User Reviews (226)

Add a Review

  • It isn't easy to make a good fantasy film – as borne out by Seventh Son, which has suffered a particularly arduous journey to the silver screen. Originally slated for release in February 2013, its visual effects house went bankrupt and its studio, Legendary Pictures, parted ways with distributor Warner Bros. The film that's finally stumbling into cinemas almost two full years later (courtesy of Universal Pictures) should be an unmitigated disaster. Surprisingly, it's not. The film isn't exactly great, but it's a largely entertaining romp that's more inspired by than strictly faithful to Joseph Delaney's series of bestselling books.

    Tom Ward (Ben Barnes) is the seventh son of a seventh son: a rare genetic lineage that sets him on the path to becoming a Spook a.k.a., a slayer of the myriad evil creatures that haunt the land. He becomes the apprentice of grizzled, alcohol-addled John Gregory (Jeff Bridges), shortly after Mother Malkin (Julianne Moore), an evil witch, escapes her earthly prison to claim the world as her own. With only a week to go before the blood moon rises, Tom trains with Gregory but finds himself distracted by the charms of Alice (Alicia Vikander) – a mysterious young lady with a few secrets of her own.

    While hardly groundbreaking in any way, the story unfolds with unexpected punch. Tom's story – one in which he comes of age and comes into his own – is accompanied by plenty of action sequences, courtesy of bone-crunching battles between men and other men (and women) who turn into soaring, swooping, fire-breathing dragons. Tom tumbles over a cliff to avoid a pursuing monster, Gregory battles a gigantic bear, and wraiths of smoke and despair trail after the Spook and his apprentice as they make their way through a dark, brooding forest.

    It helps, too, that the film is leavened by a welcome bite of humour. Seventh Son doesn't take itself as deadly seriously as some of its brethren in the fantasy genre do. That's why Gregory plunges into a bar brawl armed with nothing more than his flagon of beer, and Tom is allowed to make quite a few cutting remarks about his purported mentor that are heartily returned with interest.

    Ardent fans of Delaney's books should be warned: Seventh Son riffs on elements of the novels rather than staying strictly true to them. For one thing, Tom is considerably older in the film. Most noticeably, Malkin is a very different character than she is on the page. She's given more depth and complexity here, her vile behaviour explained, if not strictly justified by, her past entanglements with Gregory. It's actually quite nice to see a fantasy world that doesn't simply perpetuate the trope of the wicked witch, but instead dreams up characters that fall along a broad spectrum of morality.

    Barnes is well-cast as Tom, holding his own as both a hero and quasi-romantic lead. He shares a sweet, though not particularly electric, chemistry with Vikander who is, thankfully, called upon to do more than simper and flirt. But there are considerably more thrills to be had with Bridges, who manages to fold charm, menace and darkness into Gregory; and Moore, who's clearly having plenty of fun cutting her way through scenes as a whirlwind of madness and malevolence.

    By all accounts, Seventh Son should really have been an outright flop. It may still play as such to any fantasy aficionados who are demanding greatness on the level of The Lord Of The Rings. But, for pretty much everyone else, Seventh Son is an entertaining, undemanding film with some good ideas and a lot of fun moments. It's not a particularly great example of its genre but, given its troubled production history, that it's not completely execrable is probably nothing short of a miracle.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • -Seventh Son (2015) movie review: -Seventh Son is a fantasy/adventure film about the last man in an order of knights that were basically medieval Ghostbusters. He takes on a new, young apprentice who is destined for greatness and blah blah blah prophecy, blah blah blah training, blah blah blah evil threat, blah blah blah fulfil his destiny type of thing.

    -The entire film is like a cliché video game complete with boss battles, side-quests, and gaining new equipment. It was not bad, but not good or anything new.

    -The story is cliché and predictable as pretty much anything. I knew exactly how it would go down throughout the entire film.

    -The pace is somewhat inconsistent, with a few parts that rush and a few parts that drag.

    -The acting is fine. Jeff Bridges did his best imitation of himself from True Grit, which was only so-so believable. Ben Barnes did his best impression of himself as Prince Caspian, minus the accent. So he was convincing at least. Julianna Moore is the villain, and she was the best one in it.

