Dark Tower Review

August 14, 2017
11:45 a.m.

I don't usually do full movie reviews, but in this case, I decided to make an exception.

If you haven't yet seen "The Dark Tower", I cannot promise that this post will have no spoilers, so you might want to read something else. If you've seen it, or you don't mind the occasional spoiler, read on.

First of all, I want to start with this: "The Dark Tower" is not a bad movie. It is, in fact, a perfectly fine movie. It has a decent cast, the film quality is good, the storyline is cohesive, etc. It's a good movie, and not a waste of either $12.00 or 90 minutes.

Unless, of course, you are a "Dark Tower" junkie.

Even then, you're still seeing a good movie. Just not a "Dark Tower" movie. Or, more accurately, not a REAL "Dark Tower" movie.

I admit it. I'm disappointed. I have devoted over three decades of my life to the book series, first of all because Stephen King took so darn long to write them, and second of all, because once you've made the journey, you're going to go back and take it again. And again. In my, case, multiple times.

Die-hard "Tower" fans are more than likely going to find too much to hate about this iteration.

This Jake Chambers is not MY Jake Chambers. My Jake was the son of wealthy parents--a mother bewildered by both father and son, and therefore distant from both, and a father too busy making the next big deal to take much notice of his wife or son. My Jake was a boy with acquaintances, no real friends, and a housekeeper who substituted as well as possible as a mother figure.

Does my Jake "shine"? Yes, he does. but that "shining" became evident over time.

I understand the idea of making Jake the son of a hero who died during the 9-11 attacks. It's an updating of the world since the books were written. And, as we all know, "there are other worlds than these."

But...nope. Still not quite MY Jake.

That said, I was taken with the conflicts and the fear this Jake was going through. I was impressed with the performance of the young actor, Tom Taylor. I thought he carried himself very well throughout. And if I had never read the books, he would certainly be MY Jake.

Idris Elba as Roland would not have been my first choice--again, because the books had impressed upon me a "look", which was more Clint Eastwood-esque. I had my heart set on the "piercing blue eyes". But after a look at his work, and later the movie trailer, I was totally on board, because he's really good at what he does, he's easy on the eyes and he fits. He does.

I just wish his Roland was more MY Roland, a man obsessed with finding and saving the Tower. This Roland had given up--all he wanted was revenge against the Man in Black.

No, no, no, no, no. Wrong. My Roland would NEVER have given up the quest to find and save the "Tower". My Roland is always hopeful. My Roland is a hero.

Idris Elba's Roland wants to take revenge and call it day. He knows that the Tower's destruction will end everything and doesn't care. The fact that he does get drawn back into the quest, largely due to the threats to Jake, is relevant in this iteration, but it's simply not the Roland I know and love. MY Roland would never have needed convincing, and would never have lost his resolve, even in the face of the deaths of his parents and friends.

My Roland would have certainly sought the Man in Black, but not for revenge so much as for resolution and for answers.

And how about that Man in Black, Matthew McConaughey? Good casting. Good performance. Not quite as scary as one would hope, but that wasn't his fault.

The whole power of the Man in Black is his absence throughout the first part of the saga. He's an elusive mystery, a figure sought by Roland to bring some closure to one chapter of his life, and to find answers to the continuation of his quest for the Tower. This movie gave us much too much information about Walter, and then very unsatisfyingly sought to conclude his story long before it should be over.

Naturally, I have no idea what might be coming next, and whether or not the Man in Black will figure into the continuation of the story. This all seemed to me to be a way to have some sort of resolution in case this movie bombed. Why not leave the door to possibilities open? As it stands, I don't have much motivation to go to see a "Part Two".

Speaking of doors--where are the dang doors? Why even introduce the idea of portals or "Keystone Earth" so soon in the game? Where's the mystery? Where's the slow-burning build up?

Ugh.

I didn't hate the movie. I swear, I didn't. I just wanted to change the names of the characters and call it something else. Because it is NOT "The Dark Tower". Not THE "The Dark Tower".  How about calling it: "Meanwhile, On Yet Another Path of the Beam"? Because, again, "there are other worlds than these."

Grade: C+