Stephen King's The Dark Tower

Snake Plisken

The only one who seems to be able to do any justice to King's work is Frank Darabont. He would have done the movies right and and the TV series as he has experience bringing The Walking Dead series to the small screen. Peter Jackson would have been another good choice.
Let's hope the remake of IT is better then this. Also we have Brendan Gleeson starring in Mr Mercedes TV show starting later this month.

.ak

I'm only halfway thru the books... thinking of completely dodging this as if it's really bad I'd hate for a bad movie to spoil the story as I'm reading thru it.

Wouldn't mind if it was a good adaption, ala GoT, but everything about this looks like a poor representation of what I've read.

Why didn't they just use the Marvel Comics as a screen adaption?

Snake Plisken

.ak wrote: »

I'm only halfway thru the books... thinking of completely dodging this as if it's really bad I'd hate for a bad movie to spoil the story as I'm reading thru it.

Wouldn't mind if it was a good adaption, ala GoT, but everything about this looks like a poor representation of what I've read.

Why didn't they just use the Marvel Comics as a screen adaption?

Yes I would recommend sticking with the books as this might put you off reading the rest of them!

.ak

I have a feeling this will be TV serialised ... and hopefully done well.

kerplun k

Not going to lie, Every negitive comment I read about this is like a mini kick to the gut. I had and still have high hopes for this.

Just a note on the criticical reception. Two films I watched In the past year, Jackie, rated 89% and Moonlight, rated 98% on RT, where both appalling, yet critics raved about then. Criticism in the film industry, for this generation has become a joke, it's essentially become an echo chamber, where critics make their minds up long before a film is released and are afraid to deviate from one opinion to the next. For most major films this year I could almost guess the reception before the release. It's evidennt in the reviews I read about this, when they mention things like short runtime , production problems, release delays, not being a true adaptation, casting, none of which have any relevance to what's on screen. it's nonsense. For honest reviews, online critics cannit be trusted anymore, unfortunately most of the things we read are just clickbate designed to grab our attention with shocking headlines, such as sh*tting all over a highly anticipated film. A prime example of this is BvS , the worse the reviews were for this, the more clicks and attention was gained by the reviewer, way more than something positive would have gained. This isn't to say a film is bad or good, but nowadays everything we read is sensationalised and over exaggerated with the sole purpose of getting our clicks and not necessary giving us the correct information.

Wait until the film is released, listen to what real people say about it and then make up your own mind about seeing it.

johnny_ultimate

kerplun k wrote: »

Wait until the film is released, listen to what real people say about it and then make up your own mind about seeing it.

So critics are fake people? I've long suspected as much, but I really liked Moonlight and Jackie so I did have my doubts...

kerplun k

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

So critics are fake people? I've long suspected as much, but I really liked Moonlight and Jackie so I did have my doubts...

And that's perfectly fine. I know people who liked both as well, but moonlight is 98%. Is it really that good, or was the score just a reaction to the Oscars So White controversy from the previous year. I'd say the same for Wonder Women, which I liked, but a 92% score? Was it really that good or just a Hollywood reaction to the pay gender gap, and accusations of female inequality in Hollywood?

What I mean by real people, is real opinions and not agendas.

johnny_ultimate

kerplun k wrote: »

moonlight is 98%. Is it really that good

As far as I'm concerned? Absolutely.

Arghus

kerplun k wrote: »

And that's perfectly fine. I know people who liked both as well, but moonlight is 98%. Is it really that good, or was the score just a reaction to the Oscars So White controversy from the previous year. I'd say the same for Wonder Women, which I liked, but a 92% score? Was it really that good or just a Hollywood reaction to the pay gender gap, and accusations of female inequality in Hollywood?

What I mean by real people, is real opinions and not agendas.

98% or 92% just means that percentage of movie critics thought it was a good movie, as opposed to a bad one; It doesn't mean that those movies are 2% or 8% off being utterly flawless.

In theory it would be possible for a film to get a 100% score, but with every critic giving it 3 out of five as RT often, but not always, views anything including that review score and upwards as being "fresh"

Heckler

As a fan of the books (up till it disappeared up its own ass in book 7, never finished it) I would say it would be near impossible to do it justice on screen.

A tv series by HBO or the like maybe.