    -The characters are all cliché and offered nothing new.

    -The music…. I'm going to go back to this one….

    -The CGI was not as bad as the trailer, but not great. The originality the film offered in the villains was not terrible either. They just played Dark Souls and said "Hey! Let's use all of the villains!" -There are some scenes that are pretty witty, and some others that are pretty entertaining. So it was enjoyable to an extent.

    -So my least favorite thing about the film was the music…. Right off the bat I noticed. Here is what happened: They were done with the editing and somebody said "Oh guys! We forgot music!" and another guy answered, "Oh crap! It's okay, just use music from Game of Thrones, Clash of the Titans, Wrath of the Titans, and Robin Hood! Problem solved!" Oh my gosh I knew every song that played. And they picked two of my favorite soundtracks to use! So totally took me out of the moment. All of the moments. All of them.

    -Anyway, Seventh Son is nothing new and has some elements, like the freaking music, that make it not good. However it has some entertainment value to it, so really, if you don't care about predictability and music, Seventh Son would actually be worth watching on Nexflix.

    -It is PG-13 for some light violence, scary-ish images, dealings with things like sorcery, and a random F-word. Because that existed?
  • 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.
  • siderite5 January 2015
    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.
  • The long-delayed young adult book adaptation finally shows up on big screen. Asia noticeably has an earlier release date. The question now is "Is it worth the wait?" For a movie delayed this long, people have already forgotten about it so I won't be surprised if it flops at box office. This gets as generic as what a fantasy period film can be. It is packed with every cliché you find in the genre however it is still entertaining with its action set pieces, decent CGI and 3D.

    The story: Jeff Bridges plays a gruff Master Gregory who has lost his apprentice (Kit Harington) during a fight with a powerful witch (Julianne Moore). Thomas Ward (Ben Barnes) is chosen to be Gregory's new apprentice. And there you go, an action-packed adventure with perilous monsters and witches lurking. Nothing in the movie surprises, even the twists have been seen before. There are a few set pieces including a full-blown climax that use extensive CGI. Although entertaining to watch, they are lacking in the creativity department. Acting wise is alright. Music is generic but does elevate a sense of peril during the action.

    3D: It is surprisingly decent. I thought it would be another sloppy post-converted 3D movie that barely has depth. The 3D effects work the most during the CGI set pieces with monsters chomping right at your face. It has a reasonable amount of depth between characters and the background.

    Overall: Is it worth to watch it in cinema? Only if you are interested in young adult adaptations. If you don't, you are not missing much. It has all the clichés what a fantasy period movie has and does not break any new ground. Is it worth the wait? Probably not. But if you are in need of entertainment, this would just entertain you for 2 hours.

    More on: http://moreviewsed.blogspot.sg
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Do you remember seeing trailers for Legendary Pictures' Seventh Son in theaters as far back as 2012? I do, because I have no life. But more importantly, it's because this movie was due out 3 years ago. Instead it was delayed, shelved, and passed between studios so many times it's embarrassingly telling. Now it's finally seeing the light of day, and honestly, it should've stayed somewhere dark and damp. Like the bottom of the ocean. Because Seventh Son is a waste of time, talent, and money so egregious, everyone involved should have to perform community service.

    It's dumb. And not just dumb but eye-rolling dumb. It has the scope and style of The Lord of The Rings but matches that with all the substance of an 80's adventure movie. And not one of the good ones either. The LOTR comparison may sound cliché, but it's fitting because just from the poster, you can TELL this is a film delayed from the era of studios trying to make their own LOTR knock-offs. Remember Eragon? The Seeker? 47 Ronin? This is a film commissioned by studio execs who KNOW what LOTR is but don't understand WHY those movies worked.

    What do I mean by that? Seventh Son's failures in the contemporary fantasy department start from its opening moments, when characters start spouting off dialogue that implies a whole universe of lore without any context or background. Some of it is simple, easy to grasp. Holy order of knights fighting off witches? Sure. I'll buy that. But then the sleep-walking actors start unenthusiastically throwing up all this mythical importance about Spooks and Seventh Sons and Blood Moons; until ultimately I stopped trying to pay attention and started trying to think up a Seventh Son drinking game. If the filmmakers couldn't put effort into making sense of this movie, then why should I put any effort into being sober for this movie?

