MovieChat Forums > The Seeker: The Dark Is Rising (2007) Discussion > Wow...is this movie that bad?

Wow...is this movie that bad?

posted 16 years ago by toronaga
27 replies | jump to latest

As usual I was going through the list of movies on pay-per-view looking for something watchable for a late Saturday night. I ran across this one and the short description made it sound kinda interesting. I had never heard of it before. I had never read the book(s), in fact I had never heard of the book(s) or the author. I knew Christopher Eccleston was the first new Doctor Who.

That was all I knew.

So I rented it. To begin with I was not wild about a kid hero. Hate kids in the movies honestly. But I had paid the fee.

It seemed all right though. Usual lapses of logic. Easy to see some plot items ahead of time. Fine, who else could the person in the hooded cloak be but who it was? Whatever.

But the movie was ok. Not great by a long shot. But ok. Worth the $4 I paid. Afterwards I got on IMDB to see other comments. Wow.

Talk about a bunch of FEROCIOUS salivating FANBOYS. It seems like every person that had read the book HATED this movie.

This was interesting. I watched it with no previous knowledge of the book. And it was ok. Those who knew the story felt *strongly* otherwise. If you read an hugely negative account from someone who claims they have not read the book - they are full of prunes. For us new to the mythos - it is ok.

Now...I had read Tolkien before watching Bakshi's effort with LOTR. Yes. It SUCKED. So depending on whether or not you have read this book - YMMV!

[–] jexx30 16 years ago

Look, there are precious few films that I can get my ten year old son to sit through with me on a Saturday afternoon in front of the t.v. Frankly, the acting was a little painful, but I don't watch this stuff for the dramatic arc, I watch it for the fighting and the slightly spooky moments. Not too spooky, but dark enough to satisfy me, and suspenseful enough to keep my kid in the room.

And, no, I haven't read the books, but guess what? I am motivated to get them from the library now.

So NYAHH!

*grin*

[–] aiki_man78 16 years ago

I agree that the movie is probably not so bad if you have no idea about the actual stories, but as you can tell by the reactions, those who know of the real story mostly find it a pathetic attempt. It's an ok "B" movie and I hope someone comes along and does the story justice. It's such a great story it's a real shame they made any connection to it at all.

[–] pbarnes-9 16 years ago

aiki_man78: you've hit it right on the head.

[–] starmacrophage 16 years ago

imagine a film about Jesus played by Ben Affleck, Mary Magdalene by Angelina Jolie (with her weird accentS), John the Baptist by Brad Pitt featuring Tom Cruise as Satan complete with sexual tension between Jolie and several male leads and homoerotic glances between Cruise and Affleck set in Manhattan.

This Seeker movie is really not much better. It is horribly miscast to say the least. If you are going to adopt material the least you have to do is make the characters the characters you're adopting. otherwise change the names of the characters. It's like making a movie about the Exodus but Moses was born in New York in the 90s and captain of the football team. Will Stanton was English, from the era of the world wars. And what is with the big action sequences? The book has very subtle action when there is any. Fans of the book are angry because they are misled into believing that this is the Dark is Rising, which it isn't.

[–] ebtreadway 16 years ago

Not to mention the fact that The Dark is Rising is the second book in the series, not the first. Clearly maintaining the integrity of the source material wasn't a consideration. I haven't seen this movie and I don't intend to waste my time, because I can tell from the previews what a departure it is from the book, which was one of my favorites as a child.

[–] drjamesaustin 16 years ago

Starmacrophage: I'd love to see that movie! With the exception of Ben Affleck, I think your casting's perfect. Maybe that's just me, but I still think Tom Cruise's Lestat was one of his best performances ever (and I'm no Tom Cruise fan in general); after Twelve Monkeys, I'm sure Brad Pitt could do a more-than-superficial demented prophet; and I can't say I've seen much with Angelina Jolie, but she certainly has the public image of a seductress with a social conscience.

Maybe you could put a screenplay together......?

[–] catsgoleor2 16 years ago

"Will Stanton was English, from the era of the world wars."

English yes. From the era of the World Wars, no.

I don't know why people keep insisting on this misconception, but it is an misconception. Go back to the scene during the caroling when Merriman takes Will back one hundred years to the past to learn the Grimore and to see the sign of Wood be remade. When Will asks what the time period is, Merriman tells him they are one hundred years in Will's past - and mentions Ulysses S. Grant as being President of the United States (1869-1877). The books are set firmly in the 1970s and there is no mention of WWII.

