The Seeker: The Dark Is Rising Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
Even the smallest of light... shines in the darkness
The film tells the story of Will Stanton, a young man who learns he is the last of a group of warriors who have dedicated their lives to fighting the forces of the Dark. Traveling back and forth through time, Will discovers a series of clues which lead him into a showdown with forces of unimaginable power. With the Dark once again rising, the future of the world rests in Will's hands.
| Alexander Ludwig | Will Stanton |
| Christopher Eccleston | The Rider |
| Ian McShane | Merriman Lyon |
| Frances Conroy | Miss Greythorne |
| James Cosmo | Dawson |
| Jim Piddock | Old George |
| Amelia Warner | Maggie Barnes |
| John Benjamin Hickey | John Stanton |
| Wendy Crewson | Mary Stanton |
| Emma Lockhart | Gwen Stanton |
| Drew Tyler Bell | James Stanton |
| Edmund Entin | Robin Stanton |
| Gary Entin | Paul Stanton |
| Gregory Smith | Max Stanton |
| Jordan J. Dale | Stephen Stanton |
| David L. Cunningham |
4.70 out of 10 (1643 votes)
Visitor Reviews
What did Cooper ever do to deserve this?
posted on 24 Aug 2009After careful consideration I finally decided to rent the DVD and just try to watch the movie objectively. I knew from reading other reviews that the source material had been discarded to 99%, but still I thought -maybe it won't be that bad.I was wrong.Redeeming quality? Some of the actors are quite good and do what they can with the material and directions given, and some of the actual scenes are quite well made. Still I can't for the life of me figure out why Eccleston would want to be associated with this travesty, but maybe he was bored? Maybe he signed a contract without really reading the script? Who knows.In the end all this movie leaves with me is a bitter taste in my mouth and a bewildered question: - If they weren't going to do an actual movie adaptation of the book, then why didn't the PTB's just skip the few parts that are left from the original story and make their own little fantasy tale? Honestly, it would probably have been a better choice.
I loved every minute of it.
posted on 20 Aug 2009I'm an average Joe, and I was captivated by The Seeker. The story drew me in quickly and held me the whole time.The acting was very good from people I'd never heard of before (except James Cosmo who I've always liked). The boy Ludwig was convincing and I should think will be in great demand from now on.To be able to create a thoroughly engaging movie without any sex, bad language or gratuitous violence in this day and age is remarkable.But then, I'm a simple man and love it when I can walk out of a theater with a 'clean' feeling, not having been shocked and violated.This was fun and I'd recommend it to anyone!
May be appropriate in your children are under 6 years old.
posted on 14 Aug 2009I must agree with other posters who have emphasized how awful this movie is. This is NOT an adaptation of the book. The producers of this film appear to have taken the title from a well known and popular children's book, along with the names of a few characters, and viola! They made a movie; a movie which has no resemblance at all to the book by Susan Cooper. If you were looking forward to seeing an adaptation of one of your favorite childhood fantasy books, you are in for a tremendous disappointment. My three children, all under the age of six and too young to read the book did enjoy the movie the movie. It employs devices that are attractive to very young children, as well as one-dimensional, shallow characters. My recommendation is that you save yourself the aggravation. Do not watch this movie.
Waste of time
posted on 06 Aug 2009Awful, awful, awful - from screenplay to casting to effects. Should one be surprised considering the director announced in the past that he thought the books did not give good movie material and that he dislikes fantasy/children's movies to begin with? Did he pick them up in the end after all to ride the Harry Potter wave? Announcing at the same time that he changed the script from younger British boy to older American boy to avoid having yet another Harry... Well, Susan Cooper's book series the Rising of the Dark sequence was written long before Harry Potter and it has all the material for a good movie. If you like Britain. Its landscape and people. And history, as the background of the book is the King Arthur legend. Unfortunately, the original book has been butchered to the point that the story is unrecognizable. That does not necessarily make a movie bad, just different. However, in this case, as a result of the butchering, the story does not make sense, lacks any depth, and is a disappointment from A to Z which the director tries to hide by using cheap effects and repetitive and lame shooting angles. Save yourself the theater ticket fees and buy those wonderful books from Susan Cooper instead.
