Eric D. Snider
The Seeker: The Dark Is Rising
Movie Review
"The Seeker: The Dark Is Rising"
Review by Eric D. Snider
Grade: C-
Rating: PG
Released: Friday, October 5, 2007
Directed by:
Cast:
From what I gather, "The Seeker: The Dark Is Rising" is not very faithful to the Susan Cooper fantasy novel on which it is based. I certainly hope this is true. I would hate to think that Ms. Cooper had written a book as vague, halfhearted, and uninteresting as this. Surely the film causes her to roll over in her grave, unless she is not dead, in which case surely it causes her to rue the day she sold the movie rights.
This is a slapdash story told hastily, without whimsy or wit. It's about a boy named Will Stanton (Alexander Ludwig) who learns on his 14th birthday that he is destined to play a role in helping the Light defeat the Dark. He and his large family are Americans living in a small English village, where local strange old people Merriman Lyon (Ian McShane) and Miss Greythorne (Frances Conroy) fill him in on his magical powers and what he's supposed to be doing to help their ancient organization.
I know the book predates Harry Potter, but sweet Merlin's underpants does this ever sound like Harry Potter.
Anyway, it seems the Dark -- represented by a guy on a horse (Christopher Eccleston) -- is going to be regaining its power in a few days, and the only way to stop it is for the Seeker -- that'll be Will -- to gather up six special objects that the Light hid all over the place centuries ago. Once he has all the objects, well, then ... I don't know. The movie is pretty noncommittal on what he has to do with them and how they will help him and the others defeat the Dark. He just has to GET them, you know?
Many of the film's fantasy elements seem arbitrarily assigned. For example, Will has the power to travel through time in order to collect the tokens. But it's never explained why this is necessary, since they've all been hidden in this very village (convenient!) and are presumably still there now, in the present. He also has the power of sudden, useless strength. Oh, and one of those six tokens is actually somebody's soul. Oh, and he can make fire, but that power wears out if he uses it too much.
More randomness: A supporting character is seduced to the Dark side by Guy on a Horse. Another supporting character turns out to have been evil along (which scores a big fat "duh" when it's revealed). Neither of these people actually accomplishes anything. The eventual battle between Light and Dark consists mostly of people yelling instructions and falling down. I don't recall any actual weapons (swords, guns, etc.) being used to any great effect. The objects Will went to all that trouble to collect are more or less disregarded.
What it feels like is that an awful lot of mythology has been crammed into a very tight space. I haven't even mentioned Will's parents and their many children and their secret from years ago and the older brother who's in the Navy and the other one who's a college dropout. I don't know why dogs growl at Will or why large groups of ravens gather ominously in the village. It's all window dressing, and then when you peek inside, the place is empty.
Grade: C-
Rated PG, mild fantasy violence and very tame scary elements
1 hr., 40 min.
Copyright © Eric D. Snider.
This work may not be transmitted via the Internet, nor reproduced in any other way, without written consent from Eric D. Snider.
This item has 20 comments
October 4, 2007 at 7:23 pm
No, Susan Cooper is not dead. And she said in an interview that she was unhappy with all the changes they've made.
October 5, 2007 at 5:22 am
I heard a story on this on NPR. Two interesting things: 1. It's now just called "The Seeker" - the studio dropped the second half of the title. 2. NPR interviewed the screenwriter, and it turns out he doesn't like fantasy. Why he was hired to adapt a fantasy tale, I'll never know.
October 5, 2007 at 8:58 am
Having read the books as a kid (and yes, they are fabulous) I'm sorely disappointed. In addition, I read a story on Sci-Fi yesterday that said essentially they had combined the first two books in the story into one movie and then stripped most of the first book out. How dumb is that?
October 5, 2007 at 9:05 am
Don't let the movie turn you off of the books. They were among my favorites as a child, and I still occasionally reread them.