[–] pbarnes-9 16 years ago

I never really had a strong feel for when this was, especially as all England is foreign to my experience. I read comments about when the book was placed and just assumed they were true; you've offered a good piece of evidence and clarified this point, so thank you! :o)

I guess if I'd thought of it, I would have placed it in the 50s or 60s.

ps. I always misread your sign-in as "cats gaoler!" LOL In the back of my mind I wonder what those cats must have done.... "g"

[–] mjones1313 16 years ago

Aiki nailed it. I've loved the books since I was in Jr. High, and when I heard they were making a movie based on it I was so happy! Then I saw how much they were changing the story. :(

Yes I really am a real female, using the Internet. Hoowah.

[–] catsgoleor2 15 years ago

"ps. I always misread your sign-in as "cats gaoler!" LOL In the back of my mind I wonder what those cats must have done.... "g" "

:o)

Poor cats, always stealing my bed you know, so I have to jail them up somewhere! ;0]

Catsgoleor can be broken down into: cats-go-leor=cats-galore. "go leor" is the Gaelic origin for the English equivalent "galore". Just something fun I picked up a while back.

---

"I never really had a strong feel for when this was, especially as all England is foreign to my experience. I read comments about when the book was placed and just assumed they were true; you've offered a good piece of evidence and clarified this point, so thank you! :o) "

You're welcome!

The funny thing is, I often can't get a sense of time and place with a lot of the books I read. The author just isn't able to describe things in such a way that I can pick up on the clues, unless they are clear, like giving dates and such ... Susan Cooper, on the other hand, is one of those people who can give a sense of time and place. This is important to the type of story she's telling in TDiR sequence. When she's time shifting her characters, you have a clear idea of *when and where* those characters *are* -- examples are when Jane and Simon are on the quay in Cardiff; the train; Will and Merry's trip back from the past in the first book; even on Will's bus ride home after Christmas shopping when one of the ladies mentions the big storm of her youth, among others. This is part of the magic the books convey, to me anyway, something lacking in the movie. It could be done on screen, I'm sure of it, (the producers of Hogfather managed to do it!) so why wasn't it done in the The Seeker?

Taken as itself, no, the movie isn't that bad. However, I can think of other fantasy films which are better made and didn't say they were based on any book, video game or what-have-you. If the producer and the writer had just gone their own way and not claimed even the smallest relationship ... well that ground has been gone over and over. You know the arguments. In the future, however, I would love to see the Beeb or some other good entity take this project on. Where's Wonderworks when you need them?

[–] redxdress 16 years ago

Yes, that's right. Very much 1970s.
On a side note, Susan Cooper *did* write a book set during WWII, called "Dawn of Fear."

[–] robert-lassen 16 years ago

Exactly right. It is only because those of us who have read and loved the books are shocked and saddened to see how this great story got torn up do we give it a poor rating.

I felt the same way about the Lord of the Rings cartoon made back in the 70s.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077869/
A large pile of donkey dropping that bears no resemblence to Steve Jackson's masterpiece. Sure it is an ok cartoon in it's own right but for those people who have read the books it was an insult.

[–] suzannejacobs-1 16 years ago

Don't assume that everyone who has the read the books agrees with you. I read the books and loved them, and I also thought the movie was good. My daughter (16 year old) never read the books and she loves the movie, one of her favourites in fact. I give the film 6.5/10 and my daughter gives it 8/10.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] pbarnes-9 16 years ago

oh yeah, only the book fans hated this movie -- none of the critics had anything bad to say about it and audiences didn't stay away from it in record number droves....

Sheesh.

[–] ilya-polovets 15 years ago

it wasnt a bad movie just the predictability of it made me completely hate it. I guessed what was coming up hoping to be surpirsed and when i find out its just as id thought i get so pissed off.

ofcourse hes the *beep* sixth sign.

[–] mariz_nobrega 16 years ago

The OP:
"It seemed all right though. Usual lapses of logic. Easy to see some plot items ahead of time. Fine, who else could the person in the hooded cloak be but who it was? Whatever.

But the movie was ok. Not great by a long shot. But ok. Worth the $4 I paid. Afterwards I got on IMDB to see other comments. Wow.

Talk about a bunch of FEROCIOUS salivating FANBOYS. It seems like every person that had read the book HATED this movie."

Exactly what I thought after watching it and coming here to read...

I haven't read the books yet but for sure they are better than the movie. They *ALWAYS* are, With the only exception so far being the Shawnshank Redemption — this one was *exactly* as good as the book. (BTW to me it's a 8/10 and not the best movie ever as the majority here at IMDB seems to think).