I could only stand it for 30 minutes...
posted on 31 Jul 2009The saddest part of this movie is the good camera work and directing wasted. If you take it as a "movie", it is good. But the subject? It's nothing more than a cheap Harry Potter rip off. Come on! A loser boy discovering his powers on a birthday, living in a family with many siblings and surprisingly many brothers and one little sister and surprisingly having twin brothers who like mischief. Sorry I could stand this lameness for only 30 minutes and think about a movie on which after 30 minutes you have no interest of what's gonna happen. Harry Potter wasn't the only robbed film of course, dark riders from Lord of the rings, and "the loser guy likes a very pretty (and older looking) girl and finally he gets her thanks to his superpowers" cliché. Even that loser-pretty girl-superpower trio is enough to make me throw up (on the floor and the DVD).
Complete trash-destroyed all hopes
posted on 31 Jul 2009Having read the book, like many others, I had hopes that this adaption would be well made and open the door to sequels of the complete series. What a train wreck! The acting was bad. Apparently they asked a grade class school to write the screen play, no wait, that would have resulted in a better movie!. In the book there was plenty of adventure in the seeking of each symbol. In the movies; "Hey kid, go get one of the symbols" "OK" (5 minutes later) "OK, I have that one!" No adventure at all. In the book: At the attaining of each symbol the main character also began to mature. In the movie: the kid stayed being a brat! I do not know where the 4.8 star average is coming from, but this movie deserves a RED STAR! WARNING! If you read the books, DO NOT GO SEE THIS MOVIE! IF YOU SEE THE MOVE BEFORE READING THE BOOKS,BE READY TO CRY WHEN YOU REALIZE JUST HOW BAD THE STORY WAS MUDILATED!
Not For Kids - Or Adults Who Like Good Movies
posted on 25 Jul 2009On the back of the box this movie is referred to as an epic fantasy adventure the whole family will love. It has a seal saying Family Approved. I'm assuming the people who gave these ratings didn't think it would trouble children to watch two police guards lure a child into an abandoned area of a mall, badger him without an adult present, and then melt into a flock of deadly ravens while chasing the child through a maze of empty hallways. Maybe those kids enjoy watching an old woman explode into a mass of snakes in a church. Less than 30 minutes into the movie, one adult had left the room because the plot was impossible to follow, the twelve year old was near tears, and the nine year old said later that he experienced a whole new level of terror. Keep in mind these are kids who are avid science fantasy readers who enjoyed all the Harry Potter movies. I feel totally misled by the Family approval reading and the PG rating -- if I had updated my bifocals I might have noted the minuscule warning "and some scary images" next to the PG. I doubt even that would have led me to expect what this movie served up. DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE!!!