October 5, 2007 at 10:46 am
#2: The studio might have dropped the second half of the title in the advertising (I don't know; I haven't seen any commercials), but it's still on the screen in the movie itself. Or at least it was on Tuesday. I stress this because I have a fetish for calling movies by their actual onscreen titles in my reviews.
October 5, 2007 at 11:13 am
So very, very sad. :(
It sounds like they upped the Harry Potterisms of the books (which were undoubtedly an influence on JK Rowling, along with LeGuin's Earthsea and Tolkien himself) in a lame attempt to capitalize on the boy wizard's success. I don't know why I ever hope for books I enjoy to be made successfully into movies. Even Jackson's LOTR missed almost as much as it hit for me, and most of the time Hollywood just ends up creating a bitter disappointment, (as it sounds like this will be). I'll be skipping it.
October 5, 2007 at 11:28 am
The Dark Is Rising was one of my favorite books and series when I was a kid. I haven't seen the movie yet (and don't plan to), but I can say that the trailer bore almost no resemblance to the book. Oh, and when I tried reading The Philosopher's Stone, I couldn't get into it because it felt like a rip-off.
October 5, 2007 at 11:43 am
dont need any more info on your fetishes, Eric, puhleeeeeze ;)
only reason Susan Cooper is upset is she missed out on the Potter gravy train....no $$$ for you!
October 5, 2007 at 11:47 am
You all don't get it, do you?
JK Rowling = God.
October 5, 2007 at 12:55 pm
Did anyone catch the Harry Potter reference? "Sweet Merlin's underpants" (Eric) = "Merlin's pants!!!" (Hermione). I love it. I had forgotten that in England "pants" is underwear, til I read that part of the book. I find "Merlin's pants" to be an altogether wonderful swear word. Phrase. Whatever.
October 5, 2007 at 3:09 pm
The commercials just say "The Seeker" and NPR said the studio also changed the name. If you can't trust NPR, who can you trust?
Since I'll never see it in the theatre, I have no idea what the current prints say.
October 6, 2007 at 12:05 am
#1 the books are based on celtic and arthuian legends which is why Meriman Lyon is actually Merlin (forgive mispelling of the name).
#2 the books follow a boy through his quest to find his identity while dealing with a world and destiny much bigger than himself. The book solidifies mythologies while telling the story of a boy. He is not all powerful, he is not from the matrix and he is not Harry Potter.
The truth about this movie is simple. The screenwriter and studio got the rights to the book however they want the success of Harry Potter, Narnia and LOTR so they completely adulterated the book and in every sense raped every last bit of The Dark is Rising to leave us a hodgepodge of special effects without a story to support them.
My only wish is that Susan Cooper was smart enough to keep the rights to anything else she wrote from these idiots.
October 6, 2007 at 7:54 am
I've seen a lot of jumbles of archtypes and myths without the ability to bring them home in a coherent and consistent fashion.
The Golden Compass sequence falls apart that way at the end. The Subtle Knife was kind of neat. But the worlds are saved by underage sex just how? The entire underworld and afterlife evolved in just what fashion? It all falls apart.
Sigh. Someone ought to make anyone who wants to do a screenplay using fantasy:
a) Read Ben Bova's book on short stories which he wrote as an editor as an act of self defense.
b) Read a Clifford D. Simak novel (any of which illustrates every point in the prior book).
October 10, 2007 at 5:48 am
So I am just accepting the claim in comment #2 that the screenwriter is not a fan of fantasy. I don't have time to verify it, and anyway that would mean actually accessing the NPR website or an NPR excerpt on youtube, or something like that, and I broke up with NPR a long time ago. Some things are best left in the past.
Anyway, my question is this: Why in the hell would anyone who hates fantasy agree to write a fantasy screenplay? Sure, artists are sometimes displeased with the results of their work. Even the great Eric D. Snider has compiled a list of the worst "Snide Remarks" columns. But at least Eric loves humor. Can you imagine someone who hates humor writing a humor column? Or someone who hates realism painting your portrait? Haven't we learned from the following:
George Lucas: condescendingly thinks fantasy is for kids only
Result: WIllow
Peter Jackson: huge Lord of the Rings fanboy
Result: best fantasy movies ever made evar!