    The baffling questions left unanswered throughout the film are so offensive they should be considered a hate crime against the audience. Is Jeff Bridges' Gregory supposed to be a holy man or a mercenary for hire? Because he does some jobs out of nobility but then others he's demanding money. Is Tom Ward, the Seventh Son, a destined hero or some dude Jeff Bridges literally bought like a slave? Because we keep getting stressed the importance of those who are "Seventh Sons" but Gregory seems to see Ward as a completely disposable intern. And in the end, the Seventh Son doesn't fulfill his destiny in any meaningful way; instead defeating the antagonist through what amounts to a sucker punch AFTER another character does all the work. Imagine Luke Skywalker stabbing Emperor Palpatine in the back after Palpatine fought a Stormtrooper off for twenty minutes. Satisfying? Heroic? Didn't think so.

    Scene geography. What? Scenes start on grassy fields and inexplicably end on mountain tops. Competent pacing and editing structure. What? Big reveals come about with no build up, seemingly important scenes last 20 seconds while visceral nonsense lasts forever. An entire genocide happens as payback for actions by Gregory and Ward, and there's NO payoff to it. Sensical character development. What? Big sub-villains are introduced and thrown away a scene later. One of them, called the "King Of Swords," loses a sword fight to a helpless character with no combat experience MINUTES after we watch this King kill 4 guys at once in a sword fight. Performances. What? To call these paycheck performances is an insult to paycheck performers, because nearly everyone in this movie sounds like they want to be doing something else. Moore has some fun vamping it up as the film's big bad, but the material is un-savable. Bridges spends the entire film doing a poor man's Ian McKellen, and in general, is as miscast as Elizabeth Olsen would be as the lead in a Barack Obama biopic.

    I could go on forever. This is a movie so bad it leaves you angry after its over. When Universal teamed up with Legendary pictures last year, I was so pumped. Legendary's previous partnership with Warner Bros gave us Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy, 300, Inception, Watchmen, The Hangover, Godzilla, and The Town. Not all masterpieces, but all LEAGUES above the quality they now churn out with Universal. Together thus far they've pumped out nothing but middling tripe, until finally hitting the bottom with this. Seventh Son holds no merit. Tie it to a rocket and throw it into the sun. Please, someone, do that. Now.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I've rented many a film over the last year, knowing exactly what I was getting into, going-in with meager expectations, and all too often, even those haven't been met. Stathom's "Wild Card", "In Cold Blood"... You know, films that you know aren't going to be great, but you just hope they keep your attention and fill whatever genre craving I happen to have that particular evening.

    This particular night, i craved some fantasy. Rented "Dracula untold"(haven't watched yet), and this film.

    I was surprised by the a-list of actors - albeit some of them seem to be branching over to the 'slightly washed-up' category. Bridges is good as usual. His character adds just the right amount of brevity to the film. He's the glue here.

    The film is paced perfectly. I knew it was going to be alright when i read the word cliché' 10 times in the first 4written reviews.

    Thats usually a "shoe-in" for "will exceed expectations".

    "The Seventh Son" does travel over beaten paths, but it's still an entertaining passing of the time. It's better than "Snow WHite and the Huntsmen", "Jack the Giant Slayer", "Season of the Witch", and "Prince of Persia", but it's not quite as good as "Maleficient". Still good for the genre, especially recently.

    If you're craving mindless fantasy, it does the trick. 61/100
  • Warning: Spoilers
    This is a simple story of good vs. evil. Master Gregory (Jeff Bridges) is a knight/spook and the last of his kind who fights "creatures of the dark." He is up against a bunch of them lead by Mother Malkin (Julianna Moore) and not Maleficent as that would lead to a lawsuit. Gregory has been going through apprentices like water and has been following in the latest Hollywood B movie craze by having our hero being someone who drinks too much. His next apprentice to help him fight evil is the seventh son of a seventh son, Tom Ward (Ben Barnes) a scrawny pig farmer who likes to throw knives. He has his own secret. There is also Alice (Alicia Vikander) the niece of Mother Malkin who adds a Romeo and Juliet element to the tale.

