Skip to main content

You draw with a good hand.

The Dark Tower
(2017)

(SPOILERS) The Dark Tower was released only five weeks before It’s stratospheric success had every studio scrabbling around for any Stephen King property they could get their hands on, in the hope of landing a similar goldmine. But even during the 80s, the heyday of King adaptations, box office was very variable, as was quality, and as the recent Pet Sematary remake has shown, there’s every reason to believe It (and it’s second chapter) will remain an exception rather than a new rule. The Dark Tower’s prospects certainly wouldn’t have been helped had it been released in its wake; a misbegotten disaster that had been through so many variations and versions before it finally limped to the screen, it stood no chance of retaining whatever essentials were needed as an introduction to the author’s epic series.

Ron Howard and Akiva “kiss of death” Goldsman had been persevering with a planned movie trilogy and alternating seasons of a TV series since the beginning of the decade (JJ Abrams had the rights prior to that, back when everyone including King still loved Lost), with Little Ronnie planning to direct the (first) movie at one point. While that was talked up a lot, it’s entirely understandable that Universal ultimately baulked at such an untested proposition (despite the oft-cited qualitative blurring of the mediums of late, it’s highly doubtful that you can rely on interconnected audience support across them in the manner envisioned), debating going in with another studio for cost reasons before giving the go-ahead to a lower budget version; that floundered, Universal exited, Warner Bros circled it, and then Sony took it on, also with a manageable budget but with Howard now only producing and no commitment to subsequent instalments.

Some fans got bees in their bonnets about Idris Elba’s casting as Roland Deschain (previously pegged as very white, even in the face of King’s too-late renta-quote attempts to salvage the subject for those convinced the project was botched), but it served to provide a distraction, for a spell at least, from whether the movie would be getting the world-building essentials right; alas, it was clear from the first trailer, with its CGI-assisted gunfighting, as if this was a movie made in the wake of The Matrix rather than almost two decades on, that it wouldn’t.

I can’t speak as a King enthusiast, but it strikes me in general terms that, if you’re creating a self-consciously mythological canvas of easily identifiable distillations of good vs evil, a key ingredient is going to be a tangible atmosphere and flavour, capturing and captivating the viewer with a distinctive environment or realm. Audiences aren’t going to need any cajoling to understand the broad strokes (they’re pretty evident from the posters), so the key is how this particular iteration stands out from the crowd, from any other ineffectual YA offering – which this essentially is, with a kid as the protagonist – that never led to a series (The Mortal Instruments, The Giver, The Dark is Rising, The Vampire's Assistant, etc). And with its colour-washed, forgettably apocalyptic Mid-World, it entirely doesn’t. There’s nothing tantalising about this world; its pieces should be mysterious and elusive the way Lost’s were, but it’s nothing.

As noted, it doesn’t help that our way into all this is via a junior lead. Combined with the crossing-between-worlds element, memories of Last Action Hero soon beckon (which, I hasten to add, is a far superior movie overall, despite its abundant flaws). At least The Dark Tower has a less irritating young lead in Tom Taylor, but the flip side is that he’s utterly vanilla. In theory, his pursuit by agents of Matthew McConaughey’s Man in Black ought to spin a paranoid, fearful real world, but director Nikolaj Arcel’s depictions of NYC and Mid-World are so undifferentiated and Rasmus Videbæk’s cinematography so monochrome that very little is noteworthy. The visuals aren’t bad, but they aren’t remotely evocative either, and there’s no time for the material to breathe, for the picture to ground itself, pace itself or build.

There are suggestions of HP Lovecraft in the uncomforting universe beyond, the one the Dark Tower provides protection from (“outside is endless darkness, full of demons trying to get to us”), and connotations of MK Ultra in the abduction of psychic children (complete with reference to their, and Taylor’s ability to “shine”), but these more pathological elements take a back seat to the decidedly anodyne confrontation between opposing elemental forces.

I’ve seen criticism that McConaughey is off the scale here, but I rather wish he’d been more so, as the picture is desperately lacking personality (Elba is predictably grim-faced and dour; like so many of his Hollywood outings, he seems to be searching for a reason to be there – that doesn’t seem to have been modified in the forthcoming Hobbs and Shaw), Occasionally, there’s a glimpse of nimble nastiness (“Now kill each other” the Man in Black instructs the social services minions who have failed him; later, he orders Taylor’s step father to stop breathing), but I was mostly reminded of similarly lethargic franchise properties struggling to the screen without any great enthusiasm; the “we need to capitalise on it approach” to the recent Tomb Raider, for example, and the lack of creative spark that sunk Chris Weiss’ The Golden Compass, another that yielded no follow-ups.

Because Amazon has already snapped up the rights to a Dark Tower TV adaptation, recasting the main roles (Sam Strike and Jasper Pääkkönen as Roland and The Man in Black respectively) and intending to set it alongside their Lord of the Rings series as a reason other than the free postage to subscribe to Prime. That’s a rare fast turnaround, and an indication that, in the current free-for-all environment, ill-advised adaptations or reboots don’t subsequently have to lie dormant for a decade before getting another look (the rights holders of Hellboy will doubtless be overjoyed).



Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

I'm reliable, I'm a very good listener, and I'm extremely funny.

Terminator: Dark Fate (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I wrote my 23 to see in 2019, I speculated that James Cameron might be purposefully giving his hand-me-downs to lesser talents because he hubristically didn’t want anyone making a movie that was within a spit of the proficiency we’ve come to expect from him. Certainly, Robert Rodriguez and Tim Miller are leagues beneath Kathryn Bigelow, Jimbo’s former spouse and director of his Strange Days screenplay. Miller’s no slouch when it comes to action – which is what these movies are all about, let’s face it – but neither is he a craftsman, so all those reviews attesting that Terminator: Dark Fate is the best in the franchise since Terminator 2: Judgment Day may be right, but there’s a considerable gulf between the first sequel (which I’m not that big a fan of) and this retcon sequel to that sequel.

Rejoice! The broken are the more evolved. Rejoice.

Split (2016)
(SPOILERS) M Night Shyamalan went from the toast of twist-based filmmaking to a one-trick pony to the object of abject ridicule in the space of only a couple of pictures: quite a feat. Along the way, I’ve managed to miss several of his pictures, including his last, The Visit, regarded as something of a re-locating of his footing in the low budget horror arena. Split continues that genre readjustment, another Blumhouse production, one that also manages to bridge the gap with the fare that made him famous. But it’s a thematically uneasy film, marrying shlock and serious subject matter in ways that don’t always quite gel.

Shyamalan has seized on a horror staple – nubile teenage girls in peril, prey to a psychotic antagonist – and, no doubt with the best intentions, attempted to warp it. But, in so doing, he has dragged in themes and threads from other, more meritable fare, with the consequence that, in the end, the conflicting positions rather subvert his attempts at subversion…

What about the meaningless line of indifference?

The Lion King (2019)
(SPOILERS) And so the Disney “live-action” remake train thunders on regardless (I wonder how long the live-action claim would last if there was a slim hope of a Best Animated Feature Oscar nod?) I know I keep repeating myself, but the early ‘90s Disney animation renaissance didn’t mean very much to me; I found their pictures during that period fine, but none of them blew me away as they did critics and audiences generally. As such, I have scant nostalgia to bring to bear on the prospect of a remake, which I’m sure can work both ways. Aladdin proved to be a lot of fun. Beauty and the Beast entirely tepid. The Lion King, well, it isn’t a badfilm, but it’s wearying its slavish respectfulness towards the original and so diligent in doing it justice, you’d think it was some kind of religious artefact. As a result, it is, ironically, for the most part, dramatically dead in the water.

The world is one big hospice with fresh air.

Doctor Sleep (2019)
(SPOILERS) Doctor Sleep is a much better movie than it probably ought to be. Which is to say, it’s an adaption of a 2013 novel that, by most accounts, was a bit of a dud. That novel was a sequel to The Shining, one of Stephen King’s most beloved works, made into a film that diverged heavily, and in King’s view detrimentally, from the source material. Accordingly, Mike Flanagan’s Doctor Sleep also operates as a follow up to the legendary Kubrick film. In which regard, it doesn’t even come close. And yet, judged as its own thing, which can at times be difficult due to the overt referencing, it’s an affecting and often effective tale of personal redemption and facing the – in this case literal – ghosts of one’s past.

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989)
(SPOILERS) There’s Jaws, there’s Star Wars, and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy, to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “mainly boring”.

Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the system when Burton did it (even…

It’s like being smothered in beige.

The Good Liar (2019)
(SPOILERS) I probably ought to have twigged, based on the specific setting of The Good Liar that World War II would be involved – ten years ago, rather than the present day, so making the involvement of Ian McKellen and Helen Mirren just about believable – but I really wish it hadn’t been. Jeffrey Hatcher’s screenplay, adapting Nicholas Searle’s 2016 novel, offers a nifty little conning-the-conman tale that would work much, much better without the ungainly backstory and motivation that impose themselves about halfway through and then get paid off with equal lack of finesse.

I’m the famous comedian, Arnold Braunschweiger.

Last Action Hero (1993)
(SPOILERS) Make no mistake, Last Action Hero is a mess. But even as a mess, it might be more interesting than any other movie Arnie made during that decade, perhaps even in his entire career. Hellzapoppin’ (after the 1941 picture, itself based on a Broadway revue) has virtually become an adjective to describe films that comment upon their own artifice, break the fourth wall, and generally disrespect the convention of suspending disbelief in the fictions we see parading across the screen. It was fairly audacious, some would say foolish, of Arnie to attempt something of that nature at this point in his career, which was at its peak, rather than playing it safe. That he stumbled profoundly, emphatically so since he went up against the behemoth that is Jurassic Park (slotted in after the fact to open first), should not blind one to the considerable merits of his ultimate, and final, really, attempt to experiment with the limits of his screen persona.

Of course, one m…

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…