I think that the problem is that most of the people in Hollywood who are in charge of the decision making don't realize that Lord of the Rings did well not because it was fantasy, and not because it had epic battle sequences, but because it told a good story, and it told that story well. They seem to think that they can just slap together some scenes of otherworldly magic and it will automatically please fans of the genre.
October 11, 2007 at 12:08 pm
Hey now! Don't be hatin' on Willow!
October 15, 2007 at 4:27 pm
The movie got it all wrong!!!! Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! [SPOILERS FOR BOOKS AND MOVIE AHEAD.] Will Stanton did not have a twin brother, though two of his older brothers are twins, Paul and James. Paul plays the flute and James loves to sing. Neither of them got kidnapped by the way. Will is the youngest of a very close and tight knit family. Will always felt loved, supported, and protected. He is also a responsible, well mannered, and thoughtful child. No dysfunction there! Imagine that!!! The oldest, Tom, died in infancy, the second to the oldest, Steven, whom Will loved and looked up to, is in the British Royal Navy. Steven gave Will his attic bedroom because Will absolutely loved it. Will was 11 years old when the story took place and had no interest in girls at the time. He found his abilities, at times, a burden. Unlike in the movie, Will takes Merriman’s advice and teachings very seriously. He is British, NOT an American. The movie does not resemble the book at all, not even close!! Did the producers and directors even read the book!! I think not. They forgot a very important rule, Never Americanize British Novels!! Those who have not read the books are in for a surprise when they do. "Is this the same story?" they will ask. Those who have read the books will be sorely disappointed and will ask the same question. I don't mind movie adaptations of books. Quite of few are very well done such as "Lord of the Rings”, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" and they even did a fair job with "Harry Potter." But the producers and Directors really butchered the "Dark is Rising." There are 5 books in the complete story of the "Dark is Rising." The 1st one is called, "Over the Sea, Under the Stone", the 2nd, "The Dark is Rising," The 3rd, 'the Green Witch", The 4th, "The Grey King"-- Newberry award winner, and the last book is called "Silver on the Tree." Very excellent books and a wonderful read. Skip the movie. Read the books!!
October 29, 2007 at 6:14 pm
WOW! It sucks to know that they turned an incredible book series into mud. If they truly wanted a movie to rival that of Harry Potter, they should have stuck to the original design of the novels. The novels are gold! They are part of what turned me into being an author. I loved these books and still cherish them in the collection I bought. For years, I had been looking forward to a movie but from hearing everyone's comments, I will be sorely disappointed. I hope someone is able to make a movie of these books that follows the novels and is meaningful. Otherwise I will just stick to the movie in my mind every time I read them. Please people, I encourage you...read the books starting with "Over Sea, Under Stone" you will not be disappointed in them.
November 4, 2007 at 10:36 pm
Has anybody ever tried using a toaster to make cheese on toast? If you do it for just the right time, it can work without making too much mess!
Well, cheese on toast has more to do with this review and the original book than the travesty of a film did.
January 1, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Wow, that movie had a beginning done by someone on LSD. Seriously, it just jumps from scene to scene, and none of the scenes seem connected in any way. Otherwise, a very 'meh' movie. Not awful, but definitely not good. I don't think I cared about the hero or his family on any level. Eric gave it a perfect grade.
January 7, 2008 at 4:13 pm
You wrote: "I know the book predates Harry Potter, but sweet Merlin's underpants does this ever sound like Harry Potter."
Exactly. And that says a whole lot more about JK Rowling's source for inspiration than it does about Susan Cooper's. ;o)
I'll be repetitive and join so many others in recommending that everyone read the books and forget about the movie. I am re-reading the books for the first time as an adult and am even more entranced by them than I was as a child. I enjoyed Rowling's works as well, but I'll pick Will Stanton and his comrades over Harry Potter any day.