    I liked the special effects and Julianne Moore as the witch, but who cast "The Dude" in the role of the Master? It was horrible. It ruined an otherwise good film.

    Guide: No f-bombs, sex, or nudity. Plenty of killing.
  • The hunter of supernatural creatures Master Gregory (Jeff Bridges) traps the queen of the witches Mother Malkin (Julianne Moore) is a pit on the top of a mountain. Years later, she escapes from the pit and Master Gregory and his apprentice Mr. Bradley (Kit Harington) hunt her down. However Mother Malkin kills Mr. Bradley and flees to a derelict castle that she restores with magic. She meets her sister Bony Lizzie (Antje Traue) and her niece Alice (Alicia Vikander) and plans to destroy Master Gregory to begin her kingdom of evil. Meanwhile the old hunter recruits the naive farmer Tom Ward (Ben Barnes), who is the seventh son of the seventh son of the Ward family, to team up with him and his partner Tusk (John DeSantis) to hunt down Mother Malkin. Tom's mother (Olivia Williams), who is secretly a good witch, gives a necklace with a magic stone to protect him. They head to the village where Tom meets Alice and falls in love with her. But what is the true intention of Alice? Will they succeed in destroying the powerful Mother Malkin?

    "Seventh Son" is a fantasy film indicated for fans of the genre. The story is full of action, with romance, funny situations and great CGI. There is a cameo of Kit "Jon Snow" Harington in the role of Master Gregory's apprentice; the gorgeous Julianne Moore does not seem to age and performs the evil Mother Malkin; Olivia Williams has a minor but important role of the mother and good witch; the Swedish actress Antje Traue, the Ava of "Ex-Machina", is very beautiful and talented. However Jeff Bridges disappoints with a weird way of speaking, maybe with the intention of looking older. In the end, "Seventh Son" works perfectly well on DVD. My vote is seven.

    Title (Brazil): "O Sétimo Filho" ("The Seventh Son")
  • Warning: Spoilers
    An easy object of ridicule for its troubled production, underwhelming box office results and for Jeff Bridges' accent sounding like he has a gerbil stuck in his mouth, Seventh Son is actually better than expected, meaning it's harmless fantasy fluff rather than an unmitigated disaster. If I had watched this as a 13 years old I would probably have loved it, at least before forgetting it within two hours.

    Trite writing is salvaged to an extent by decent production values and a fine cast. Bridges sounds ridiculous but at least he doesn't commit the cardinal sin for this kind of silly movies, which is being boring; ditto for Julianne Moore in a campy turn as a witch queen. Ben Barnes is the anodyne protagonist - he makes one miss even perpetually morose Kit Harington (Game of Thrones's Jon Snow), who bites the dust in the prologue. Alicia Vikander fares better as the love interest.

    Supporting cast is solid, with Olivia Williams, Antje Traue and Djmon Hounsou, the latter now terminally typecast as fantasy/sci-fi henchman.

    Direction by Sergey Bodrov is competent, but Seventh Son needed flat-out amazing set-pieces to redeem the bland writing, not just a few brawls with whooshing knives, extras falling like ninepins and the queen's ethnically diverse lieutenants - looking like X-Men dropouts gathering for a Dungeons & Dragons cosplay - dispatched anticlimactically.

    Considering Bodrov made one of the greatest unknown gems of the Nineties (Prisoner of the Mountains) this seems, to put it mildly, quite a step back.

    5/10
  • Hollywood has of late had a lousy track record of fantasy action epics, and 'Seventh Son', which arrives just in time to close off the year, is yet another blemish to add to that list. Delayed nearly a year while its production company Legendary switched studios, this Universal release assembles A-listers Jeff Bridges and Julianne Moore with 'The Chronicles of Narnia' star Ben Barnes for an expensive big- screen adaptation of the first book of Joseph Delaney's 'The Wardstone Chronicles' against tawdry sets and second-rate visual effects.