And while a fine actor Elba, for anyone who loves the books, isn't Roland.

I'd take a 80 whatever year old Eastwood as Roland first.

Avatar MIA

Heckler wrote: »

I'd take a 80 whatever year old Eastwood as Roland first.

Yip.

kerplun k

I've seen The Dark Tower has gone straight to the top of the American Box Office.

A nice balanced article about it in the HR.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/amp/heat-vision/dark-tower-tv-show-sequel-details-1026568

The TV show looks to be pushing ahead as well. I'm reading Glenn Mazzara, formerly of The Walking Dead has been hired as show runner.

http://www.avclub.com/article/former-walking-dead-showrunner-glen-mazzara-joins--258997

Arghus

kerplun k wrote: »

I've seen The Dark Tower has gone straight to the top of the American Box Office.

A nice balanced article about it in the HR.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/amp/heat-vision/dark-tower-tv-show-sequel-details-1026568

The TV show looks to be pushing ahead as well. I'm reading Glenn Mazzara, formerly of The Walking Dead has been hired as show runner.

http://www.avclub.com/article/former-walking-dead-showrunner-glen-mazzara-joins--258997

Top of the box office alright, but 19 million is far from spectacular.

Liam McPoyle

Arghus wrote: »

Top of the box office alright, but 19 million is far from spectacular.

Didn't it only cost something like $25m to make?

Havnt read any reviews and have avoided a couple of FB groups as I want to watch it myself and make up my own mind.

The fact that it's rated 12 would add additional concerns to the concerns I've had all along.

Hopefully it's passable at least and makes enough money to be economically viable, whether in tv land or cinema.

Avatar MIA

Rod Munch wrote: »

Didn't it only cost something like $25m to make?

Wiki says $60m.

charlie_says

Trailer put me off the movie. I knew little about the series before talk of the movie.

ziggyman17

should never have been made as a stand alone movie... would only work as tv series in my opinion...

SnakePlissken

kerplun k wrote: »

when they mention things like short runtime , production problems, not being a true adaptation, casting, none of which have any relevance to what's on screen

You what

kerplun k

SnakePlissken wrote: »

You what

Don't agree?

Short runtime = Dunkirk
Production problems = Rogue One
True adaptation = it's a sequel
Casting = Tom Cruise / Lestat

I believe these things should be irrelevant in a movie review and shows lazy writing.

If I want gossip / rumours, I'll read TMZ.

I think some critics are more interested in writing about the negative press surrounding a big blockbuster film than the actual story that's on screen. It was the same with BvS, World War Z, The Lone Ranger.

I think someone like Roger Ebert would be horrified by the current sate of todays movie critics, most of which are more interested in how many views, likes, retweets, followers they can get.

It's so evident these days, where everything is really really bad or really really good. Nothing is average, because that's boring and won't help their own personal agenda. It's becomes an echo chamber.

pixelburp

kerplun k wrote: »

Don't agree?

Short runtime = Dunkirk
Production problems = Rogue One
True adaptation = it's a sequel
Casting = Tom Cruise / Lestat

I believe these things should be irrelevant in a movie review and shows lazy writing.

It's all relevant though, despite what you might claim. As the saying goes, art does not exist in a vacuum; you cannot ignore the context in which any art, entertainment or whatever is borne from. Perhaps not necessarily important for the immediacy of the box office, but ultimately for those interested in critical review, or what I presume to be the film-fans on this forum, the nuts and bolts are just as important. Maybe in time, more prickly and socially topical issues of the day quietly fade into the background and the movie can be viewed without that prism, but more often than not the genetic make-up of a film is intrinsically linked to its production: in fact an infamous production cycle is often more likely to increase a films myth - look at Blade Runner, Brazil, Apocalypse Now, Heaven's Gate, to name just four.

GLaDOS

Anyone seen this?

Reading around, I'm not sure I'm going to bother...

TerrorFirmer

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Wiki says $60m.

That's actually incredibly low considering the talent involved, scale of the production, etc. I'm surprised.

