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

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

One final thing I have to do, and then I’ll be free of the past.

Vertigo (1958) (SPOILERS) I’ll readily admit my Hitchcock tastes broadly tend to reflect the “consensus”, but Vertigo is one where I break ranks. To a degree. Not that I think it’s in any way a bad film, but I respect it rather than truly rate it. Certainly, I can’t get on board with Sight & Sound enthroning it as the best film ever made (in its 2012’s critics poll). That said, from a technical point of view, it is probably Hitch’s peak moment. And in that regard, certainly counts as one of his few colour pictures that can be placed alongside his black and white ones. It’s also clearly a personal undertaking, a medley of his voyeuristic obsessions (based on D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac).

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.