    We aren't usually that critical of a film's production design, but there is just something awfully dreary about the widescreen world of Russian director Sergei Bodrov's debut English-language feature. Indeed, the only human city where any of the action takes place looks like it was rented right after the cast and crew of 'Game of Thrones' abandoned it, while the mountain fortress which principal villain Mother Malkin makes her not-so-humble abode seems like it was designed for some 1960s B-grade science-fiction movie. The ugliness of these green-screened sets is even more obvious against the occasional picturesque Canadian backdrops, which cinematographer Newton Thomas Sigel ably captures to evoke a majestic 'Lord of the Rings' feel.

    Alas the unattractive visuals are just one of the litany of complaints that you are likely to have. What production designer Dante Ferretti fails to accomplish in sets, visual effects designer John Dykstra also fails to make up for in post-production. Whether the oversized orcs or shape-shifting witches (Moore and her fellow consort Djimon Hounsou transform into dragons, while others transform into creatures with reptilian-like tongues or Hindu deity-like arms), the CG effects for what was once intended to be a franchise tentpole are both unimaginatively conceived and poorly executed, even more appalling when viewed in post-conversion 3D or worse on an IMAX screen.

    And yet to fault its technical shortcomings seems at least a tad unfair, in particular because the movie's problems are much more fundamental. For one, despite boasting an impressive team of screenwriters including Matt Greenberg, Charles Leavitt and Steven Knight, there is hardly a story here. Without any context, we start with a younger Jeff Bridges imprisoning the Queen Witch, Mother Malkin (Moore), up in the mountains. The impending dawn of the once-a-century blood moon lends her strength to break out of her metal confines, and in an early sequence, confront her jailer Master Gregory (Bridges) and his not-so-lucky apprentice Billy (Game of Thrones' Kit Harington). When that reunion ends with Billy dead, Gregory sets out recruiting a new "seventh son of a seventh son", Thomas (Barnes), who so happens to be suffering from elliptic visions of Gregory and Malkin.

    In narrative jargon, Thomas is The Chosen One, the anointed protégé who under the tutelage of Master Gregory will become his very equal and take his place among the elite group of knights who call themselves the Falcon. There is no doubt during the movie, even when his life seems to be in mortal danger, that Thomas will live to see the death of Mother Malkin and perhaps even the light of another sequel. There is also no doubt, despite Gregory's initial reservations, that Thomas will be ready within the span of just seven days to defeat the evil that Malkin possesses within her goth-like getup. And for that matter, there is no doubt that Thomas will find true love in Alice (Swedish actress Alicia Vikander), a witch whom he rescues from the town mob and who turns out to be the daughter of Malkin's younger sister.

    The plotting is as straight-forward as it gets, and functions no more than to connect the numerous noisy action sequences together. There is also hardly any character to speak of, each one of them leading or supporting mere stock types that you would be familiar with from countless other such fantasy flicks. The latter is also why we feel sorry for Bridges, a fine actor who's played the grizzled veteran one too many times of late in 'R.I.P.D.' and 'The Giver' and is here trying not to sound condescending while delivering lame one-liners with a distinct twang. Moore too is an equally fine actress in her own right utterly wasted in a thankless role, and together, what chemistry the pair had in 'The Big Lebowski' is sorely missing in their first reunion since.

    If the decision to cast two acclaimed actors to lend legitimacy to the project does nothing to help the film, the casting of its younger actors also fails to do it any favours. Barnes tries his best to project fresh-eyed enthusiasm, but the late decision to cast the 31- year-old actor in the role of a 17-year-old – instead of 'The Hunger Games'' Sam Claflin is ultimately a misguided one. He also shares too little chemistry with Vikander, who looks appropriately beguiling but is little much else. Barnes and Vikander are also stuck in an awkward romance which is bound to inspire some unintended giggles especially for a sequence where the two supposedly exchange loving glances while lying together in bed.

    There is hardly anything fascinating about 'Seventh Son', whose title belongs better in a tongue twister than in an expensive and extravagant swords-and-dragons epic. Yes, there is good reason indeed why former studio Warner Bros had dragged its feet in releasing this, and what a relief it must have felt that it need not try to justify why it decided to do so when it already has an entire trilogy in 'The Hobbit'. No matter that the director is a two-time Academy Award nominee for his Russian films 'Prisoner of the Mountains' and 'Mongol', his Hollywood foray is an embarrassing misstep that he would no doubt want to be forgotten as soon as possible. He needn't worry; to spare yourself the agony of sitting through yet another disappointing fantasy wanna-be epic, go find any one of the other sons and just avoid the Seventh.
  • Garcwrites15 January 2015
    When I first saw the trailer for the movie it shone a light on a book series that I didn't know about. The first trailer was interesting and entertaining. The second one was about just as good as the first one but the movie kinda disappointed me.

