Switch Theme:

Dark Tower - The Movie  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
Member of the Ethereal Council




USA

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
 LordofHats wrote:
I was excited for this but then I saw a commercial that said "in theaters now" and I instantly knew it would suck. You don't have turn around on movies this fast for movies that don't suck.


I didn't follow the development of the movie, though I kinda wish I had because I may not have rushed out to see it. It seems to have been in development hell for years and burned through two major directors before landing on the director who ultimately released the film. That sort of behind-the-scenes drama suggests major problems with the script, and or meddling by the studio, which almost always makes a film worse.

Anyway, my opinion is save your money.


Honestly I was skeptical when I first heard about it that The Dark Tower would ever translate well to film (EDIT: Oh wait I said that in this thread like forever ago, there it is on page one XD). it's one of a number of great pieces that seem so engrained into their own medium that making them work in another seems impossible (Malazan Book of the Fallen, and Saga to name two works that I think fit this category). When I first saw the trailer I was like "oh yes Shia LeBouf syndrome. Because everyone is going to a Dark Tower movie to see some movie only kid character make nice with the hero, but I too like Idris Elba and I liked the books enough to wait up until i saw how rapid the turnaround was from when I saw the first trailer to release.

I'll wait for DVD me thinks. Maybe an iTunes rental. From what I've read people have been giving props to Elba and McConaughey for giving solid performances in spite of the film and again, I do like Idris Elba.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/08/07 21:28:13


   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Manchu wrote:
The aggregate review scores for this film are absurd. I will never again care about Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic.

I am not a Stephen King fan. Stopped reading his books when I was about eleven. I never made it past the first DT book and couldn't tell you hardly anything about it now.

I went to see this movie as part of a social event and I wasn't looking forward to it at all. It turned out to be a solid, likable picture that reminded me (in good ways) of late 80s/early 90s adventure movies. It's not great by a long shot but it was entertaining. I was never bored, I was never confused, I was never rolling my eyes at absolute bs. By contrast to movies like say Rogue One (85% Rotten Tomatoes) I actually cared about the characters and rooted for them. Most importantly, the story had a coherent beginning, middle, and end which is vanishingly rare in the cinema these days.

This film is AT WORST a B- ... 18% is unadulterated balderdash.

Don't believe the anti-hype.


Are you saying you didn't like Rogue One? I mean sure, it was overrated, but not by that much...

I'm positive most of the negative rating comes from King's bizarre multiverse and that the movie was intended as a sequel to the novels, not an adaptation.

The only way we can ever solve anything is to look in the mirror and find no enemy 
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Custodian






Holy Terra

Yeah I think R1 is glossy garbage. Wish it had stayed a trailer.

   
Made in us
[MOD]
Mallax Untain






Svalarheima, MA

I loved the Dark Tower series - except for the....frustrating ending, but that's a bit of a "King Thing".

I was hoping that this movie would be the true sequel to the last book that it could/should be - and was disappointed to see how badly the movie was faring, effectively scuttling that.

I'll definitively see the movie though - I'm an Elba fan, and In Manchu We Trust!

(Usually!)

Nil nos tremefacit.
 
   
Made in ca
Rough Rider with Boomstick





London, Ontario

I saw the movie this weekend. I'm a huge fan of the Dark Tower series [eventually getting over the 2nd ending after about a year...] and I always figured they'd probably need 3 movies to do it justice. One for the prelude [Wizard in Glass, maybe to the end of The Gunslinger], another for books 2 through to 5, and then book 6 and 7.

Before going, I noted that the movie was 1.5 hrs long. That just wasn't going to be enough time to pull off a proper Prelude + Book 1, so I was pretty sure it was going to fall short of my hopes.

Having pre-managed my expectations, I was still slightly disappointed. I'm a fan of Idris Elba, but without a proper build of Roland's character, I thought it fell flat. Same thing with Mathew McCaunagheigh's [sp?] performance of the Man in Black. While he pulled off a chilling villain, his overuse of "Die 'cause I said so" power was just so much more direct than I thought was proper for his otherwise manipulative character. There just wasn't enough character development for me to hang my cares on.

