Share your thoughts after viewing the movie **DEFINITE SPOILERS**

  • This message board permanently closed on June 30th, 2020 at 4PM EDT and is no longer accepting new members.

Philzilla

Well-Known Member
Mar 1, 2009
176
604
Either the Horn of Eld makes a world/time-reboot/alteration of difference, or it makes no difference. If the world you live in, keystone Earth, changes at all by repeating its timeline altered in any way, the butterfly effect would guarantee drastic changes. I went to the movie with a friend who had never read the books, and he got it. With no explanation from me. They pretty much encapsulated the entire plot in two sentences at the beginning. The Dark Tower holding the universe together and it being said the mind of a child could bring it down. What's more, he, as a fan of many action movies, thought that, far from pedestrian, the action scenes were exceptional. He couldn't believe the movie wasn't far more well-known, and yes, a big hit. He knew Stephen King, but not the Dark Tower series. Now he wants to read it. And, I know him, he will. But hey, let's bomb this movie into the basement and keep more people like him from hearing about it, by all means.

As Jake entered the house and went toward one of the portals that were posted where the thinnies were, definitely from the books, I watched the boards jump as though something were following him through the rooms. Walter himself explained why Roland was immune to his magic. They imply Roland's multiple hundreds of years of age by the doctors gathering to meet him in disbelief as he should already be dead from radiation poisoning and several different venereal diseases, much less his wound. He has been imbued by the Tower, as it's champion, with some pretty potent magic, as what he is, a gunslinger, not a wizard. There's a lot more to this adaptation/variation on a theme, with shortcomings and points in it favor, but there was definitely plenty of room for follow-ups. The graffiti saluting the Crimson King, and, for us, the knowledge that Walter is Randall Flagg, and like in the Stand he will return from the dead to start his mischief all over again. I liked the movie. It moved fast, wasted little time, crammed exposition in in the sparest, sparsest and yet, quite easily understandable conversations that came through like campfire stories, slipping unobtrusively into the viewer's consciousness. As I said, my friend got it. He had a couple of questions, they were easily answered, and he was enthusiastic to go and read the books, and brag about the movie on Facebook.

cool story bro
glad you and your pal got it, unlike the rest of us
 

Paddy C

All Hail The KING...
Sep 18, 2017
1,078
5,890
54
Drogheda, Ireland
I want to emphasize again that for anyone who is expecting or disappointed that this is a straight adaptation, this isn't it. As has been reported, it is another journey on the wheel, one that takes place after the 7th book. Unless you can watch with an open mind and be receptive to that, you're probably not going to enjoy this.

Those who have read the books will recognize elements that have been included from several books in this journey and there were a few times when I would have an aha moment as I recognized a location or character. Not to mention all of the easter eggs of other books, and it would take me another time or two watching to catch them all.

I'll confess I was one of those who at first was disappointed with the casting as I'd been caught up in that iconic description of the blue eyes but I thought Idris Elba did a good job of capturing the steeliness of Roland. It didn't take long before I was able to embrace him as a different version of Roland on another level of the Tower. I didn't even notice until someone else mentioned afterwards that he never wore a hat as Roland did. He did well portraying Roland's unintended humor when commenting about keystone world so there are several scenes that will make you laugh just like you probably did when reading the books.

Tom Taylor did a terrific job as Jake and I hope they'll continue with him even though he's going through his teenage growth spurt in real life.

I think Matthew McConaughey got Walter's ruthlessness as that comes across front and center. Not having seen a lot of his other films that might have influenced me about his performance, I may not have caught his just being Matthew McConaughey that others have been concerned about.

Some have mentioned being concerned about the length of the film, but I really didn't even notice it as I was caught up in the story. There weren't any parts that seemed to drag for me. Overall, I think the film captures the essence of the story and works as a new journey for Roland.

Myself and my brother, who has also read the books, both went to see The Dark Tower movie together and we both really enjoyed it.
I had no preconceived ideas about what would be included or omitted and thought that it was a really good movie in it's own right. The nods to the books worked well the way they were installed and overall I had no real gripes at all.
 

muskrat

Dis-Member
Nov 8, 2010
4,518
19,564
Under your bed
Holy moly, it was great! Can't believe Clint pulled it off, and at his age! And Wow, Pam Grier looked great, even without half her legs. As for Jake, I expect lots of great things from this River Phoenix kid...

And then I wake, and look around me, at the lame flicks that surround me, and I realize, Yes...I was only dreaming...
 