    Seventh Son has a lot of potential, the special effects are good, the action scenes are interesting, and the cast is amazing but something doesn't gel. There's something wrong the movie could have been better and it might be the writing or the directing . I didn't really care about the characters, I did not once I worried or cared about any of them dying.

    The rhythm was also off, there wasn't really a built up, there were no stakes and I was hardly captivated. I'm sorry to say but the trailers were kind of better. I will read the books though, I feel like the best part of Seventh Son might be from the books.

    wornoutspines.com
  • It's not an awful film but if you want to see something new, anything new, then this isn't the film to look at. The production quality is high; things look good. They're shot well and you can see a lot of time and effort went into creating it. But I have to ask, if you're going to put that much time and effort into a project, why not do something new/fresh/unique/original?

    The narrative is more predictable than a Dungeons and Dragons rulebook and when the description for a monster was presented as a "level six monster" I had to take a moment to ensure my jaw wasn't on my lap. The character archetypes walk straight of the pages of any explanation of the Monomyth or Three Act Play. The mentor is a grumpy old man who gets disrespected by everyone but who is 'the most incredible fighter of evil'. The hero is 'the most unlikely candidate' to past the trails of being a Spook. Yes, the greatest warriors against evil are called Spooks – sounds too much like lazy writing to ignore. They have to defeat the 'greatest evil' before the 'blood moon' is full. The most generic fantasy content and lingo.

    Some of the dialog was also atrocious. In a fight one character comments "(y)ou know nothing of dragons." This intimidating comment is either completely useless as there are no other reference to dragons and if it turns out that the flying baddies are dragons then the statement is incorrect as the person the comment was aimed at knows the one quite intimately. Another such comment was "his reign of terror". The him that is referred to here holds no station of power beyond the power he claims over any person he faces in single combat, hardly a reign of any kind.

    The representation of the antagonists was interesting, visually at least. The master assassin couldn't be bothered to do anything sneaky or stealthily. His 'army of assassins' are incorrectly introduced as, well, assassins when really they're just 'random cannon fodder for the slaughter' to fill in the fight scenes between Lieutenants; yes the bad guys (who are witches) have a queen and she has lieutenants.

    The hero goes through the minimal required amount of character development, just like everyone else. Everyone who has to die, dies on cue. The love interest is a shallow relationship that starts with eye contact and ends with betraying their respective parties at one point or another, with little other than a single make out session in between.

    I'm looking for a saving grace and I'm having trouble coming up with one. It's like drinking a glass of tap water, not bad but it's not going to tickle your taste buds.
  • Amazing film in my opinion, its a medieval fantasy of which there aren't that many that are good. The plot is clichéd typical guy with destiny saves the day, love interest and a mentor with cheese one- liners. But in my opinion it really comes together, the attention to detail is what makes the movie, you can believe that really can exist. Best comparison i can give is the Witcher universe you, honestly change the names and the plot and you can step in Geralt's world. And also there is a little bit of Dark Souls in there. I liked some of the cgi, but there is also some really bad for a 2014 film. People will call me crazy, but i think its better than the 2nd and 3rd Hobbit movies which were full of unnecessary cgi and it's really bloated. I think if you are a medieval fantasy fan you'll like it.
  • banasooth3 April 2015
    Anyone who had anything to do with the script of this movie should be ashamed of themselves.

    In a different reality, such bad writing would be a sign of evil and plague and the entire line of production staff who helped created that script right back to the author of its original novel would be excised from meatspace like a sarcoma.

    Gibberish doesn't even do it justice.

    A shocking waste of acting talent.

    Casting a 33 year old as a 12 year old.

    Not even twenty minutes in to the movie and it feels like it's missing an opening third.

    I'm not saying don't watch this movie. Do - suffer through it - then come online and vent your nauseous disappointment in the hope that those involved in production lose their careers.