This Jake is also very different from the books. I can see they tried to pin the emotional focus on him, but he's not supposed to "shine" like a lighthouse from what I recall, and he was never involved in breaking the beams / tower directly, as this case is.


Overall, it felt like they tried to pick bits and pieces from too many of the books, and took the key villain from the series and knocked him off way too early. Though, given his tendency to return from mortal injuries, I wouldn't be surprised to see his return.

Oh, and what happened to "...only misfires and duds for me, Roland." He's not supposed to be able to shoot at him. That's the whole point. He can't shoot his nemesis, and he's a Gunslinger. Grrr... anyhow, it's not a "bad" movie, but it's not great. I could have waited for Netflix.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






Shangri-LA

 greatbigtree wrote:


This Jake is also very different from the books. I can see they tried to pin the emotional focus on him.


That is one of my biggest issues with the film. The movie's focus on Jake instead of Roland was a poor choice, especially given that the actor portraying Jake seemed emotionless and bland and not fit to carry a movie on his own. I didn't sign on for a YA movie the likes of Hunger Games or Divergent, and at times that is exactly what Dark Tower felt like. "Oh, poor Jakey! He has a mean stepdad and a hollow, empty mother (which is a shame because Katheryn Winnick is a very capable actress so why was she so one dimensional here?) and we have to follow him as he uses plot armor to find the source of his dreams." fething snooze-fest.
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Custodian






Holy Terra

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
I didn't sign on for a
That right there seems to be the trouble. "The movie wasn't X" where X = whatever you wanted it to be is one thing ... but it doesn't amount to demonstrating that what the movie in fact is doesn't work.

I actually liked Jake quite a bit. Although the first scenes of the film transition into Jake's dreams, there is no real tension about whether Jake is crazy or not. Rather, the tension lays in what it must feel like for your own well-intentioned mother to hand you over to the devil. What made Jake likeable for me was that he took matters into his own hands in terms of escaping and figuring out what was going on. In other words, he was acting like a protagonist.

I get that fans of the novels expected that role to be filled by Roland. I'm glad they didn't go that route because Roland is ultra-capable, which IMO hurts the relatability of a protagonist (for example, Rey in TFA). Roland also already knows too much about the world and so cannot serve as a useful audience surrogate in terms of exposition. Finally, the world of the film itself turns on the clash between Roland and Walter. Jake is the object of their struggle, so it makes sense that he is the focus of the story.

Like I said, the film is actually very solid on its own terms. Whether it measures up to the beloved series that inspired it is a legitimate question but ultimately a separate question.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






Shangri-LA

 Manchu wrote:
 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
I didn't sign on for a
That right there seems to be the trouble. "The movie wasn't X" where X = whatever you wanted it to be is one thing ... but it doesn't amount to demonstrating that what the movie in fact is doesn't work.


The movie wasn't marketed as a Young Adult film. So, I appreciate you trying to "fight the good fight" against what you perceive as a collective bashing on this film, but you are ignoring this important point. The film trailers focused on Roland, and the film ended up being something else entirely. It is not the audiences' problem that they were hoodwinked by the marketing of the film.

And I heartily disagree that the film is solid on its own terms. It is a generic action movie at best. You described it as reminding you of 80's and 90's action fare, and those aren't typically considered "solid" films. They might be fun, and silly, and enjoyable for their campiness, but they aren't objectively good films. That genre of movies often have huge plot holes and lack a coherent story line but have neat explosions, and great one-liners. Which are all things Dark Tower has problems with. Lots of stuff is happening, but none of it seems to matter. Some of the villains don't even get names! We are just shown one set piece after another, and expected to believe this is an epic journey.

 Manchu wrote:
What made Jake likeable for me was that he took matters into his own hands in terms of escaping and figuring out what was going on. In other words, he was acting like a protagonist.


