I have been a fan of the Dark Tower series for decades. I was a little late to the game, getting into it during that quiet period between Wizard and Glass and Wolves of the Calla. It was about a 10-year wait for me to wait for Stephen King to crank out the last three novels of his epic series. The Dark Tower books themselves are not perfect, but I enjoy them immensely even with the rough edges and the typical Stephen King fizzle ending. So when I heard that they were turning the Dark Tower in a movie I was excited. This was a movie 10-years in the making as well. When it first came out, I was hesitant because most of the reviews were negative. Then there is the fan base out there, which is the most unforgiving sort. If any of you read my past articles, you probably already know that I didn't care that they cast Idris Elba in the titular role. I'm not going to shit on something because the actor doesn't match the skin tone or gender of the fiction. It's window dressing. I care about the story above all else.
After seeing the film last night, I can say that it is not as bad as the critics said. Also, for you purists out there, if you can't suspend your disbelief regarding this movie, then perhaps you should keep your nose in a book, you are part of King's "Constant Readers", so perhaps you should stay in your own wheelhouse if you can't see a film by its own merits. Here's my take on the movie...
Fair Warning: spoilers kick in near the end.
On Deviations...
ItThe biggest complaint (other than Roland being black) is the fact that the movie is a hodgepodge of plot elements from the entire Dark Tower series. It takes plot points from all eight novels and condenses them into a movie that runs a little under an hour and a half. I can understand how this might get people upset, but honestly, what do you expect? Adaptations of novels seldom follow the source material religiously, and really, how many Stephen King movies have you seen that were 100% faithful to the books? I can name two: Thinner and Shawshank Redemption, maybe Apt Pupil, but even then there were probably various changes. Sometimes change is good, sometimes some things cannot be adapted. If you can't understand this, then you don't know much about film. Stephen King's novels would translate horribly to film without some changes. Narrative pacing is a perfect example. Sometimes things need to be updated. Look at Dolan's Cadillac. For a modern adaptation to a short story that was already 25 years old when the movie was made.
Compare that to the Dark Tower, a series of stories that first started 1978 and ended in 2004. With all due respect to Stephen King, even he had no idea where the story was going and when you had gaps between novels that spanned decades, it wasn't the most flawlessly executed story. Those last three novels were rushed to the finish line only because he had a brush with death. Also, have you read the Dark Tower books? Particularly the Gunslinger? That would have been an incredibly boring movie if you adapted it faithfully. This is coming from a huge fan.
You also have to consider movie audiences, would they have been willing to wait for five or six movies to even get a clue what's going on? King stretched his plot out so long that it wasn't until book five when you finally started getting answers to things. On top of that, he crammed plot elements from several other novels to fill the gaps, from The Stand, Insomnia, Hearts of Atlantis, he even shoehorned Salem's Lot into the damn thing. It's a mess. It's a god damn mess. I love it, but I'm willing to call it what it is.
The point I am getting at, if you want a more faithful adaptation to the novels, read the comic books published by Marvel, that's about as close as you're going to get. Now let's get onto what I thought about the movie itself....
Neverending Story but with Guns, and That's So Cool.
As I watched this movie, and it's primary focus being on Jake I felt that slight tingle of nostalgia with what I was seeing. It wasn't the feeling I get when I read a King novel. It was more like the feel of watching an old fantasy epic from the 80s. It didn't feel like a Stephen King movies (despite all the references to his other books), it felt more like watching The Neverending Story, and movies of the same sort. The Phantom Tollbooth, or Labyrinth, you name it. This movie isn't like them (by a long shot) but it has the same feel as those movies. A normal kid gets pulled into a world where science fiction and fantasy collide to fight alongside a great hero to stop an undying evil that threatens to destroy everything.
If you're going to watch this movie with anything in mind, it should be that. Toss all your expectations out of the window and enjoy it with that same childlike perceptions when you saw Artex drowning in the swamp of despair, or when Sarah and her friends wandered the Labyrinth to rescue Toby from the Goblin King. It even ends like an 80's fantasy/adventure film. When you see it, you'll know exactly what I am talking about.