fun for youth, bad to think about too much
posted on 07 Jul 2009There was definitely some talent involved in the making of this film. A lot of the camera work is very creative, unusual angles are effectively used in many scenes (including brief cuts with it being upside down that are subtle enough not to be easily noticed!). However, the creativity seemed to run short in a lot of ways. A lot of the shots of the 'rider' were slightly reminiscent of the Nazgul in the Lord of the Rings, particularly the times when he is mounted. Additionally, while the style used to establish the mood around the 'rider' was effective in the beginning, it did not vary much over the course of the movie, and thus began to feel stale by the end. The director also could not seem to resist the urge to slow down action shots in 'Matrix' style.As for the acting, Alexander Ludwig does a good job as Will Stanton. Christopher Eccleston is a very talented actor, and seems to be holding back in this movie, somehow, or not quite on his game, which is rather disappointing (maybe he dislikes Romania).Now, the biggie, the story. All in all, I have to rate this by far as one of the weakest book adaptations that I have seen (ok, the Scifi Channel adaptation of 'A Wizard of Earthsea' was FAR worse). That does not mean it is a terrible movie though. The book is of a high enough quality that even this watered down, perversion of it has some merit. What is difficult for me to understand though is that the novel was saturated with the myths and traditions of the British isles, and that whole feeling is entirely removed from the movie. Some have suggested that this was because the director felt these were in opposition to his Christian beliefs (which seems odd as King Arthur is universally portrayed as a Christian). The signs were originally all in the shape of Celtic crosses, for instance, and the last great battle which the movie places as '1000 years ago' was, in the book, the battle of baden hill with King Arthur (and Merriman Lyon actually being Merlin), etc. This is all removed, and the movie could just as easily have taken place in Romania, where they filmed it. The biggest problem that I had though is that instead of him being part of something bigger than himself in the battle against the dark, this telling of it has the other 'Old Ones' have to resort to cross bows and swords, because they seem to have virtually no power of their own. Not only does this lack literary sense, it also has the effect of making much of the movie feel like a superhero-worship film, instead of an epic, large scale battle which is much more. Will becomes this embodiment of light, placed opposite the 'rider', who was the embodiment of the dark. This one-on-one situation might appeal to modern movie audiences, but just serves to be reductionist and effectively castrates both what the light and the dark are.The sub-plot about his father being a physicist who had studied the actual nature of light and dark struck me as a total non-sequitur, which did little to nothing to enhance the story and just sucked up time which should have been used in more meaningful character development.Another sore thumb is that members of his family get carried on his time journeys with him, and he doesn't just wipe their memory (a power old ones have in the book) afterwords. Aside from being weirded out at the moment, the subject never comes up again as it would in reality.Overall, not a total failure. It would be enjoyed a lot by people in the 8-14 range, in particular. Not really an adult film, although adults with a particular love of fantasy, who have not read the book, would be likely to enjoy it as well.
An epic movie of amazing...
posted on 11 Jun 2009proportions of total crap...I know a good movie when I see one, and this wasn't one of them. At the first few minutes of the movie I thought just maybe this might work... it almost had that "epic" feel to it, but after about 10 minutes later I smelled a complete flop. This movie was horrid. I admit it had potential but it was a complete failure, as the plot unfolded it came with no surprises whatsoever, I literally said as I was watching the movie, "wow I didn't see that coming", of course I was being totally sarcastic. If you want to see a good epic I encourage Chronicles of Narnia, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter or even Princess Mononoke. The Dark is Rising is total crap, poor plot poor character development it didn't even fulfill an in depth view of main character. I could go on and on about the negatives of this movie, but before I close I would like to add some positives, OH! thats right! there are none, silly me this movie is gay.
Could have been a good movie if Directed by Spielberg
posted on 09 Jun 2009Movie starts of interesting. Builds up some hope that it's going to be a good movie. Then it keeps throwing the story off and does not join them back in proper pieces. I was expecting better acting from Ian McShane and Christopher Eccleston. Their dialogues were feelingless and meaningless. It is true what some others commented that the Director was trying to create a mix between The Fifth Element and Harry Potter and ended up with a very painful movie to watch. Had all the cool special affects. Whoever thought and planned this movie has wasted a lot of good money and potential. Don't know who to blame, the Director or the actors. I'll leave it up to the viewers decide.
Not great, but not really bad that either
posted on 03 Jun 2009I took my 13 year old son to see it, personally I liked it much better than the latest Potter movie. The Potter series is now fully adrift without a rudder.I'm a big fan of the Dark is Rising series. They overdid it with special effects in the way only Hollywood can do. When one special effect is good, then 100 must be better??? I could just see the producer saying, "we really need to spice that bit up a bit, throw in some more Hitchcockian Crows!" Not really in this case no, is the answer and too much is really just too much. Still they did manage to capture some of the quiet majesty, and a bit of fun. I thought the movie as a movie for the pre-teen set was actually not bad, for an action fantasy flick. Not the greatest but then not terrible either.Then again perhaps Susan Cooper's fine work deserves better. I don't think you will see anymore of these made into movies, as the books are fun, but they follow a linear sequence in same way the Harry Potter series does. More like a series of somewhat disconnect adventures.Although JK obviously borrowed more than a little from this series. Or perhaps it served as her inspiration.