In the most lazy way possible. He posts on a message board, and minutes later he finds an address to a spooky house. That isn't an active protagonist, that is railroading plot advancement. What about the thing he encounters in the house. No real explanation there. But he overpowers it and moves on. It was paint by numbers adventuring and boring as hell to watch.

 Manchu wrote:
I get that fans of the novels expected that role to be filled by Roland. I'm glad they didn't go that route because Roland is ultra-capable, which IMO hurts the relatability of a protagonist (for example, Rey in TFA). Roland also already knows too much about the world and so cannot serve as a useful audience surrogate in terms of exposition. Finally, the world of the film itself turns on the clash between Roland and Walter. Jake is the object of their struggle, so it makes sense that he is the focus of the story.


Roland is ultra capable in the books and people had no problem with that. I don't think having Jake as our guide for the world being portrayed was the right choice. The actor was stiff, his emotional range was limited to blank stares and sulking, he just wasn't a good protagonist. And your assessment above is fine for a YA movie. Again, that is not how the film was marketed. Not every movie needs to have a wunderkind as the central character in order to be approachable or understandable for audiences. I could watch The Last Action Hero and get the same sort of experience as Dark Tower. That isn't a compliment to either movie.

   
Made in us
[MOD]
Custodian






Holy Terra

The film wasn't marketed as a YA film because it's not a YA film. I mean, I see what you're trying to say by attacking the film for having a teenage protagonist ... but having a teenage protagonist is not sufficient to throw DT into the YA category. Jake is the only meaningful teenage character in the film. The film is not really about him being a teen or growing up or having teenage romance, etc. So I hope we can move on from this non-starter tangent.

> finding the house

Jake sees the house in a dream. He likes to draw things from his dreams. He draws the house. He wants to find it. He is a teenager in 2017. So he posts his drawing online to a forum about finding locations in/around NYC. Seems pretty reasonable to me, especially considering that finding the house as a plot mechanic is set against the ticking clock of being shipped off to psycho camp, where he will be killed (or "roont"?). Now, yes it is an "only in fiction" level coincidence that he sees a reply on the forum out of the corner of his eye at the same time that his parents are handing him over to the bad guys. But after all this is fiction.

>the house demon

Here you raise a stronger point. The encounter serves to get Jake through the portal and, more importantly, demonstrate his omega-level Shine. But TBH I had to guess that second part until later on, when Walter and his minions explained it. It's definitely not a strong scene but it's probably the "worst offender" in the movie and was interesting-looking and anyhow fairly short. Once Walter et al. do explain what it was and how Jake defeated it, it primed me to expect that Jake would at some point turn his weaponized Shine on the baddies.

>Jake as protagonist

The kid who played Jake did a fine job. His emotional range was purposefully stunted because that was the nature of the character and him opening up over the course of developing a relationship with Roland was a staisfying part of the movie. By the "fish out of water" scenes, I was favorably reminded of T2 Judgement Day. The Jake and Roland teamup is something I definitely rooted for.

You use the term "objective" above - I think DT objectively gets things right: clear character motives, straightfoward plotline, familiar themes, satisfying conclusion where friendship triumphs over hatred. DT is not blazing a new trail by any means. It's riding some well-traveled rails but doing a yeoman's job of it.

   
Made in ca
Rough Rider with Boomstick





London, Ontario

The film is, however, Jake's coming of age tale. Leaving behind [literally] his childhood and entering maturity [by virtue of dead parents, he's the head of his family now]. Developing his own [unbelievable] strength and having to wrest it back from the hands of elders that would steer him wrong. That will kill him if he doesn't follow the rules.

There's a lot of YA movies these days that have run down that theme. Hunger Games, Maze Runner, Something of Bones... all the other fiction with a teenage hero that has to overcome the government / secret society / the man / teenage angst / dead parents / Voldemort / brutal acne.

