La Torre Oscura

Stephen King is notoriously difficult to adapt, some of his work near-unfilmable or at least with parts that are (i.e. 'IT'). Which is why film/television adaptations are such a mixed bag.

Made up of eight books, 'The Dark Tower' book series is simply spectacular, with wildly entertaining and imaginative stories, a deft mix of genres, unparalleled attention to detail and conflict and with characters that are far more than standard clichés. Hearing that there was going to be a film, part of me was a little excited but there was even more apprehension considering the scale and length of the series on the whole. Also because of the reception the film received, being critically panned but the audience reaction being much more mixed.

After seeing it, 'The Dark Tower' to me wasn't as bad as reputed to be and could have been far worse. The complaints however are understandable and valid, contrary to what those vehemently and in some cases condescendingly say those who found problems with the film do know what they're talking about. There are merits with 'The Dark Tower', but it has a lot of problems that cannot be ignored, no matter how hard people try. Considering the track record for Stephen King adaptations, it was useless expecting a straight up adaptation on my part and the film was seen with no aim to compare the different mediums and instead judge it on its own.

There are much better adaptations of King's work, especially 'The Shawshank Redemption', 'Stand By Me', 'Misery', 'Dolores Claiborne', 'Carrie' (1976), 'Salem's Lot', 'The Shining' (Kubrick) and 'The Green Mile'. There are also far worse, such as 'Children of the Corn' (2009), 'Sleepwalkers', 'Tommyknockers', 'Thinner', 'Dreamcatcher' and 'The Langoliers' (of the ones seen, there's some to go yet). 'The Dark Tower' is towards the weaker end though. As an adaptation, it's pretty much an abortion, asking for a straight up faithful adaptation of one book was a big ask but this feels like a severely truncated cliff-notes version of one book with fleeting references to the others.

This did affect the pacing and storytelling of the film, and reinforced the notion in my mind that the books are better adapted as a series of at least two hour films or a series of mini-series. One film of just over 90 minutes, whether in comparison to the books or on its own, just doesn't cut it.

It's not an irredeemable film by all means. The acting was the best asset, with a calmly stoic, gravitas-filled and the personification of authoritative dignity Idris Elba particularly acquitting himself well. Tom Taylor is also credible, instead of bland or annoying or both he holds his own. While views on Matthew McConaughey's villain were more mixed, McConaughey to me had a few uneven moments where he was too smug (blame the writing more than him though) but mostly he was suitably sinister.

For a limited budget, 'The Dark Tower' could have looked worse. Not everything visually works, but it's skilfully photographed, atmospherically lit and has some quite authentic production design. The action is choreographed reasonably well and has suspense, excitement and tension. The music has some haunting moments and positively pulsates.

However, 'The Dark Tower' is far too short and feels very rushed as a result of cramming in a lot. The film does try to do too much and doesn't have the length to do much with any of it, which makes a lot of elements underwritten and without much impact. Only in the action does the film excite or nail-bites, the script is far too watered down, cliché ridden and half-baked to make the exposition scenes work and characterisation is severely wanting despite the valiant efforts of the cast.

Not everything works visually. Some of the editing is sloppy and the visual effects look like they were made last minute and with the worst of budget limitations. The direction shows unease with the material, while the story is choppy and the ending rushed and anti-climactic. Pacing is erratic, the exposition is clunky and very draggy while the final third is over-stuffed and was in need of slowing down.

In summation, could have been far worse and it is watchable but as an adaptation it's a disaster and judging it on its own terms sees just as many problems. Even when one is trying not to compare, which this review really tried not to and only mentioned how it fared as an adaptation in half a paragraph or something, 'The Dark Tower' is very problematic on its own.

Oh and, despite being a subjective person, don't let those defending the film make you feel like it's illegal to dislike the film and have problems with it, this whole agenda-against-critics has become out of control and uncalled for. If one likes the film fine but learn the difference between fact and opinions and be mature. 5/10 Bethany Cox

Stephen King's Dark Tower novels may have their flaws but they are nonetheless a highly creative juggernaut that deserved either a fully committed TV adaptation or to be simply left alone.

I'm not sure what was going through the heads of the people involved with this limp mess of a movie. it manages to achieve the double whammy of being completely incomprehensible to non-book readers whilst also being highly insulting to fans of the novels.

As for Matthew McConaughey, I've never been much of a fan and this tragic performance confirms my suspicions that he is one of the most one-dimensional and overrated actors in the business. Idris Elba manages to salvage some artistic integrity from the ruins with a reasonable performance but there is not much one can do with such a godforsaken script.

I love the Dark Tower novels and would recommend them to anybody. It would be difficult for even the best in the business to adequately bring the story to life through cinema but these clowns didn't even try. One of the laziest and Hollywood productions of all-time.

