Seventh Son - Review

What did Jeff Bridges say?

That's what I was asking myself through nearly half of this movie. And the other thing I was asking myself: Why am I watching this movie? 

The Plot

When an evil witch queen named Mother Malkin (Julianne Moore) escapes from imprisonment, it is up to the last Spook, Master Gregory (Jeff Bridges), to stop her. But to do so, he must recruit a new apprentice to continue the legacy of the Spooks. That apprentice must be a seventh son of a seventh son. And that apprentice is Tom Ward (Ben Barnes). Master Gregory must train Tom in the art of the Spooks in time to combat the growing forces of darkness, before it is too late.

Review

People know that I have a huge problem with modern fantasy films, post Lord of the Rings. My article, Why "The Lord of the Rings" film trilogy ruined fairy tale movies, goes in depth about my problems. Basically I always felt that fantasy films shouldn't try to be grand with CGI armies and the need to create an ensemble of heroes. And this film goes back to the basic standards of classic Ray Harryhausen fantasy storytelling: a simple battle between a handful of heroes versus one powerful villain, with about three monsters standing in the way. Simple. The problem with this movie though? It was TOO simple. Like anyone in the audience can predict what was going to happen, even to the point of what people were going to say.

I felt like my five year old self writing a script and seeing it come to life as I think. But then I remember my writing level as a five year old is more complex than what was shown here. Anyone below the age of five could've made a far more interesting story than this one. Which is a shame because I know this is based on a book, and I feel really bad for the author, knowing that his work has been devolved into the seed of a story instead of a fully grown story. There was a lot of potential here in doing an updated fantasy take of "the hero's journey," but instead it is just a very baby steps approach of "the hero's journey."

I wish I can say the acting of two powerhouse actors saved this movie. But they don't. Jeff Bridges and Juliane Moore are two of the best veteran actors a director could dream of having in their movie. But here, they seem to know they are in something horrible because they both over act and chew the scenery. Bridges is once again playing a more drunk version of his character from True Grit, Rooster Cogburn. Which was good for True Grit. It is not good for this movie. Especially if the character is so drunk that I could barely understand a word Bridges was saying. And Moore is pretty much playing a more trashy version of Maleficent. Which, it's cool that she's straight up evil with a very small redeemable quality, but she was just over exaggerating her evilness. To give a good comparison, when Angelina Jolie played Maleficent as evil, it is classy and poisonous. Moore was not classy and just psychotic. Which doesn't work well for a queen of the witches. Especially if all the other witches appear more classy than her.

Then there's our main character played by Ben Barnes and his love interest, Alice, played by Alicia Vikander. These two are obviously very talented actors. The big problem is their material is so thin that they couldn't prevent it from being boring. And if two juggernaut acting talents like Bridges and Moore couldn't elevate the script, how much more can these two rising stars? There are some cool moments for Antje Traue, who plays Malkin's sister and Alice's mother, and Djimon Hounsou, who plays Malkin's primary dragon henchman. But pretty much everyone else in the movie was just there for service and no real development. Even Game of Thrones fan favorite, Kit Harrington, appears at the beginning of the movie, but his part could've easily had been removed and would add nothing to the plot.

Pretty much the first hour of this movie is just dreadful, yet by some miracle the following 30 minutes were pretty entertaining (which is where ALL of the action takes place), only to fall apart flat on its face in the final 15 minutes. The movie would've been better if the first hour was condensed to the first 30 minutes, and the exciting 30 minutes elongated to an hour, with the final 15 minutes being changed into something else completely.

Final Thoughts

I know I said I wanted a simple good versus evil fantasy story. But I didn't want something so... pedestrian. This film could've benefited more from a more proficiently written script. The entertainment doesn't come in till after the first hour, and chances are you will have fallen asleep before the entertaining part comes. And if you do wake up in time for the entertaining part, you'll feel like waking up wasn't worth it because of how abrupt the excitement ends. I know the director of this film is a talented Russian director, but unfortunately his American debut feels like it was made by business men rather than people with talent.

SCORE: 3/10 - The 3 is for having good vs evil, not that many monsters, and simple...it's bad

The Giver - Analysis and Review

Not another teen movie...

I had no idea this movie was being made. Or maybe I did, but I lost track of it in the scheme of things. But after seeing the first trailers, I kind of sighed at what they have done to this novel.