The books had an epic scope, and time to flesh that out. Entirely too much of this movie was hand-waved. Jake just goes along with it because "reasons?" . None of his questioning sanity. Just, Yup. I'm here. I'm being hunted by rat-men that wear people's skin for a disguise. Let's do this. I'm going to be used to undo the universe? I can handle that. Just lost my parents. No biggie. I'm just going to take the weight of the world / existence upon my shoulders and defeat dude that can kill people that telling them to stop breathing. Sure. No big deal.

Jake is the focus of the movie, happens upon Bullet-Magic Roland that happens to want to kill Walter because unexplained war happened with unknown background or resolution but He killed my pappy so I'ma gonna kill him right back. Very fortunate for Jake, that just survived a house trying to eat him while he was trying to go through techno-magic portal to an actual wasteland. It's cool.

Roland was in no way portrayed as the proper 'ard case he is. He was a one dimensional murder-bot that wanted to kill Walter with no real soul in it. And again, Walter isn't supposed to be killable with bullets, which makes him such a great foil for a Gunslinger. But magic deflecto bullet is magic and Roland knew somehow exactly how much Walter would slow the initial bullet so that he could hit it with a ricocheting magic bullet.

The movie isn't a terrible action movie, it's just a sad shadow of the book. Like how World War Z shared nothing with the book, except the words "World War Z". It's an empty pop can of a movie. It's got the shape, and it's got the label, but that's about it.

I wanted a fantastic version of True Grit, and got a teenage coming of age film with some Anime style fight sequences. I wanted Roland, and got Jake.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/08/10 23:16:07


 
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Custodian






Holy Terra

I don't think this was a coming of age story, either. Consider how thoroughly the scriptwriters overhauled Jake's family life here. In the film, he's hung up on the loss of his beloved fire fighting dad whereas his mom is trying to move on with another dude, and there is no love lost between him and Jake. Jake has lost his dad, is losing his mom, and is increasingly forced to wonder whether he's losing his mind. This isn't about growing up; it's about being a kid in need of a parent. This also accounts for the dramatic changes in Roland's character, because Roland is ultimately the one who steps up as Jake's father figure. He, too, has lost his father (and everyone else), in parallel to Jake. This is a case of an orphan being adopted by an orphan; not a story of a boy becoming a man.

   
Made in ca
Rough Rider with Boomstick





London, Ontario

Batman's origin story. The tale of how Bruce Wayne goes from a child to an adult [Batman].

Spiderman's origin story. The tale of how Peter Parker goes from a child [irresponsible] to an adult [responsible Spider Man].

90% of all Disney movies with one dead parent, an evil step-parent, and an irresponsible living parent that does not stop their offspring from going off on an adventure way beyond their ability to cope with.

And Jake has no sense of crumbling sanity. He has unflinching certainty of his correctness. Even more so after his coming of age ordeal, in which he goes from being a dependant child to an independent beacon of stoicism. He knows the universe is a messed up place and has absolutely no difficulty [ie. child-like troubles] dealing with the sanity shattering effect of being thrown into this world. At the very least, Jake is just a pawn being moved through this movie that has no realistic response to the events around him. This is absolute text-book coming of age / origin story stuff here.


In the film, he's hung up on the loss of his beloved fire fighting dad whereas his mom is trying to move on with another dude, and there is no love lost between him and Jake. Jake has lost his dad, is losing his mom,


Which is exactly leaving behind childhood, and learning to fend for himself. He's doing that with Roland's help, you could argue, but when you can single-handedly destroy the universe with your brain-power, you're no longer a helpless little lad, are you? Roland didn't adopt him. If anything, Jake convinces Roland that questing for the Tower is a good goal, and not to just let himself wallow in misery. JAKE convinces Roland to carry on. JAKE is the adult, saying we need to do what needs to be done. He starts as helpless child, and becomes a man in mind and spirit, if not body. Jake adopts poor, directionless Roland.
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Trazyn's Museum Curator







I didn't read any of the books, so I didn't have any preconceptions. I didn't think this movie was as bad as the reviews - not by half - but it definitely wasn't particularly good, either. I'd give it a solid 4/10, which is about twice as good as it's being reviewed. Poor, but not the crime against cinema it's going down as.