What I'm saying is this: If you can't enjoy this as a movie about a kid going on an impossible adventure, then you are incapable of happiness and I feel sorry for you.
Granted, this movie is not as good as it could have been, but the story is engaging and tells the tale in such a way that is new and exciting. It's not entirely about Roland, this is Jake's story. For the average movie goer, they are Jake, going down the rabbit hole into the world of the novels. I think that the movie does a good job with showing this strange world to whet people's appetites for more. It's got the right level of wonder and intrigue that makes up for the blemishes. If you like it, it's got you hooked.
The Weakest Performance?
While most people will shit on Ibris for not being the white-blue-eyed-Clint-Eastwood type that is described in the book, his performance is actually the best of the series. If you have a problem with a black man playing a cowboy hero, then you have never seen a Fred Williams movie, so sit down and shut up, the grown-ups are talking. They took some creative liberties with the characters and plot elements were changed and I think all for the better. However, there is one performance that failed, and that distinction goes to Matthew McConaughey's portrayal of Walter, the Man in Black.
I think where the filmmakers went wrong was in focusing far too much on "look he's an evil wizard", really? No shit. He's called the man in black and he's a wizard. Of course, he's evil. It seems to me that they were only pulling from Walter's appearances in the Dark Tower novels. Other than being the primary antagonist in the first novel, he only makes slight appearances throughout the series. However, as any constant reader knows, "Walter" is also known as Randal Flagg, the ever-present proverbial bad guy in many of Stephen King's novels. He was in The Stand, Hearts of Atlantis, Eyes of the Dragon. There's more to know about the guy, and what they missed on was the fact that Walter had a twisted sense of humor about him. It's something that Jamey Sheridan nailed in the made-for-TV movie of The Stand.
That's what missing from Walter in this movie. Some will blame McConaughey for this. Sure, he's not the most diverse actor in the world, but he's only working with what he got. Frankly, as far as villains go Walter is a pale comparison and a waste of potential for the character.
Where To Go From Here?
(AKA The Part of My Review With the Spoilers)
After watching the movie, I skimmed through the internet chatter regarding it and wow. People are overly critical of this film. Sure, they took elements from all of the novels (Algul Siento, the Dixie Pig, the House Guardian etc.) A lot of people are panning this movie from being open and shut, as though they were only making one movie and calling it a day.
To that, I ask: ARE YOU BLIND?
First of all, unlike Harry Potter, or Twilight, or Hunger Games, they are not adapting the source material that is wildly popular at the present moment. The Dark Tower series has a cult following at best. Remember, the last book (Discounting Wind Through the Keyhole) was published in 2004. So for a movie studio to commit to six or more movies is a bit of a risk. They want to see if people will see one movie first. This movie has come out 13 years after the hype of the last novels has had time to die down. It wasn't a guaranteed moneymaker. Also, consider the source of the material as well: Stephen King's movies are seldom hitmakers. Only two movies were ever nominated for Oscars, and they were not his usual bag of tricks. He's a box office risk. So I'm not surprised that they decided to tell a cohesive story with an ending that leaves the viewer satisfied yet keeps things open for a sequel. You know, the way they used to make movies.
Anyway, there is so much more that they can explore in other movies. They hinted at the existence of the Crimson King, they can make movies where he is the bad guy. They can do a story where Roland gets together new gunslingers like Eddie and Suzanna Dean. There are the Guardians of the Beam, Blain the Train, the city of Lud, the Wolves of the Calla, and so much more. There is a wealth of stuff that they can draw from and make more movies, it's just not going to exactly follow the books. Which why should they? Why watch something new when you know exactly what will happen? I liken this movie to the Marvel Cinematic Universe, it has all the right elements, but it's going to take on a life of its own. You should embrace not, not fight against it.
So when you go to see the Dark Tower, do so with an open mind and you might be surprised. It's not as great as it could have been, but it's not a bad movie either. Give it a chance.