The Plot

In the distant future in a community where everyone is truly equal, young Jonas (Brenton Thwaites) discovers on his graduation day that he is given a special task. He is to be the Receiver of Memory, a special position that ensures order in the community, and have training under the current Receiver of Memory (Jeff Bridges) who becomes The Giver. Through him, Jonas discovers a world of color, emotions, history, and music that have been kept away from the community in order to ensure equality. But as Jonas begins to question if losing these traits make a better world, the community elder (Meryl Streep) grows suspicious that Jonas may bring down the order that they have strived for years to create and maintain.

Analysis

I've always wanted to see this turned into a movie ever since I was made to read it during my eighth grade English class. I knew of the book prior to being assigned to read it. That ominous black and white cover of a bearded old man looking past to some place beyond. Somehow I knew it had something to do with science fiction because the image reminded me of Galileo. And when I read it, I was exactly right. And it was my first exposure to a different kind of science fiction. The kind that really can get a child to question the world and start delving into how much free will is a part of our lives. And most importantly, it was about the relationship between a young boy and an elderly man.

It is a story that has been seen and told over and over again. But in this story, it is told with a literal passing of knowledge from the elder to the younger. A child created in a naive world learns the harsh realities of the real world from his elder. It is one of the prime stories and told excellently in novel form, becoming one of my favorites in the process. Which is why for this to finally come to the big screen, means I will have an extreme critical eye.

Review

This is a passion project for actor, Jeff Bridges. He's been wanting to adapt this book for almost two decades, yet only now can it finally be made. Why? Because of The Hunger Games. I'm being serious. The only reason why this movie can exist now, is because of the success of The Hunger Games. Which is a shame because other than a dystopian future setting, the novel that this film is based on is nothing like The Hunger Games. You can probably already tell where most of my criticism will stem from.

I usually don't mind if a movie deviates from the source material. I'm still waiting for the day a Superman movie will portray Superman as an alien monster instead of a handsome man. But for this adaptation, the changes don't seem to be in favor of the movie but rather to compete with other young adult movies. From the handsome and beautiful teenage protagonists, to the sleek futuristic technology, to the ominous presidential antagonist, even down to the color scheme and shots used to make this film mimic the look of all the other young adult movies since. It is a real shame, because this movie would've benefited by staying closer to the source material rather than changing it to fit the mold of all the other young adult movies. I would've been fine with changes, but the changes in this film are so obviously made to look like other young adult movies that it is almost insulting.

For someone who hasn't read the book, this will be a fairly good time with good performances from Brenton Thwaites and Jeff Bridges as Jonas and The Giver. Even newcomer Odeya Rush who plays Fiona does a fine job with the role she was given. Everyone else however is rather dull. The problem is, they're suppose to be dull. They're suppose to be soulless, as this is a world devoid of emotion. It is a standard dystopian future movie that shows the danger of true equality and sameness with a protagonist who breaks the mold. It is a movie about rebellion that is... (sigh)... similar to The Hunger Games, Divergent, and possibly The Maze Runner. Because of that, this movie will entertain, but will be forgotten the moment you walk out of the cinema. It isn't bad, its just you won't remember watching it. This is a bad thing to hear for someone who has read the book.

The film changes the book from a character study and interaction between a 12 year old boy (turned 16 or 18 years old in the film) and an Elderly Man into a movie about teenage romance and the need to rebel to destroy the governing society with an action packed third act. The fact that I said action packed third act should automatically tell readers that it has been changed to include some form of action. There is no intense action in the book. There is no teenage romance in the book. There is no overbearing antagonist in the book. There is no government conspiracy that keeps an eye on Jonas the entire time. All of those things are found in the movie to add more tension to a book that is really about a boy and an old man. Hell, Meryl Streep's character is never even seen in the book, only mentioned. In the movie she is an antagonistic force, while in the book no such antagonistic force exists. All these things added into the book do make for a more compelling movie had it been executed without the need to make it look like a young adult film. It could've been done better, and the changes could've enhanced it. But because of the way it looks and the forced teenage romance, it fails to be something memorable.

Final Thoughts

If you're a fan of the book, you'll be greatly disappointed that the relationship between Jonas and The Giver has been dwindled down to just a montage instead of a bulk of the film. If you're not and just an average movie goer, then this will be a nice watch but you won't remember it exists a few days after watching it. This should be a memorable film, but because of the way it looks and the changes made to give it the young adult stamp, it becomes a forgettable film. Not a bad film. Just forgettable.

SCORE: 5/10 - You'll like it, but you won't remember it.