Idris Elba was great but that's pretty expected. Matthew McConaughey was OK at best.I found his character's motivations to be a little unclear, to be honest, and his delivery really was like a 90 minute version of the Lincoln commercial. The movie really felt like the first part of a franchise that is now obviously never going to happen - it was clear from the beginning, I think, that the Crimson King is the real antagonist and so Roland functionally accomplished very little, I think. The kid was so forgettable that I saw this movie on Monday and already can't remember what he looked like.

All in all it very like a really watered down version of something else, with little depth.

The real takeaway I got from this movie is I too am now wondering how much weight I should give Rotten Tomatoes - I already had some pretty serious doubts after the last few movies that were not so great, but getting these hideously low scores.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/08/12 07:38:56


 d-usa wrote:
2016: every celebrity you love is dead
2017: every celebrity is a rapist
 
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Custodian






Holy Terra

@greatbigtree

Not really. Jake has a clearer (simpler? certainly less burdened) sense of right and wrong than Roland but Jake's still just a kid. In fact, that's exactly why Jake has greater moral clarity. (It doesn't get much more Stephen King than that theme.) It's not that he's mature; more like he is still "pure of heart," being a naive kid. He is yearning for a dad. Roland reluctantly accepts the role and we even have a rather extended bonding sequence with Roland teaching Jake to shoot and the Gunslinger Oath. The movie ends with Roland reaffirming this relationship as they head off into the next adventure. Jake is by no stretch of the imagination a grown man by the end of the film. And there is no reasonable interpretation of the character that can conclude with describing him as a "beacon of stocisim" - the opposite is true. Jake cares about the larger, fantastical world that he stumbles into, and has no trouble adjusting to it, because (a) he's been living in it to some extent, and growing increasingly detached from the "real world," since his dad died and (b) because he gradually finds a new father figure in Roland.

@Ouze

Whew, 4/10 is pretty harsh. What was unclear about Walter's motivation? I believe Roland explained it directly: he wants to destroy the Tower because he will rule/help rule the resulting hellscape. I guess you could wonder, why would he want to do that? But that's sort of like asking why Skeletor wants to capture Castle Greyskull.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/08/12 07:44:58


   
Made in us
Member of the Ethereal Council




USA

I ended up seeing it anyway cause the folks were going and why the hell not get my own opinion about it.

I think its pretty bad. 15% bad? Eh, I don't really care about the specific number. Rotten Tomatos is jus aggregating the binary of "rotten" and "fresh" into a number and I can totally see how movie critics would overwhelmingly rate this rather mediocre picture as rotten to produce such a low score. I'd bet there's a pretty big overlap between Stephen King fans and movie critics, so take an already not that good movie, throw in all the disappointment that comes from wasting so much potential, and you get a film that very few people are willing to stick up for. I think the worst parts are the first twenty and last twenty minutes of the movie too, which doubly sucks because that's nearly half the movie. The climax was just jarring. It all ends so abruptly and then it's like when Will Smith and that other guy uploaded the virus to the mother ship and "oh well, I guess you sank my battleship go on then you win" and then you remember they still had to fight to escape, not just fly out casually and eat lunch. The ending left me with the same taste in my mouth I get from a so-so wish fulfillment fan fiction.