A coming-of-age fantasy film
posted on 03 Jun 2009Good marks for special effects, but that is about all the movie has going for it except that the actor portraying hero Will Stanton does a credible acting job. OK for 10 and up. If snakes make you squeamish, you shouldn't see the movie, or take a bathroom hike when that segment comes on. I have never read the novels, and at 71 years of age would not have occasion to do so unless I wanted to make a comparison of the book and the movie. For a movie that I rate as a 6, I have difficulty coming up with ten lines of criticism. The Stanton family seems somewhat preposterous to be believed. I give the Rider's horse high marks, and the scenery was lovely. Will's little sister was too good to be true. Characters were shallow and stereotypical.
Never read book - this is NOT good
posted on 28 May 2009I was bored throughout most of the movie. Perhaps the book has substance...but this movie has none.This would be a good movie to put on in the back bedroom for your kids, while you watch something else. My kids didn't seem to hate it.I never got into the characters. The "special effects" was NOTHING! cheap cheap cheap.But, it was unbelievable how bad they did at pulling me into the story and into the characters. I didn't care what happen to any of them. And the acting was not believable.I know I probably shouldn't feel like this, but I can't imagine even trying the book after watching this.
Hey, bad news... NOT better then Eragon
posted on 26 May 2009I'm not sure what movie other reviewers have seen... but setting aside the issue of this being a bad book adaptation, it was also a badly made movie.There were too many plot holes, and what plot there was made no sense and seemed rushed in the end. The worst part was that in their attempt to make this movie more accessible to a wider audience, they basically just made it too generic. It's a story of a boy with powers who fights evil. So what? Who cares? We've seen it done before, and we've seen it done ten times better.Even Eragon at least made more of an attempt to do something... even if it was bad in the end.
a let down but seen worse.
posted on 26 May 2009I am not really sure why this is being killed so badly on the sight. After all it didn't have a stellar cast and for who was in the film was so so. It wasn't designed to be a mind blower or grab you and make you say awesome. It was well shot and for only one major and not even major star they did a fairly decent job. Christopher was his typical self but then again he doesn't really have a huge resume anyway or not a great one. Some films I can think of that were just as bad waterworld lost in space that never should have been created anyway. The story itself is actually fairly decent and if it had a good director or one more major star i guarantee everybody would have praised it not kicked it.
NOTHING like the books
posted on 08 May 2009The makers of this film completely destroyed all the magic of Susan Cooper's beloved book. They turned it into a horribly made teeny pop movie attempt. The characters are weak with no development and the acting is just embarrassing to watch. They barely have any scenes from the actual books and the legendary dark epic feel is completely lost. The character of Will was the young boy who found out he was endowed with magic before Harry Potter was even created and I'm sad to see them throw away these books with a quick production to try to catch the coattails of the Potter craze. (Don't get me wrong. I'm a big Harry Potter fan.) Even the special effects and visuals are poor and the editing is totally disjointed. Ugh, I can't even list all the problems with this movie. Even the camera work is sloppy and seems to be desperately trying to make something out nothing. Suffice it to say I have nothing really good to say about this movie at all. I had to force myself to watch the whole thing and it was quite painful. I hope Cooper allows another remake in the future. I'd love to see these books done properly.
