as the bad guy. This is not entirely correct, as Hades was lord of the dead, but was not necessarily considered and evil god.The main part of the movie opens with humanity going about a destroying the statues of the gods, and while they are destroying one particular statue, Perseus and his father are sailing by in their fishing boat. As man is destroying the idols, Hades appears and destroys the lot of them, and Perseus' family is killed in the ensuring melee. Perseus, who is then rescued by the Argives, is taken to Argos where he vows to seek vengeance for his father's death.The rest of the movie sort of follows the same plot as the earlier version. The gods curse Argos (this is not the Argos that I knew, particularly since I did not believe that it was a port city, I know that there is currently no harbour in Argos, and that it is located at least 5 km from the sea) in that it will be destroyed by the Kraken (the Kraken is not a Greek monster, it is Scandanavian) unless the daughter of the king, Andromeda, is sacrificed (once again, this departs from the myth, as Andromeda was Ethiopian, and Perseus rescued her on his way back from killing Medusa). So, Peresus, and a number of soldiers, go on a quest to get the Medusa's head and kill the Kraken.What differs in this film from the original is the Perseus rejects his divine heritage and seeks to do everything under his own power. He is a fisherman, and desires to remain a fisherman, but he is thrust into this world of adventure, against his will. In the original film, his love interest is Andromeda (as is the case in the myth) where as the filmmakers added Io into the mix, who becomes Perseus' love interest. The problem with Io is that she is not apart of this myth. In fact the story of Io is set much earlier than many of the other myths. Io was one of Zeus' lovers, however she was turned into a Heifer to hide her from Hera. However, Hera was not fooled, and set a gadfly to eternally torment her, driving her from place to place. Io was not human either, she was a Neried, a demi-god connected with nature and spring, and it is also suggested that her father was a river god. However, in the film she is a human who was cursed by Zeus to remain forever young because she rejected his advances.Unfortunately, when it comes to a lot of movies like this I tend to be a purist. I have yet to see The Immortals (and am unlikely to do so in the near future, though I am sure to wander into a video shop sooner or later and hire it), and I simply groan whenever I see a movie that has liberally referred to the original source. Granted, not every book can easily be turned into a movie (particularly if we delve into the thoughts and feelings of the characters, which can be very hard to move onto the screen), but when the filmmakers clearly butcher ancient mythology, it does put me off. However, this film is still entertaining and visually spectacular, and the plot has been tightened up a lot more.