Good cinematography Whether or not you agree with the film's adaptation of the book series, The Seeker is a well-made piece of film art. I was impressed with the cinematography and the use of angles and lenses to heighten the feelings of the protagonist as he discovers his destiny and struggles with it. Lighting was also masterful in this film, as it should be in a film about the struggle between light and dark. The only qualm I had was with Christopher Eccleston: he gave a rather stilted performance as The Rider. If you are a great fan of the books, try to disengage your criticism and simply enjoy the film for its own art form.
In some ways, better than Harry Potter; but overall just average Individual performances by the actors are pretty good here, though somehow the lead comes across as a little overdone and not believable at the end when the young Will Stanton realizes the origin of the sixth sign and takes a dramatic verbal stand against the Dark.
What is nice about this movie is the way it starts out with normal kids in a normal world and then introduces little elements of fantasy bit by bit into that normal world. The local character parts are nicely acted, though Ian McShane's character does not get much of a chance to really develop and is limited in range, which is really too bad given the power of McShane.
Where I suspect people will find this one loses them is in the final third of the movie, when suddenly some of the characters go through changes that are not well explained and the magical world intrudes on the regular world with a ferocity that demands more of an explanation at the end of the movie than is given. In other words, at the very end many people are likely to say, "Hey, wait a minute, how do we understand or how come no one is talking about X and Y?"
I wish they had done more with the Old People and toned down the ending.
Still, while it is not as slick as Harry Potter, the first third of the movie did a better job than HP of making us believe magic could exist hidden alongside everyday reality. It also does not have the corney stereotypes and kid humor of HP, something a viewer may or may not appreciate.
I wanted to like it more, but in fairness, it is a 3 star movie at best. Somehow the elements did not all come together on this one.
The Seeker While there were a lot of interesting adaptations, some of the changes did not seem to serve the story. Will's move into the attic became a way to have his brothers pick on him instead of the treat that his brother Stephen provided for him. The brother who died before Stephen's birth became Will's twin who was stolen at birth. Other than that, I enjoyed how they tried to accomodate the book action to film.
Breezes By David L. Cunningham does a good job with this film. While I'd heard of the book, it's not one I ever read. So my perspective will be quite different from those whose opinions are based on a comparison to the book. As a film, the visual elements are excellent with the floods, the signs and the spreading darkness over the world. Alexander Ludwig does a nice job as Will Stanton, a modern boy completely unprepared for the age-old struggle thrust upon him. Christopher Eccleston who was in The Others (Two-Disc Collector's Edition) & Gone in 60 Seconds has a long range from the bookish real-world character to the mythical Rider, a stretch that wasn't altogether successful for me. Frances Conroy who won a Golden Globe for TV's "Six Feet Under" plays Miss Greythorne as a bookish matron. Ian McShane who was nominated for an Emmy for TV's "Deadwood" in 2005 is perhaps the hardest to figure out as Merriman Lyon. His character seemed like it ought to have been more important, but somehow never quite got what it needed to make the point. Wendy Crewson, who I loved as Evelyn Danvers in The Covenant, plays Mary Stanton with a nice but brief touch. Amelia Warner who was in "Aeon Flux" makes an impression as the witch Maggie Barnes. The film breezes by and looks handsome. It comes across as a rushed Harry Potter. Overall, it's entertaining. Enjoy!
Why do they take good books and make them bad movies? The "Dark is Rising" books are excellent and well written...Why the movie people always seem to say "well, we'll just take the names and the setting and see if we can't punch them up a bit" when faced with great source material is beyond me! The movie isn't really even going to appeal to people who haven't read the books, as it seems very derivative at times. People who have read the series and are fans may develop violent feelings towards the screen play writers; I know we did! Just avoid this movie and perhaps "they" will consider it a bomb and not make another....
Anything Goes Trivia
Megaton Man
Tony's Online Tips
Trevor
