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

Nanobots aren’t just for Christmas.

No Time to Die (2021) (SPOILERS) You know a Bond movie is in trouble when it resorts to wholesale appropriation of lines and even the theme song from another in order to “boost” its emotional heft. That No Time to Die – which previewed its own title song a year and a half before its release to resoundingly underwhelmed response, Grammys aside – goes there is a damning indictment of its ability to eke out such audience investment in Daniel Craig’s final outing as James (less so as 007). As with Spectre , the first half of No Time to Die is, on the whole, more than decent Bond fare, before it once again gets bogged down in the quest for substance and depth from a character who, regardless of how dapper his gear is, resolutely resists such outfitting.

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.

Big things have small beginnings.

Prometheus (2012) Post- Gladiator , Ridley Scott opted for an “All work and no pondering” approach to film making. The result has been the completion of as many movies since the turn of the Millennium as he directed in the previous twenty years. Now well into his seventies, he has experienced the most sustained period of success of his career.  For me, it’s also been easily the least-interesting period. All of them entirely competently made, but all displaying the machine-tooled approach that was previously more associated with his brother.

I’m giving you a choice. Either put on these glasses or start eating that trash can.

They Live * (1988) (SPOILERS) Don’t get me wrong, I’m a big fan of They Live – I was a big fan of most things Carpenter at the time of its release – but the manner in which its reputation as a prophecy of (or insight into) “the way things are” has grown is a touch out of proportion with the picture’s relatively modest merits. Indeed, its feting rests almost entirely on the admittedly bravura sequence in which WWF-star-turned-movie-actor Roddy Piper, under the influence of a pair of sunglasses, first witnesses the pervasive influence of aliens among us who are sucking mankind dry. That, and the ludicrously genius sequence in which Roddy, full of transformative fervour, attempts to convince Keith David to don said sunglasses, for his own good. They Live should definitely be viewed by all, for their own good, but it’s only fair to point out that it doesn’t have the consistency of John Carpenter at his very, very best. Nada : I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick a

Ladies and gentlemen, this could be a cultural misunderstanding.

Mars Attacks! (1996) (SPOILERS) Ak. Akk-akk! Tim Burton’s gleefully ghoulish sci-fi was his first real taste of failure. Sure, there was Ed Wood , but that was cheap, critics loved it, and it won Oscars. Mars Attacks! was BIG, though, expected to do boffo business, and like more than a few other idiosyncratic spectaculars of the 1990s ( Last Action Hero , Hudson Hawk ) it bombed BIG. The effect on Burton was noticeable. He retreated into bankable propositions (the creative and critical nadir perhaps being Planet of the Apes , although I’d rate it much higher than the likes of Alice in Wonderland and Dumbo ) and put the brakes on his undisciplined goth energy. Something was lost. Mars Attacks! is far from entirely successful, but it finds the director let loose with his own playset and sensibility intact, apparently given the licence to do what he will.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) (SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek , but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan . That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

It's something trying to get out.

The Owl Service (1969-70) I may have caught a glimpse of Channel 4’s repeat of  The Owl Service  in 1987, but not enough to stick in the mind. My formative experience was Alan Garner’s novel, which was read several years earlier during English lessons. Garner’s tapestry of magical-mythical storytelling had an impact, with its possession theme and blending of legend with the here and now. Garner depicts a Britain where past and present are mutable, and where there is no safety net of objective reality; life becomes a strange waking dream. His fantasy landscapes are both attractive and disturbing; the uncanny reaching out from the corners of the attic.  But I have to admit that the themes of class and discrimination went virtually unnoticed in the wake of such high weirdness. The other Garner books I read saw young protagonists transported to fantasy realms. The resonance of  The Owl Service  came from the fragmenting of the rural normal. When the author notes that he neve

Isn’t sugar better than vinegar?

Femme Fatale (2002) (SPOILERS) Some have attempted to rescue Femme Fatale from the dumpster of critical rejection and audience indifference with the claim that it’s De Palma’s last great movie. It isn’t that by a long shot, but it might rank as the last truly unfettered display of his obsessions and sensibilities, complete with a ludicrous twist – so ludicrous, it’s either a stroke of genius or mile-long pile up.

Beer is for breakfast around here. Drink or begone.

Cocktail (1988) (SPOILERS) When Tarantino claims the 1980s (and 1950s) as the worst movie decade, I’m inclined to invite him to shut his butt down. But should he then flourish Cocktail as Exhibit A, I’d be forced to admit he has a point. Cocktail is a horrifying, malignant piece of dreck, a testament to the efficacy of persuasive star power on a blithely rapt and undiscerning audience. Not only is it morally vacuous, it’s dramatically inert. And it relies on Tom’s toothy charms to a degree that would have any sensitive soul rushed to the A&E suffering from toxic shock (Tom’s most recently displayed toothy charms will likely have even his staunchest devotees less than sure of themselves, however, as he metamorphoses into your favourite grandma). And it was a huge box office hit.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.