Gerald

Well-Known Member
Sep 8, 2011
2,201
7,168
The Netherlands
If the film is so confusing to non-readers as everyone says, I'm surprised it still does so well. It's still playing here, not so many showings anymore, but it wasn't gone real soon. So, it must have something that people like.

Actually, reading the (few) reactions on my usual filmsite, people who haven't read it say they found it easy to follow.
 
Last edited:

Paddy C

All Hail The KING...
Sep 18, 2017
1,078
5,890
54
Drogheda, Ireland
As I'd read the books I don't think I could put myself in the shoes of someone who hadn't but I personally thought that it would have been easy to follow even for a non-reader.
Hopefully a number of those who watched and enjoyed it without having read the books will decide to read the story as a result.
 

Gerald

Well-Known Member
Sep 8, 2011
2,201
7,168
The Netherlands
I don't remember exactly where I read it. Maybe in an interview with the director?

The first cut was 110, 112 minutes. But it was designed to be a 95 minute movie, the script being 100 pages.
So, there's at most 15/17 minutes missing, not a half hour. But nothing was cut that Arcel opposed against, only to make the flow of the movie work better.
There are three or four deleted scenes that will be on the dvd.
He says there might be an unrated director's cut at some point, but if the cuts don't matter that much I doubt they will do that. I think most directors just like to see their film as complete as possible.

http://uproxx.com/movies/the-dark-tower-nikolaj-arcel/2/

It wouldn't surprise me if there was still gonna be a part 2. It wasn't a big hit, but I think it did reasonably well.
 

kingricefan

All-being, keeper of Space, Time & Dimension.
Jul 11, 2006
30,011
127,446
Spokane, WA
The first cut was 110, 112 minutes. But it was designed to be a 95 minute movie, the script being 100 pages.
So, there's at most 15/17 minutes missing, not a half hour. But nothing was cut that Arcel opposed against, only to make the flow of the movie work better.
There are three or four deleted scenes that will be on the dvd.
He says there might be an unrated director's cut at some point, but if the cuts don't matter that much I doubt they will do that. I think most directors just like to see their film as complete as possible.

http://uproxx.com/movies/the-dark-tower-nikolaj-arcel/2/

It wouldn't surprise me if there was still gonna be a part 2. It wasn't a big hit, but I think it did reasonably well.
When I looked on IMDB yesterday it said the budget was $60 million and that the USA box office take was $41 million so far. I wonder why Amazon still doesn't have any info such as deleted scenes, etc. up yet? Weird.
 

Gerald

Well-Known Member
Sep 8, 2011
2,201
7,168
The Netherlands
When I looked on IMDB yesterday it said the budget was $60 million and that the USA box office take was $41 million so far. I wonder why Amazon still doesn't have any info such as deleted scenes, etc. up yet? Weird.

In general the specs on the home releases are given when the film is not playing anymore. It still is, at least here. I think they decide how much they're gonna spend on extras based on what it's made. I even have blu-rays where the picture on the disc itself is black-and-white, I assume to save costs.

And remember, everything with this film was late: the release date was postponed a couple of times, the trailer was late, advertisement started late. All signs that it wasn't given as much priority as other blockbusters. I don't even know if you could call it a blockbuster at this budget when you consider the budget of other big action movies. It's more of a semi-blockbuster.
It has done quite well, considering it had a lot against it. I think the starpower of the two leads has a lot to do with that.
 

Robert Gray

Well-Known Member
I don't really agree... about the Star Power. I don't think the Actors did much for the film one way or the other. In fact, I think making them the focus of what little marketing they did was an error in judgement. Everything was late because they knew they had a dud. They bought time to try and clean it up, but nothing was going to make that sow's ear into a silk purse. I think Stephen King's name had more draw than the leads. While Elba and Mcconaughey are both excellent actors, they aren't exactly A-List at the current time. Elba is known just as much for his television work as for his film, and most of his films are supporting roles. Mcconaughey has been A-List but isn't at the moment. So what you had is two capable Actors known for their serious drama (or comedy) work rather than action films. So it was marketed to people who hadn't read the books based on Actors whose forte is something other than action. It felt wonky from the start.

The film didn't really know what it wanted to be and that was evident to everyone who saw the trailer, watched the interviews, and followed the news stories as they unveiled things like the fact that it wasn't the Dark Tower of the books but some new story that supposedly follows after. Elba and Mcconaughey aren't even the only great actors in the film. They wasted an incredible actress on Jake's mother, and on Sayre as well. And in the end, it doesn't matter if every Actor in the film has one an Academy Award... if the script is meh... so shall the film be as well. :) Need I remind anyone of Sir Anthony Hopkins in Freejack? The Dark Tower only did as well as it did because they launched it during some serious doldrums wherein it didn't have much opening against it. It also didn't help that you literally had seen the movie when you watched the trailer.
 

