DecoyMusic.com

How many movies—whether released to a fanfare of multiplex baroque or the slow, rhythmic soundtrack of video-store obscurity—can be said to transcend and disappoint our expectations simultaneously? A strange phenomenon, yes, but it does happen. Perhaps it’s the result of moviegoer-induced drops in quality standards; or the film industry’s overwrought, fiscally irresponsible hype engines; or, within the films themselves, a grand, superfluous creativity that crushes plot and structure under the colossal weight of what could have been. City of Ember, a late entrant into the fantasy-movie Olympics of the 2000s, suffers this third sad fate: It has ideas aplenty, and several of them coalesce smoothly thanks to a fleet pace and clever casting, but it’s clear that the folks who crafted it lacked that keen, quick alchemist's touch for turning mediocre into masterful.

The plot, which commences as human civilization crumbles, is formulaic but nonetheless intriguing. Humanity's end is never explicated; rather, we’re shown its greatest minds digging for salvation. They build a vast subterranean city called Ember to shield a small population of human remnants from the cataclysms on the surface. After 200 years of wear and tear, however, Ember’s patchwork structures and blackout-ravaged streets start to evoke numerous dystopian archetypes, from Fritz Lang’s Metropolis to the waterlogged city of Rapture from last year's acclaimed first-person shooter, BioShock. And yet the world feels vividly alive and sovereign, even as its extinction looms—the enjoyably austere result of a meticulous visual style.

Performances also contribute to this aesthetic, though at times the film seems woefully miscast. Big names such as Tim Robbins and Bill Murray are wedged into flimsy roles that offer little room to use their talents. Thankfully, two young thespians named Saoirse Ronan and Harry Treadaway bring a certain striding confidence to their parts as Lina Mayfleet and Doon Harrow, a pair of Ember teens seeking egress from their disintegrating city. The innocent acuity of these portrayals, along with the urgent, wide-eyed wonder of adolescence being reborn into unjust adulthood, plugs the film’s holes and keeps it floating.

But said holes are often gaping and insatiable, and largely attributable to the aforementioned surplus of ideas. Too many tangents lead the plot astray, producing countless unanswered questions and slack loose ends; a shocking trait when one realizes that this supposed fantasy epic is only 90 minutes long. Had the filmmakers added a bit of length to better develop themes and supporting characters, Ember might have overcome its existential anticlimax and hit pay dirt. As it stands, the film digs and digs into a perpetual dusk, but fails to find home despite occasional inspired sparks that drown in the same deep dirt crushing its fictitious metropolis. Despite all that, it does try a few new things and executes many of them slickly—it picks up a shovel and kicks up some dirt, after all—so committed fantasy-genre fans should think twice before canceling their brief trip to the City of Ember.

-Scott Miller