I've never read the books and reviews for this film are so far pretty poor, but still debating whether or not to give it a look.

kerplun k

I watched it tonight. It's not without its flaws but I thought it was very good. I'd give it a solid 6.8/10. I had great fun spotting all the King references. Tom Taylor was excellent as Jake Chambers and Idris Elba was a badass Roland. Surprisingly, it was Matthew McConaughey as Walter o'Dim that was a bit of a let down. Every time Walter showed up on screen I cringed a little. It's a shame because I think McConaughey is a fantastic actor, and always thought he'd make a perfect Randall Flagg. Katheryn Winnick was also great as Jakes Mom. The Roland/Jake relationship is were the film excels. Elba/Taylor have great chemistry, and there are some genuinely funny scenes in the film were Elba plays a man in an unfamiliar place and time, the hospital and bus scenes in particular were hilarious, and I would have liked if they spent a bit more time playing on this. The film can work either as a stand alone, "one and done", action flick, or if your interested, as an entry point with further expansion. Either way, I'd be perfectly happy with either.

I was just happy to see Roland on the big screen. The film definitely left me wanting more, but ended in a way which resolves things, but if it ends here, I'm perfectly fine seeing this as another version of the circle that is Rolands quest.

I went to see this with seven friends, only me and one other was familiar with the books. All of us found the film enjoyable, with one comparing it to The Scorpion King, saying it was a good "popcorn movie", favourably comparing and liking the charismatic lead, short runtime, action set pieces, and comedic moments.

If like me your a King/TDT fan, you can take more from it, but you don't have to be familiar with any of Kings work to enjoy it as just a stand alone.

In a way this film kind of reminded me of the first book, The Gunslinger, my Dad recommended it to me. But after I read it, I told him it was good, but I was indifferent about continuing it, he anticipated my response and had a copy of The Drawing Of The Three ready, he gave it to me and told me to keep reading, it was only after finishing this, that I was hooked, and it became one of my favourite stories.

Liam McPoyle

Went to see it this morning.

This is not the Gunslinger and Elba is not Roland Deschain as I imagined him since the first time I read The Gunslinger.

However.

I really enjoyed it.

I hadn't read a single review, I unfollowed a couple of TDT Facebook groups I'm in since its release as I wanted to go in with a complete open mind.

This movie is about 50% the Gunslinger and a 50% reimagining.

There is a treasure trove of Easter eggs for king fans throughout, the movie zips along apace with no filler, it's refreshing to have a movie with around a 90 minute run time.

Roland and Jake's relationship kind of annoyed me. In the books it takes time for the bond to build and Roland is completely single minded in his pursuit of the tower but here he opens up pretty quickly however considering it's inspired by The Gunslinger as opposed to being a straight adaptation that's ok.

I'm hopeful that we will get sequels, whether t.v. adaptations or movies I don't really mind but I'm hungry for more.

This was the tip of the iceberg in terms of the world of TDT and served as a good introduction to the cycle.

Personally I'd give it a solid 7/10.

Better than i was expecting but not what I'd hoped for.

TerrorFirmer

Does it work well enough as a total standalone movie, without having read the books and if no further adaptions ever surfaced?

Liam McPoyle

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

Does it work well enough as a total standalone movie, without having read the books and if no further adaptions ever surfaced?

Yep.

It's wrapped up at the end but still left open, if that makes sense?

TerrorFirmer

Cool. Think I'll give it a look so!

Zapp Brannigan

Terrible for me.

Just didn’t connect with it the same way I did with the books.

The kid playing Jake was great though.

coffee_cake

I loved the books, and I really enjoyed the movie.
It was a little bit rushed but otherwise very good I felt. I actually thought MMC did a great job!

Pat Mustard

I saw the film and liked it. It wasn't what I expected either.

Idris Elba put his own stamp on Roland. I thought that he was excellent. Some of the scenes

on Earth

are for comic relief and Elba deadpanned them brilliantly,

on the bus and in the hospital

.

Tom Taylor played Jake and he was very good too.

There was something a bit lacklustre about Matthew McConaughey's performance. Maybe he just wasn't too convincing as the bad guy.

The plot of the film is not great, to be honest. It blends part of the story from the books with something else. It was a bit awkward, a bit clunky. It could have been better.

And what the hell happened to the most amazing opening line: "The man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed"? That line is reduced to the status of a footnote in the film. That's all. No fanfare, just a casual remark.

Overall, I thought that the film shouldn't have worked but strong performances from Idris Elba and Tom Taylor made it very watchable. Far from perfect but not a bad film. I enjoyed it.