Gerald

Well-Known Member
Sep 8, 2011
2,201
7,168
The Netherlands
Elba is known just as much for his television work as for his film, and most of his films are supporting roles.

Being in a popular, high-rated tv show nowadays (like Luther) is pretty much the same as being a movie star, as tv isn't seen as substandard anymore and there are huge budgets spent on it. It goes both ways: established moviestars appear in tv-shows (like McConaughey in True Detective) and stars from tv-shows move on to movies. Elba is one of the most in demand stars of the moment, linked to many films including the role of James Bond.

The film didn't really know what it wanted to be and that was evident to everyone who saw the trailer, watched the interviews, and followed the news stories as they unveiled things like the fact that it wasn't the Dark Tower of the books but some new story that supposedly follows after.

In the way they advertised it (although the advertising started late) they made it very clear that it was not a direct adaptation of the books, but rather a sequel. So I don't know what you mean by 'didn't know what it what it wanted to be''; they made it very clear what it was supposed to be.
 

Robert Gray

Well-Known Member
Being in a popular, high-rated tv show nowadays (like Luther) is pretty much the same as being a movie star, as tv isn't seen as substandard anymore and there are huge budgets spent on it. It goes both ways: established moviestars appear in tv-shows (like McConaughey in True Detective) and stars from tv-shows move on to movies. Elba is one of the most in demand stars of the moment, linked to many films including the role of James Bond.

We will definitely have to agree to disagree here. A television star is most certainly NOT the same exposure as movie star. I know tons of people who have never even heard of Luther. :) Their only recognition of Elba is as a God from Thor, or from Pacific Rim. Television is so saturated and vast now, that you cannot count on a single show's success meaning enough exposure. Luther, great show that it is, is still niche due to its British origins. To a large population of this potential audience, Elba was an unknown as a lead.

In the way they advertised it (although the advertising started late) they made it very clear that it was not a direct adaptation of the books, but rather a sequel. So I don't know what you mean by 'didn't know what it what it wanted to be''; they made it very clear what it was supposed to be.

You mean as they BARELY advertised it? :) They did very little promotion for this film, and clearly stating it was something other than an adaptation came late in the reveal, i.e. as more and more people started to complain about the bits and pieces they saw. When I say this film doesn't know what it wants to be, I'm pointing out that it attempts to be several different types of film all in one, failing in all cases. It isn't much of an action film, sporting only a few scenes which felt largely overdone and brought nothing new to the table. It was a poor drama (wasting the acting chops of a person like Elba) in that all the characters give soulful, meaningful gazes at one another, but there is no real connection or look inwards. It fails as a thriller because the countdown is so unmeasured and artificial we never really feel under a deadline. Humor is inserted poorly. It fails as a fantasy epic because it introduces you to another world but you are barely there but for a few short minutes before you are back in New York City. I could go on and on. The film never finds its legs, attempting to do too much and thus does none of it well.
 

Gerald

Well-Known Member
Sep 8, 2011
2,201
7,168
The Netherlands
They did very little promotion for this film, and clearly stating it was something other than an adaptation came late in the reveal, i.e. as more and more people started to complain about the bits and pieces they saw. When I say this film doesn't know what it wants to be, I'm pointing out that it attempts to be several different types of film all in one, failing in all cases. .

Whether they revealed it late that it was not a straight adaptation or not, it was always MEANT to be a sequel, or they couldn't have made it as it is. It's not like with a film you can change its purpose at the last moment because of audience reaction.

Actually, I can only discuss it properly once I see it (I may still go, but most likely will pick up the blu-ray), but does the fact that it tries to be many things at once not come directly from the books being many things? Western, romance, adventure, fantasy, horror, sci-fi etc.
It was always a hard mix to get right.

As for Elba being a star or not, I think it very much depends what country you're in. I think in the UK he is, but perhaps not worldwide. He did some leads though: Bastille and Obsessed (which because it has Beyoncé, I assume quite a lot of people must have seen).
But McConaughey is certainly a big star.
 

kingricefan

All-being, keeper of Space, Time & Dimension.
Jul 11, 2006
30,011
127,446
Spokane, WA
Whether they revealed it late that it was not a straight adaptation or not, it was always MEANT to be a sequel, or they couldn't have made it as it is. It's not like with a film you can change its purpose at the last moment because of audience reaction.