It a great 90 min Sony Pictures action movie. Some alternate dimension stuff, bad guy with sweet powers and lots of pew pew. Elba and McConaughey are awesome. Fun times.

I did NOT read the books; I had not even heard of this movie; it's a random DVR grab from cable. I enjoyed it, despite some minor flaws.

PROS: We have some great casting -- Mathew McConaughey is creepy and effective as The Man in Black and Idris Elba is perfect as the slightly washed-up Gunslinger (capital G as there is a knightly connotation). The pacing is pleasantly fast; the director expects the audience to piece together some of the background story instead of having it entirely spoon-fed to them. I liked this approach; it exercised my brain a bit.

CONS: The underlying plot structure is quite standard, and this makes some developments rather predictable. Also, it's rather convenient that everyone in the universe speaks English.

IN SUM: It's fun and a bit different. I like the mixing of tech from different worlds. I give this seven (7) stars for escapist entertainment.

This film, which was inspired, not adapted from the Stephen King novels of the same name, takes a sweeping epic, dumbs it down, loses the focus and lazily tries to make it look cool for a younger audience. This film is bad and I went in with an open mind, hoping to find some redeeming qualities about it. While there are some good ideas, I can't help but feel that this will be somewhat heartbreaking for fans of the books who were actually excited to see it.

Jake Chambers is a young boy who suffers from horrific nightmares. In those nightmares, he sees The Man in Black, who kidnaps children and uses a device to suck their minds right out of their head. All in an effort to destroy the Dark Tower. The Dark Tower is the centre of the universe, protecting all worlds from the evil that lies beyond, out in the darkness. Roland, the last of the Gunslingers, soldiers sworn to protect the tower, is on a mission to kill The Man in Black. When Jake discovers a portal that leads to their world, he jumps in and finds Roland. Together they must stop The Man in Black, or their world and all worlds, will end.

I couldn't help but think to myself, that people would never want to see a film that was loosely inspired by The Lord of the Rings. They would much rather see that literary masterpiece adapted to the big screen. Imagine Peter Jackson used the same characters and made a different story, but still slapped the title on it? So I can't help but wonder why they thought it would be a good idea to loosely adapt The Dark Tower and not do a straight adaption from the books. I kind of get the idea they were going for, in regards to how the book series ends, but they missed the mark and by a wide margin.

I'm sure fans of the series would pick up numerous nods to the books here and there, but that is not enough. Graffiti on the wall of Hailing The Crimson King will get a knowing nod from people, but that's it. I'm sure they would rather see the actual story from the books on the screen. Arcel and writer Goldsman, oversimplify an epic story into a 90 some odd minute shoot em up. Sure, it looks cool when Elba reloads his guns, but I want something more than that. It doesn't help that the film essentially has two and a half action sequences, which might look neat to those who haven't seen a film like John Wick.

Elba does his best with the clunky dialogue, but he can't save it. McConaughey chews up the scenery, as expected. His character is "worse than the devil". He can kill people by simply telling them to stop breathing. He does this numerous times. He can catch bullets, incinerate people, basically force anyone to do anything. Mucho powerful. But here's the expository dialogue part "Roland, you've always been immune to my magic, haven't you?" So there you have it, he can't hurt our hero in the "stop breathing" category. He can still use the force to hurl objects at him and watching McConaughey move his hands around to control items like broken glass or rocks is unintentionally comical.

Bad special effects plague this film. There is a sequence at night where a demon, which apparently breaks through the barrier, attacks Roland and Jake. It's hard to make out what it looks like, or what the heck is going on. But in the end does it matter? Who know the Gunslinger will eventually put it out of its misery. I snickered at seeing how bad they rendered humans falling around or getting hit by cars. It only happens a few times in one particular sequences, but it's something that still hasn't been perfected and probably never will.

The entire film feels clunky, unexplained or unexplored. I never got a sense of Roland's world. There are abandoned structures all over and they have no idea what they were used for, but we clearly know they are carnival rides, as does Jake. How does anyone who never read the books have a clue as to what this means. Arcel seems uninterested in exploring that side of the story and instead streamlines it from point A to point B. This isn't a story to do that, especially if the goal is to branch it off into a series. I suspect this will be the only film they make.

With generic action sequences, oversimplification of an epic story, shoddy effects and some questionable performances (Jake's friend is the biggest offender), The Dark Tower is a big missed opportunity. Here is a series that could have been several films, sweeping multiple genres and taking viewers on a ride they probably wouldn't of forgotten. Instead we get this film that I already have forgotten. Ho-hum, despite a big budget, we have yet another King adaption failure.