As I suspected I did like Idris Elba and Matthew McConaughey. I actually think McConaughey deserves a little more credit for how menacing he managed to be on screen with such a bland script at his disposal. I was impressed. The whole thing though just came off as so uninspired, a travesty against culture given the source material. I don't know what process managed to take something so good and turn it into such a run of the mill film but damn. I'd probably agree with Ouze's rating honestly. 4 out of 10 feels about right to me. EDIT: The bad thing though is that I just can't imagine actually recommending the movie to anyone. Fans of the Dark Tower are likely to be disappointed. As a fantasy adventure it's just bland. As an action movie it's dull, and as a drama its shallow and predictable. It's like the film itself just hits all the marks for being "eh" but manages to be so "eh" that I can't imagine anyone actually enjoying themselves watching it. I've seen bad movies and still been able to think of people who might enjoy them but I can't think of anyone who'd enjoy this. There's just better out there for every note it tries to hit.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/08/12 20:13:02


   
Made in us
[MOD]
Custodian






Holy Terra

It's so weird to find myself championing this movie given that (a) I have no investment in it whatsoever, along any dimension, and (b) I think it is just a B- film, albeit graded on a curve where other big budget movies are making far worse gaffs than simply failing to impress. I think that's the real issue for me. Drilling down to the fundamentals, I think Dark Tower is a very competent movie. Competent doesn't mean anything more than, hey nobody forgot to tell a story, nobody missed out on writing a clear and coherent plot, and nobody forgot that movies are supposed to have characters that the audience learns about and can care about. These basic elements have been outright missing from well-reviewed films.

   
Made in us
[DCM]
Trazyn's Museum Curator







 Manchu wrote:
It's so weird to find myself championing this movie given that (a) I have no investment in it whatsoever, along any dimension, and (b) I think it is just a B- film, albeit graded on a curve where other big budget movies are making far worse gaffs than simply failing to impress.


That's how I felt about Suicide Squad, a movie I enjoyed (but didn't love), which was based on a comic I had never read a single issue of. I didn't think it was a particularly good movie, even, but could not believe how it had been reviewed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
excuse me, The Oscar Award Winning Film, Suicide Squad.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/08/13 08:00:03


 d-usa wrote:
2016: every celebrity you love is dead
2017: every celebrity is a rapist
 
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Custodian






Holy Terra

Does anyone know of a comparative account of how Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic distinguish between positive and negative reviews?

   
Made in us
Member of the Ethereal Council




USA

Rotten Tomatoes is very simple. It takes reviews and aggregates them into a "rotten" or "fresh" review, then combines all those into a % Fresh number that is the primary number displayed. You can find the basic outline of how they decide who to include as critics on this page. To turn reviews into "Fresh" or "Rotten" all reviews are aggregated into a 1-100 scale with 60+ being "Fresh" and 59- being "Rotten." Movies that manage to crack 75+ (that is 75% of the reviews are Fresh, aka 60%+) are given "Certified Fresh" stickers. Rotten Tomatoes then has the popcorn bucket which is the user rating which is on a simpler 1-5 scale. details here.

Metacritic explains their process here. For me it was TLDR.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/08/13 13:49:09


   
Made in us
[MOD]
Custodian






Holy Terra

So each review is translated from, for example, a body of text to a numerical value between 1 and 100?

   
Made in us
Member of the Ethereal Council




USA

Most (professionally published anyway) reviews give some kind of value. Stars. Out of Ten. E-A scale. All of these can be aggregated into a base value. For example 5 out of 5 becomes 100. 4.5 out of ten becomes 45. A B+ becomes an 85 (this one is probably the hardest to do consistently).

I could actually see how Rotten Tomatoes gave Dark Tower such a low score cause I don't see many reviewers giving it "60 and up" or equivalent, and since the final number is just a comparison of "rotten" vs "fresh" and not a weighted aggregate like Metacritic you end up with Rotten Tomatoes giving a horrendus score to the film simply because very few reviewers are giving it higher than "meh" marks. Even films as rotten as Battleship had people willing to stick up for them in fair number.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/08/14 00:21:09


   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






Am I reading that right, that RT only counts US-based reviewers?
   
Made in us
Member of the Ethereal Council




USA

They only seem to mention US based publishing.

   
Made in us
[MOD]
Custodian






Holy Terra

In their review of Annabelle Creation, RLM points out some weird things about Rotten Tomatoes.

The movie has a red tomato ("fresh"?) at 68% but a review that have the movie 68/100 is listed as splat icon?