Actually, I can only discuss it properly once I see it (I may still go, but most likely will pick up the blu-ray), but does the fact that it tries to be many things at once not come directly from the books being many things? Western, romance, adventure, fantasy, horror, sci-fi etc.
It was always a hard mix to get right.

As for Elba being a star or not, I think it very much depends what country you're in. I think in the UK he is, but perhaps not worldwide. He did some leads though: Bastille and Obsessed (which because it has Beyoncé, I assume quite a lot of people must have seen).
But McConaughey is certainly a big star.
My first glimpse of Elba was his appearance on Absolutely Fabulous in the episode titled 'Sex'. He plays a gigolo. He's pretty funny!
 

Robert Gray

Well-Known Member
Whether they revealed it late that it was not a straight adaptation or not, it was always MEANT to be a sequel, or they couldn't have made it as it is. It's not like with a film you can change its purpose at the last moment because of audience reaction.

Actually they can, and frequently do. In fact, it is highly likely that is exactly what happened in the case of this movie. It was largely shot (supposedly) and suddenly got pushed way back, and only after that delay did we get told it was sequel. Judging by the timing, I'm sure initial reactions from both studio and test audiences were unimpressive. Complaints from test audiences and studio probably included copious complaints about how little it had to do with the books. Thus begins more shooting and edits to try and salvage. Part of that process was to try and nip the negative reaction to the unfaithfulness to the source material by deciding it was a sequel.

*If you want more anecdotal evidence of that, consider that fabled Horn, upon which rests the entire notion that this was the sequel and the last time around. You will find it has NO importance in the film. In fact, it doesn't even appear in the film. There are numerous attempts to try and figure out if it might be in Roland's bag somewhere though. :) In fact, there is absolutely NOTHING in the film whatsoever that hints, states, or indicates that there was ever another turn of the wheel or that this is anything but a self-contained story. The only way we, the audience, know this is a sequel to the books is because they suddenly started telling us that out of the blue. The horn is not blown. This isn't a sequel. It isn't a pre-equal. It isn't an adaptation. It is just a mediocre to bad movie.

Actually, I can only discuss it properly once I see it (I may still go, but most likely will pick up the blu-ray), but does the fact that it tries to be many things at once not come directly from the books being many things? Western, romance, adventure, fantasy, horror, sci-fi etc.
It was always a hard mix to get right.

I'd watch it streaming, included in some subscription first before you drop the money. You might not want to own it.

As for Elba being a star or not, I think it very much depends what country you're in. I think in the UK he is, but perhaps not worldwide. He did some leads though: Bastille and Obsessed (which because it has Beyoncé, I assume quite a lot of people must have seen).
But McConaughey is certainly a big star.

And yet their fame did absolutely NOTHING for the film. Food for thought.
 
Last edited:

Philzilla

Well-Known Member
Mar 1, 2009
176
604
Whether they revealed it late that it was not a straight adaptation or not, it was always MEANT to be a sequel, or they couldn't have made it as it is. It's not like with a film you can change its purpose at the last moment because of audience reaction.

Actually, I can only discuss it properly once I see it (I may still go, but most likely will pick up the blu-ray), but does the fact that it tries to be many things at once not come directly from the books being many things? Western, romance, adventure, fantasy, horror, sci-fi etc.
It was always a hard mix to get right.

As for Elba being a star or not, I think it very much depends what country you're in. I think in the UK he is, but perhaps not worldwide. He did some leads though: Bastille and Obsessed (which because it has Beyoncé, I assume quite a lot of people must have seen).
But McConaughey is certainly a big star.

Actually you can change it and they did attempt to after first test screenings were negative.

The films problems aren't genre mixing.

The films problems are writing, Goldsman, Sony, MRC, a decade wasted costing tens of millions of dollars then abandoned, and perhaps a rush to get a product out before rights expired. That's just a guess.

I doubt there will be a sequel, who wants it, you haven't even seen it.

I highly doubt there will be any tv property developed. Even SK has stated that if a tv adaptation goes forward he would like to see a reboot, which means it will have nothing to do with this turd, I mean movie. But if the same crew is involved, who wants it? Not me.

I enjoyed IT, it wasn't perfect, relied on jump scares to much, cgi in horror films can be an iffy choice..., but I could tell it was made by people who cared about film and had a real passion for the project, and backed by a studio that shared that vision too.