And of course apparently the studio *beep* yet another movie by wanting to make it more "watchable". (I would pay to buy a director's cut DVD of this movie).

But all in all this movie is still decent enough for someone to watch with his/her 10 years old kid...

[–] silentstone7-974-715101 11 years ago

The director, along with most of the cast, never read the book. The screenwriter only read The Dark is Rising once, and none of the other books in the series. The 2 or so actors on set that HAVE read the series were confused during filming because they were filming scenes that made no sense in relation to the books.

I'd love to see a remake that followed the books.

[–] skrfish 16 years ago

It is almost always the case that book to film adaptations do not live up to the expectations of fans of the books. Harry Potter movies do not compare to the books favorably, "Sahara" with Matthew McConaughey is another example, compared to the original book by Clive Cussler, the movie SLAUGHTERED both the storyline and characters.

This, however does not prevent them being good movies in their own right. I am a fan of Clive Cussler's Dirk Pitt books, but I made a point of going into the movie with no preconceptions. Had I gone in expecting to see the entire book up on the screen in all its glory, I would have been massively disappointed. Instead, I saw a perfectly watchable movie which was BASED upon the book.

The depth of storyline and character development in a book can NEVER be matched cinematically, there just isn't enough time to fit it all on screen. Go in to a book-movie adaptation expecting to see the book on screen, and you will ALWAYS be disappointed, as you are already going in with preconceived notions of what you will see. Go in to see the movie for its own sake, and you'll probably enjoy it.

I, too, have not read the books this movie is based upon, but I enjoyed it, it was an hour and a half of escapism, a bit of fun, perhaps not Oscar material, but enjoyable nonetheless.

Preconception and perspective cause more negative comments on movies than any genuine flaws these days, it's a shame really...

[–] pbarnes-9 16 years ago

I don't know how many countless people have commented here that they know that movies never completely reflect a book; I don't know how many countless people have stated that they were happy with Harry Potter or LotR despite the changes from the books; I don't know how many countless people have tried to explain that changes necessary to bring a novel over into a cinematic form are obviously necessary; I do know countless people have tried to explain that we KNOW all this but that doesn't excuse the gross abuse visited on this book, the utter disregard for the source text or the fans and the obvious prostitution of the plot for the purposes of making a fast buck by the heartless pre-fabing of this movie. The making of this movie has been under discussion for over a year, and a number of earlier posts sited interviews and articles that support the point that those involved with the making of the movie had little love or understanding of the novels; unfortunately, IMDB only keeps the most recent 100 threads and those reasoned discussions and posts supplying references and links have fallen away.

In other words, your argument is tired and has already been rebutted; if you dig back through some of the earlier threads, you might find these rebuttals.
If you go here, you will see reasons why so many were so disappointed by the Sucker:

A few of the links I once had posted here =
http://www.walden.com/walden/mboard/showthread.php?s=a9d1b09671de1998e 7fd8971959585dc&t=110

The magnum opus of Cooper fans' disappointment and sense of confoundment =
http://community.livejournal.com/authorblog/5880.html

Some more of the links I found, posted at authorblog =
http://community.livejournal.com/authorblog/7119.html

Take a quintessential British novel, tart it up to make it more "American accessible," rip out its soul, and you get this pablum -- a movie manufactured to appeal to the shallow and immature.

[–] mistresszaddeh 16 years ago

I gotta say I have never read or heard about this story before. Indeed sounded interesting enough to watch on HBO a random day (today) and def NOT a great movie. I'm glad i didn't pay for this or anything. But was mildly entertaining I suppose.

4.5/10 I say.
I'd have liked a much better story. Seemed like it had the potential for mush more.
Oh well

I'll be your devil if you'll admit you're mine

[–] cowtown43202 16 years ago

I've never read, or even heard of, the books... watched this on HBO simply because Ian McShane was in it.
I don't see how anyone, regardless of their knowledge of the books, could give this awful mess of a film anything over a 2/10 rating. Bad acting, disjointed storylines, no suspense, no action, no concern for any characters, no growth of any characters, and worst of all - every single element 100% predictable.
The moment you see the rider talking to the hooded figure you know it's the dark-haired girl, the moment they mention the 6th sign, you know it's going to be the boy himself... just bad in every way a film can be bad.

[–] kmost0 12 years ago

last night i flipped through 5 or 6 movie channels. most of them are *beep* like US marines combating abroad, fighting aliens, shooting whatever. in comparison, this film is quite nice.