Two reviews both gave it 3/5 but one is a fresh and one is a splat?

   
Made in us
Chaplain with Hate to Spare





SoCal

 Manchu wrote:
In their review of Annabelle Creation, RLM points out some weird things about Rotten Tomatoes.

The movie has a red tomato ("fresh"?) at 68% but a review that have the movie 68/100 is listed as splat icon?

Two reviews both gave it 3/5 but one is a fresh and one is a splat?


It means most (68%) critics like the movie at least a little (B- or higher?), so fresh, but a 68% rating by a critic is "I do not like it enough to give it a passing grade". It's like comparing "68% of students passed the test so the teacher was moderately successful" vs "this student got 68% so the teacher failed to teach".

   
Made in us
[MOD]
Custodian






Holy Terra

But then there is the issue of two equivalent (3/5) reviews being given different icons, one fresh and one splat.

   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




The first 2/3rds were solid and exciting. The last 1/3rd was meh.
   
Made in us
Chaplain with Hate to Spare





SoCal

 Manchu wrote:
But then there is the issue of two equivalent (3/5) reviews being given different icons, one fresh and one splat.


Really? I didn't see that. Maybe RT is just a shill company.

   
Made in gb
Battlefield Tourist





On an Express Elevator to Hell!!

 Alpharius wrote:
I loved the Dark Tower series - except for the....frustrating ending, but that's a bit of a "King Thing".

I was hoping that this movie would be the true sequel to the last book that it could/should be - and was disappointed to see how badly the movie was faring, effectively scuttling that.

I'll definitively see the movie though - I'm an Elba fan, and In Manchu We Trust!

(Usually!)


I'm in exactly the same boat!

I love the books. Perhaps one of my favourite series of all time.

When this was first announced (with I think has to be one of the strongest castings of any film that I care about) I was just so excited. I can't be the only one who imagined Idris Elba giving the 'face of your fathers' speech to Blaine, calling his bluff as all of their lives were on the line and travelling at hundreds of MPH towards the end of the tracks.

And McConaughey - anyone who has seen Dallas Buyer's Club, True Detective etc. knows the guy has some serious acting ability, and again could have been the perfect Man in Black.

And that in a way makes it more frustrating than if they had just cast Adam Sandler as the Gunslinger and the Man in Black as Jack Black. Considering the complexity and depth of the story series, why on earth try and represent this in movie form and 90 minutes? I know this had been repeated ad nauseum by the fan community, but surely they should have gone directly to the TV series, and even one book per series? The material was there for them to do it, and to do something 'great'. Laurence Olivier would be left flat-footed if he isn't given the material, either character development or lines.

I'm so torn about whether to see it or not. I love the books enough that I don't want the images in my imagination being tarnished by a 2-bit, lightweight interpretation that's been squeezed into that 90 minutes.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/08/17 17:59:03


Small but perfectly formed! A Great Crusade Epic 6mm project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/694411.page
Excellent discussion forum & information collection for Epic and other small scale miniatures: http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/index.php
 
   
Made in us
Incorporating Wet-Blending





Houston, TX

So I have very mixed feelings on the books and feel like they have alot of problematic areas coupled with some great ideas and imagery. The later books with Stephen King writing himself in, crazy Santa Claus and sneetches, etc. were very disappointing, IMO. I don't think the books would make a very good movie without careful editing. So, I was hoping for a movie that could stand on its own, purists and fanatics be damned.

The Dark Tower is just fine as a stand alone movie. It covers key concepts and major players without getting wonky and unapproachable for those not immersed in the books. There are plenty of shout outs and references for those who who are in the know. The pacing keeps things moving without getting bogged in needless exposition. The acting is solid, if unexceptional. It is not the end all be all, and has some problems, but the scorching reviews are way off the mark. It is better seen as 1 story of Roland's journey to the Dark Tower as opposed to "the" story, which is quite in keeping with the cyclical nature of the DT mythos.

-James
 
   
 
Forum Index » Geek Media
Go to: