Le septième fils

I'm afraid after many delays and with a February release date in the US, this would flop. I would understand it in a way. It looks like a cheap B-movie. And a B-movie it is: offers nothing new, nothing special, it exists only to entertain. And you know what? I LOVE that. I'm THAT kind of person.

Despite it is based on a book, the story is so average it hurts. And while the characters are also clichéd, at least they have some flesh, thanks to the actors and the director.

It has some nice monster action set pieces and the pace moves in a good fashion. While its production cost is nowhere to the likes of a Hobbit movie, the effects are great and I was very surprised that the 3D actually worked.

My advise: If you want an experience like the Hobbit or the Harry Potter movies, don't watch this. But if you like fantasy movies like Willow or Dragonheart (and maybe Stardust), give it a chance.

This film tells the tale of a seventh son from a village, who is chosen by a master to fight the evil witch who will rule the land.

"Seventh Son" is one of the rare mediaeval fantasy film, that don't seem to be made anymore. This fantasy tale is entertaining, and Julianne Moore gives a good performance of a cold blooded witch. The story itself is not particularly interesting or engaging, and there is little thrill. The film is heavily reliant on computer generated graphics, but we have been wowed by "The Hobbit" and "The Lord of the Rings" already. Hence, "Seventh Son" offers nothing new, and only offers a brainless way to kill two hours.

Set in medieval times in Europe somewhere, "Seventh Son" brings us back to a time when supernatural beings like witches, ghosts, ghasts and the like wreak terror on the countryside. The people depend on a special knight called the "Spook" to fight these creatures and restore peace.

Master Gregory is the last spook and he is getting on in age. In his last big fight with the grand witch Mother Malkin, he lost his latest apprentice Billy. Gregory searches for another "seventh son of a seventh son" to take his place.

His quest leads him to the farm of the Wards. As the young impulsive Tom heeds the Spook's call, will he be up to the task of becoming the new Spook before Mother Malkin fully regains her powers by the night of the blood moon? Or will Tom's falling for the charms of pretty Alice distract him from his destiny?

Cut down to its basic storyline, you would see a very common basic plot in many an adventure film: an old master training an heir-apparent to his position. This film takes that plot and brings into it fantastic monsters in action and teenage romance in bloom.

Ben Barnes plays Tom Ward. Barnes first gained attention as Prince Caspian in the Narnia films, though his career did not really fly too much. He takes another stab at stardom with yet another action fantasy with this one. Already a adult man, Barnes seemed too old for the character he is supposed to play. Anyhow, he still has a youthful mien to pull it off. I think he was cast so that a romance angle can be developed as well.

Jeff Bridges plays Master Gregory. He is at his hammy best here and he looks like he had a good time filming this. In fact, Bridges felt like he just reprised his role in last year's "RIPD", where he was a senior ghost policeman training a new recruit. Bridges had some witty ripostes which added the requisite humor to the proceedings.

Julianne Moore goes all campy playing Mother Malkin with evil relish and glee. She gets to wear more witchy-chic than Maleficent and she seemed to be having a field day with this over-the-top character, much unlike the more serious and quiet ones she is more known for. In addition, she and her coven of powerful witches (played by Antje Traue, Djimon Hounsou, Jason Scott Lee, among others) get to transform into dragons and similarly fantastic beasts, thanks to neat and nifty computer- generated special effects.

This film is based on the young adult novel "The Spook's Apprentice" written by Joseph Delaney. Unlike the atmospheric creepy book it was based on, the film is makes it more of an action fantasy for cinematic verve. Tom and Alice in the book are both pre-teens. The witch characters did not fit their descriptions in the book as well. They did not turn into animals, for one. In fact, one of the side characters, the deformed humanoid Tusk, even shifts over from evil in the book to good in the film.

The visual effects were hit and miss, some (like the creature transformations) were impressive and seamless, but some (like the conflagrations) looked old-fashioned and garishly fake. Book fans may be disappointed by the major deviations from the original tale. Those who are unfamiliar with the book though will be entertained, but will definitely feel that the story being told by director Sergey Bodrov follows a tired and very familiar formula. 6/10.

I have read a few books from the Spook's Apprentice series and I can tell you with certainty that this movie is very far from the plot there. Worst than that, every decent scene in the film is in the trailer and the rest are just filling. No real fights, no real drama, the acting was abysmal, but it pales in comparison with the script, which seems to be have been written by a banker worrying he is giving the world too much. It is a horribly bad film that I advise against watching.

The books themselves are a sort of Harry Potterish thing for children, replacing Hogwarts with a grumpy fighter against the creatures of the dark and Harry with a rare "seventh son of a seventh son" that is traditionally employed in this "spook" business. There were several things that went against this series becoming very popular: first is the term "spook" which in the US was controversial due to some colloquial racial meaning, so they changed the name with which they published the book into The Last Apprentice. Then the name of the author, Joseph Delaney, which is pretty common and easy to confuse with other writers named Delaney.

However the plot of the books is easy to follow, interesting, sometimes engaging; Delaney had just as much right for fame as J.K. Rowling. Alas, this film pretty much cements his failure. Too bad.

I can see why critics and people in general are dissing the film. I think the problem with the film, is that it's director, Sergey Bodrov has never done a film of this scope. At least, never a film with a budget of 95 million dollars.

The film is 102 minutes long. Had it been longer, I think many more "things" could have been better explained. It just seemed some of the scenes were out of sequence, or, didn't have enough detail. Had this film had Peter Jackson, or Guillermo del Toro at the helm, it would have been an entirely different film. Considering the LOTR series each had about the same budget, this film could have been so much more.

The film seemed fragmented. It reminded me of the failed film Eragon, where you suddenly go from farm boy, to instantly learning Elvish, knowing how to fight, and just "knowing" everything. We need to see the characters develop.

Now, I'm a hard core fan of this genre. I'll be the first to admit, that pairing Jeff Bridges with Julianne Moore was a great idea. While we get more background on Bridge's character than we do with other characters in the film, their performances, while quite acceptable could have been much better. Personally, I thought Bridges portrayal of Master Gregory was well executed. Again, I think the director was perhaps the main problem, reigning in their performances.

I keep seeing articles and reviews from people who've read the book, then bash the film because the film itself is so far separated from the text. I don't like to compare books to film, simply because you can go into so much more detail in a book.

I have to say it. I still enjoyed the film even though it left a lot of unanswered questions for me. If you like the fantasy series, as I do, then go into the film without preconceptions, and, enjoy it for what it is, entertainment. While it's not the best film to ever hit the big screen, it's still fun.