    It's like a couple of producers, a script writer and a director met and conspired to actually defecate into your mind.

    This is awful. Awful insulting dreck.

    A Terry Crews Old Spice commercial has better continuity.
  • its a adventure with not bad actors and the story line is OK and the effects is more then OK by the this kind of movies .. so i say see it and enjoy it for what it is ... don't expect a cult classic or something like that .. but its entertainment nothing more .. if u do that this is not bad at all:) what more can i say about it ... i really hate IMDb rule about all this lines .. but why some give this a bad review .. i just don't understand them at all .. Adventure, Fantasy = watch it for the entertainment and eat snacks and enjoy :) if u don't like Adventure, Fantasy then don't watch it .. kinda simple really :) i like to have a movie talk with the ones that gives this one a bad review to understand what the hell they don't like about it
  • fire_starter754 February 2017
    This is a absolutely dreadful rendition of one of my favorite childhood books. First of Tom Ward is suppose to be twelve years old. The actor playing him was in his thirties. Alice is also suppose to be twelve. Billy Bradley was suppose to died to a boggot because he was careless and got his thumbs stuck under the stone he was sealing it with, not to Mother Malkin. I managed to get through about ten minutes of this garbage before I was forced to turn it off in disappointment. Hopefully someone will try again and hopefully stick to the actually plot of the book. I hope they will also cast appropriate people to match the characters ACTUAL ages.
  • Unlike some of the other reviewers and critics here, I LIKED THIS MOVIE!

    It was a good fantasy action film and had a decent story line. By the way, ALL heroic and fantasy stories have been told again and again throughout history. Read Joseph Campbell's and others' works on the mythology of mankind and human archetypes that appear again and again throughout all cultures from the Mahabharata, to the Norse legends like Beowulf, to the Lord of the Rings, to Star Wars, to Asian sword movies to many classic American Westerns. The same themes play out, so it always seems rather shallow of reviewers to pan a production for using a classic plot line.

    This movie had good character interplay (partly thanks to an excellent cast!), it had good action, and in general IT WAS A GOOD AND VERY ENJOYABLE MOVIE. Could it have been better? Probably, but that was not the actors' faults, and I found the parts of the main characters, Gregory, Tom, Alice, Mam Ward, and Mother Malkin, all well delivered and with more depth than they were given credit for. Could there have been more character development? Certainly, if you wanted a 3 or 4 hour movie. Movies by their very nature have to pack a lot into a limited amount of time.

    There were a number of twists in the story I liked, and some details it took multiple viewings to notice, e.g. Alice wandering at the edge of the crowd when Gregory and Tom first arrive at the walled city, and the guy with shaved head and heavy earrings outside the tavern as Gregory enters shortly after their arrival, then he cropped up later to confirm seeing the Spook (Gregory) enter the tavern when Tom announced he was Master Gregory's apprentice as he rescued Alice from the mob. Some scenes just flit by quickly and without enough emphasis to make an impression, then they are subtly referenced later. Watching the "making of" features, I realized a great deal of thought went into this by the creative and production staff. I was truly sorry it was not received better or more of a financial success.

    Special effects and cinematography were very good, as was costuming and attention to technical details in clothing, weapons, and even buildings. My only gripe in these details might be that a number of time periods and cultural intersections seem to have been conflated to create crowds and city populations, even technologies, that I seriously doubt ever coexisted. However, as this was a fantasy, these peripheral characters added some interesting complexity to the crowd scenes.

    Reading some of the backstory on Wikipedia, I agree with others here that I am amazed (and delighted) this movie made it to the screen in as good a form as it did. With changes in cast, support, and having to work through the special effects house bankruptcy, I would say they did a heroic job turning out a very good movie. I was not even aware of the cinematic release, and I stumbled across a poor copy on YouTube. This prompted me to go buy the DVD, and I am glad I did. Not only was it much better quality and not cropped at the edges like the YT version, but it had some nice bonus features I also enjoyed watching, e.g. the "making of" in several facets was best, giving some insight into the creative process, the Legend and Lore of the Seventh Son (not great but passable), and a few entries in the Visual Effects Gallery. If there is a BluRay with even more features, I might pick it up, too. I know I would have paid twice the modest price the DVD cost, which was less than half the price of a movie theater ticket these days.

    Whenever I read critics picking apart this or other good or just plain enjoyable movies, I am reminded of a definition of "critic" I once read: "A critic is a person who, having no talent of their own, feels eminently qualified to pass judgment on the talent of others." Take that as you may.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I'm going to give this a reasonably high rating because I actually quite enjoyed it, though I have since discovered that it has been absolutely plastered by the critics. Okay, I agree that it is the same tired old fantasy story with some great special effects, and it did feel a little lame, especially as we get to the end of the film, but that didn't mean I didn't like it. I have certainly seen worse, and it is a good dose of fantasy that is short enough not to drag and long enough to keep me satisfied.

    The story is about the seventh son of a seventh son who, surprisingly, has magical abilities. Now, the world is about to be threatened by an evil witch as the blood moon approaches, and the only man that can stand up to her, a spook (read witch hunter) named Gregory, has lost his last apprentice. So with very little time available he grabs the only option available – Tom, in an attempt to train him up so that they can stop the coming apocalypse.

    There are a couple of funny things with this film, such as Tom dreaming of one day leaving his farm and becoming great. Isn't this just so Hollywood. I sometimes wonder if peasants ever thought that, especially the young adults, who have probably had the fact that they will be a peasant for the rest of their lives beaten into them since they were a child. Okay, people dream, but I found it interesting that this idea of the dreamer packing up and leaving for great adventures as something that always appears in Hollywood, and in fantasy literature of all stripes, but is never really true for the real world.

    Then there is this idea about witches. Why is it that witches are always evil? I suspect that it has something to do with our Christian heritage, and also that the term has been tarnish with the picture of devil worshipers. To me a witch is probably more of a herbalist that lived by herself as opposed to a practitioner of dark magic. However this idea has come down to us, and to me, having a bunch of witches as the villains of the piece is also another tired cliché that I am getting a little sick hearing. However, despite that, I liked the movie, and so did my brother, so I guess that is all that counts.
  • I was so looking forward to this movie and went to the theater with my mom (who loves to share this type of movie experience with me cause she shares my love or this type of movie) with excitement.

    Oh the disappointment. It was mediocre at best and while the whole movie going experience (popcorn, coke, previews, excitement) was not bad the movie itself left a lot to be desired.

    I've been trying to sum up why this movie was a letdown and I think that it can be summed up thus, lacking in interesting plot and heart.

    The plot is the same, done to death plot done (better) by many-a fantasy and action/adventure movie and does little to stray from the formulaic. Because of this I found myself 1. predicting what was going to happen accurately, and 2. not really caring to discover how the plot developed in the film.

    The heart could have saved this and that was the big fail here. From the onset the movie did little to inspire the audience in its beauty, little to get the audience engaged in the journeys of the characters, and very little to make the audience care about the characters. There was no heart in any of these characters nor between any of them and the movie itself felt like someone had replaced its heart with a computer chip that delivered the story line rote.

    I almost found myself bored at certain points and my mom was disappointed too (and that's saying something since in my family my mom is famous for loving awful movies).

    It is hard to believe that Julianne Moore and Jeff Bridges could deliver such flat uninspiring characters, but they did. That coupled with a simplistic boring plot and an overall lack of heart or inspiration made this quite the disappointment.
  • As usual, Jeff bridges is wonderful in everything he does. The rest of the cast is very good, and the movie provides 2 hours of entertainment. Don't take anything seriously, an don't try to analyze anything. Just enjoy yourself.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Here's a spoiler for you, its crap..... do not watch this film ever. I made and account of IMDb just so i could leave this review. After watching only five minutes of the film i stopped.... that's how bad it is .... just thinking of any similarities..... nope there aren't any, i love the books and it makes me sad that they have been ruined by this film :'( if you love the books, please please for your own sake, do not watch this film. I've wanted to meet Joseph Delaney since i started to read the books and tell him just what i think of them and how much i have enjoyed reading the books, in all manner of fact i haven't finished, i still need to read the newer ones of the series but now i feel like if i saw him in the street i would just end up ranting about the film :'( .
An error has occured. Please try again.