Review of The Dark Tower (2017) by Stuart M — 31 Aug 2017

Nothing ruins a movie worse than not taking chances. I'd much rather watch a movie I don't much care for that's unique and different (like Colossal) than one that doesn't do anything original. And that's all this film does. It plays it safe, and that is, contradictorily, the most dangerous thing to do.

I think most of the film's faults can be reduced to two bad decisions. First, they made the film a generic urban fantasy. The Dark Tower is supposed to be high fantasy mixed with a Western, and while it does eventually come to Earth and have some modern-day moments that's not what the series should be focused on. What the film should have done is focus on Mid-World and show us what this fantastic place is like. No, ten minutes in a Mid-World village and perhaps another twenty wandering in the wilds doesn't cut it. Especially since they never explain what Mid-World is or why it's significant. This film should have felt like a Western with some fantastical elements in it. And that shouldn't have strained the budget that much.

The second bad idea was making it all about Jake. Yeah, Jake's a big character, but he shouldn't be our main POV and we certainly shouldn't follow him around on Earth for twenty minutes before we get to Roland. Roland's the main draw of the film. Why cheapen that to make yet another YA coming-of-age fantasy? There are far too many of those already, but at least they were designed for and around their teenage protagonists.

As you can imagine, both of these decisions compound on each other. Making the film all about Jake and Earth lessens the scope of the film and makes it feel like, well, an urban fantasy. Which is ultimately all it is. Making the film all about Jake and Earth reduces our time with Mid-Earth and Roland, which are the main attractions of the Dark Tower novels. Making the film all about Jake and Earth removes all the oddness and wonder that the books do so well. Along with all the badassness.

Now the cast's not to blame for any of this. They can't help what they signed up for. And even though they're horribly underwritten and poorly utilized they do bring something to their role. The film basically has three leads: Roland, Walter, and Jake. Or, in order of importance to the plot (unfortunately) Jake, Walter, and Roland.

The kid playing Jake is, fortunately, pretty good. Instead of yet another angsty teen or trendily damaged child, Jake comes across as surprisingly unsympathetic. I don't mean that he's unlikeable, but there's a coldness and distance to him that makes his stepfather's frustration completely understandable (not that the film notices, since everyone seems to think he's a monster). They don't play around much with the 'is he really crazy' schtick, but they do give us just enough to feel sorry for him while not taking that sympathy away from his family. The kid sells this angle well, though he's less adept at the more fantastical aspects. By the end I was really fed up with his looks of wonder and oddly timed lack of such wonder. But that only really matters in the last half of the film, and first impressions count for a lot. This kid needs to find himself a proper angsty teen drama stat.

Matthew McConaughey's Man in Black has been getting a lot of flak from critics, but none of them have been able to give a consistent answer as to why he's so bad. I can't either. I don't think it's anything he does, it's more about the things he doesn't do. And it's always harder to spot what's missing than what's there. I think what it all boils down to though is that there's nothing to him at all. That's not all scripting. McConaughey just brings nothing to the role. While there is a certain level of intensity, Walter needs more passion, more fire, more warmth. Yeah, he's a psycho who wants to destroy the world, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't enjoy himself doing that. When I heard McConaughey was playing Walter I thought it was great because I thought he'd bring his usual warmth and charisma to the role. I imagined him smiling genially and laughing with someone before calmly ordering them to stop breathing. The contrast would work, and we would enjoy the charm. But his Walter... he's got nothing. No spark. Nothing to drive him. No joy. And really, without joy what's the point?

Idris Elba as Roland's the last of the three in terms of importance (and probably screen time). That's really bad, man. Like, how can the supposed protagonist have less screen time than Walter? And all Walter does is exposit at people and wander around following clues to a mystery we already know the answer to. Roland, on the other hand, has a lot to deal with: his father dying, his entire people dying, his loss of purpose, his dangerous obsession with revenge, coming to terms with having a sidekick, etc. and yet he gets nothing to talk about. Yech. But Elba does the best with what he's got, and his best is pretty damn good. Yet it's not enough to save the countless scenes that just serve no purpose. The film's an hour and a half, mate, how can it have room for so much padding? Anyway, when Roland's onscreen he steals the scene, but his presence is too minor to do much good.

I really really wanted to like this film. And it does still have things to recommend about it. The scenes with Roland and on Mid-World do work well. The monster designs and the Tower itself look great. Roland's gunslinging is absolutely jawdropping, taking a mundane action that films stereotypically and comically forget (reloading) and turning it into the most badass display of skill I've ever seen. And the opening was great (apart from the joy-sucking and needlessly pandering black screen of text) with innocent shots of kids playing transforming into some kind of crazy weapon. But overall the film does nothing with what should be extraordinary source material. What a waste.