YOU ARE THE SEEKER! (This line is said every five or so minutes in case you forget)
posted on 04 May 2009This is a movie that is so ahead of the curve on its own camp that whatever wisecracks you and your friends want to make to it will get beat to the punch (or the words you yell out as mockery will be spoken by the actors two seconds later). It's based on a book written a while ago and meant to be as an update for the Harry Potter generation. It's more akin to second-rate (or first-rate, depending on the viewer) Sci-fi channel fluff, a blotchy brew of Highlander, Dr. Who, and some obscure Saturday night flick that two people watched.Which means, on a level, it is kind of awesome, but the kind of awesomeness that comes with trying to actually figure out what the hell is going on. On another level, it's a terribly written, directed and acted movie. The camera-work pirouettes like a bad apprentice for Terry Gilliam, the editing is about as slapdash and rottenly patched as could be imagined by amateurs, and the actors look like they're either not equipped to know what to do with their characters, or if you're, for example, Ian McShane, just don't care (unless your Christopher Eccleston and you decided to quit Dr. Who to do snapping good work like this, as a... guy who kind of travels through time and does crazy stuff like riding a horse and stuff chasing after another time traveler).The special effects could be considered passable, but even there the only variety is crows, darknesses, snakes, some ice, more crows, some more darkness, and then light thrown in some patches. Then again, the special effects first need to work for the story, which holds very, very little water (unless, of course, the water will finish what ice has begun!) What's the conflict? A 14 year old boy can't seem to 'deal with' being THE SEEKER! Who has to get the 'Signs'? Oy. If you're a total addict to fantasy movies, particularly those meant for kids (or, I guess, a kid yourself, in reality or at heart) it could be OK for a viewing. Otherwise, leave to the dark. What's the worst that can happen? More Eccleston providing weak threats? After all, HE IS THE SEEKER! 3.5/10
Annoying commentators
posted on 02 May 2009Don't you just hate it when people tell you how much they disliked a movie, yet fail to give ANY reasons for why they reached that conclusion? Your comments are less than useless, bookworm1425364758.I was able to view it free on SKY HD and it was nowhere near as dire as you make out. Sure it wouldn't win any major awards, but it was a fairly enjoyable little romp. Certainly a change from the usual guns 'n cars rubbish coming out of Hollywood at the moment.I haven't read the book(s) so can't comment on comparisons.Now, why did you dislike it?People may then understand where you're coming from.
you know its bad when .......
posted on 30 Apr 2009you know a book to movie adaptation is bad when they don't even get the title of the book right in the movies' title. my guess is the movies producers were doing an experiment to see just how much you could change a book (a relatively short and easy book at that) and still keep the "based on Susan coopers: the dark is rising" in the by line. this adaptation was awful by ,i would hope, anyones standards. when i read the book i thought wow this would make a great movie and hoped for one ever since i was ten. when i saw the trailer for the movie i knew i was going to be disappointed. i think that the thing that was of the greatest disappointment for me was the signs. in the book the signs are a circle quartered by a cross about the size of your palm and will is instructed to wear them as extra buckles on his belt by slipping them onto the belt. and the signs were all elegant and simple except the sign of water that was beautifully adorned and looked to be of the finest crystal. not the half dollar almost cracker jack prizes they used in the movie. they could have spared a little more money in the prop department to do a better job in that area
Did they even read the book? Worst book to Movie ever
posted on 28 Aug 2009When I read the title I was looking forward to good entertainment, as the book was really good. But watching the movie I soon realized that they just took a real broad summary of the book and then wrote their own adventure from that. Apart from a few names nothing fits, not even all the names in the main characters family. Not to mention that the main character was aged - the real one is only 14. The tight knit family is also changed a lot, from an English family that has lived in the village for decades to a newly moved in American family in England,they cut out several daughters and re-made the oldest into the youngest, the pretty cool twins were changed into half clones of Fred and George Weasly, one of the brothers is suddenly tempted into being a traitor, the dead brother is changed from being the eldest to being thetwin of the youngest and so on. But the plot changed, too. Will and his helpers behave differently, the signs are totally different, represent different things and are hidden in other places, the time travel waschanged to something out of another fantasy novel, the viking scene was new.The whole theme of the novel changed from being about old Celtic myths to being about action and a boy growing up ... The new story is without any mystery, without any character, and speaking about the characters, can we say cardboard. It has been a long time since a movie has disappointed me that much! It is as if they decided we can't follow the slightest mystery and need a story that lacks life, questions or anything else that would enchant us.