All right, got back from seeing the Dark Tower movie...
...and...I admit that I have mixed feelings.
Trailers I got (that I can remember):
Annabelle: Creation: Looks wonderfully creepy, actually. I think it's actually going to be a very promising film.
Flatliners: On the one hand, the trailer actually looks good, but on the other...do we need another remake? *Sighs* It's like everything that comes out of Hollywood is a remake or a sequel or an adaptation in some way or another.
The movie experience:
I was pretty nervous going into this one because I heard it got negative reviews. (Funny thing is, I actually had a dream about the Dark Tower movie being rated rotten on Rotten Tomatoes. I have to look up if I'm psychic or not, because that was uncanny. Of course, I've also had other pretty uncanny experiences that make me wonder whether or not being psychic is real. Long story) The audience seemed to like it, though; they were definitely cracking up at a few of the lines and such. (Things like Flagg calling Jake a stalker) And I found it wasn't really godawfully horrendous (to quote FilmMasterAdam) like the critics were making it out to be, but it had a lot of problems. Might as well start with the good before moving to the problems.
The movie itself:
In terms of the good, there were some places where they captured the tone of the book perfectly. For example, Roland's disgust and horror at the idea of hot dogs (which actually got people cracking up), the Man in Black leaving a smiley face at the scene of Jake's mother's murder, things like that. Idris Elba was a good Roland -- he really captured Roland's character very well. Matthew McConaughey kind of got a little mustache-twirly at times, but he was good at being menacing, better than I thought he would be.
In terms of the things that bugged me...well, this is probably not going to make much sense, but they deviated from the book quite a bit -- for example, Jake's dad is actually alive in the book, but Jake doesn't have much of a relationship with him (I kind of had this sneaking suspicion that they deviated from the book and my suspicions were confirmed when I checked the Stephen King wiki), and some of the deviations can be explained by the fact that it's definitely more of a sequel than an adaptation (basically, it's the next cycle after the events of the final Dark Tower book. For those who haven't read the book, basically, Roland reaches the top of the Tower and has to go through the events of the books all over again. My mom said it was a lot like Groundhog Day, and I can definitely see where she's coming from), but others, like changing Jake's family background, making Jake kind of a Chosen One type (which I don't think he was in the books)...yeah, I have a feeling that some of it was to draw in the YA crowd or something. Others might have been more practical reasons; for example, the Man in Black having a larger role. (BTW, I'm not talking about Johnny Cash. Really) In the first book, he doesn't really get as much of a confrontation with Roland as much as sitting down and telling Roland his future and telling him a bit about the Tower. (It's pretty weird, actually. Think of it like Voldemort and Harry going fishing before their final battle in Book 7. I mean, you've got this guy who wants to hunt down the Man in Black just because the Man in Black had an affair with his mom (really), even letting Jake die in order to get to the Man in Black (which the Man in Black definitely rubs in)...and their confrontation is basically a camping trip. Oh yeah, and the Man in Black gets eaten by a spider in the last book. To quote Dave Barry, I am not making this up. (And I still love this series for the record) So I think they expanded Flagg's role because (a) it's a sequel, not an adaptation, and (b) practical reasons.
I will admit that Flagg did get pretty hammy (and I dunno, part of it is in character because Flagg/The Man in Black definitely is the sort to find enjoyment in what he does. He's kind of like Stephen King's version of the Joker in some ways or another), and some of his lines got pretty cheesy. "Have a great apocalypse"? Really? And I admit I was a little disappointed when Roland just straight up killed him. Not only for the anticlimax, but because of the whole thing that he could have learned his lesson from last time by freeing Jake instead of just pursuing his need for revenge. In the book, his need for revenge basically doomed Jake to fall to his death, it had consequences. Here, Roland just gets his victory easily. But then again, maybe it's just me. Maybe I'm a Self-Righteous Sally. Maybe.
So I guess overall, it's a very flawed movie, but it's nowhere near the abomination that critics and Stephen King fans are making it out to be. It's got some good acting from Idris Elba and Matthew McConaughey (despite my complaints about how he was written). Honestly, I think it would have worked better if they had adapted The Gunslinger (as best as the Gunslinger can be adapted, of course) first and then the other books before they made their own fan continuation of it. But it's not a terrible movie. It definitely deserves a higher score on Rotten Tomatoes than it got.
So...thoughts? Comments? What did other Stephen King fans think of it?
Trailers I got (that I can remember):
Annabelle: Creation: Looks wonderfully creepy, actually. I think it's actually going to be a very promising film.
Flatliners: On the one hand, the trailer actually looks good, but on the other...do we need another remake? *Sighs* It's like everything that comes out of Hollywood is a remake or a sequel or an adaptation in some way or another.
The movie experience:
I was pretty nervous going into this one because I heard it got negative reviews. (Funny thing is, I actually had a dream about the Dark Tower movie being rated rotten on Rotten Tomatoes. I have to look up if I'm psychic or not, because that was uncanny. Of course, I've also had other pretty uncanny experiences that make me wonder whether or not being psychic is real. Long story) The audience seemed to like it, though; they were definitely cracking up at a few of the lines and such. (Things like Flagg calling Jake a stalker) And I found it wasn't really godawfully horrendous (to quote FilmMasterAdam) like the critics were making it out to be, but it had a lot of problems. Might as well start with the good before moving to the problems.
The movie itself:
In terms of the good, there were some places where they captured the tone of the book perfectly. For example, Roland's disgust and horror at the idea of hot dogs (which actually got people cracking up), the Man in Black leaving a smiley face at the scene of Jake's mother's murder, things like that. Idris Elba was a good Roland -- he really captured Roland's character very well. Matthew McConaughey kind of got a little mustache-twirly at times, but he was good at being menacing, better than I thought he would be.
In terms of the things that bugged me...well, this is probably not going to make much sense, but they deviated from the book quite a bit -- for example, Jake's dad is actually alive in the book, but Jake doesn't have much of a relationship with him (I kind of had this sneaking suspicion that they deviated from the book and my suspicions were confirmed when I checked the Stephen King wiki), and some of the deviations can be explained by the fact that it's definitely more of a sequel than an adaptation (basically, it's the next cycle after the events of the final Dark Tower book. For those who haven't read the book, basically, Roland reaches the top of the Tower and has to go through the events of the books all over again. My mom said it was a lot like Groundhog Day, and I can definitely see where she's coming from), but others, like changing Jake's family background, making Jake kind of a Chosen One type (which I don't think he was in the books)...yeah, I have a feeling that some of it was to draw in the YA crowd or something. Others might have been more practical reasons; for example, the Man in Black having a larger role. (BTW, I'm not talking about Johnny Cash. Really) In the first book, he doesn't really get as much of a confrontation with Roland as much as sitting down and telling Roland his future and telling him a bit about the Tower. (It's pretty weird, actually. Think of it like Voldemort and Harry going fishing before their final battle in Book 7. I mean, you've got this guy who wants to hunt down the Man in Black just because the Man in Black had an affair with his mom (really), even letting Jake die in order to get to the Man in Black (which the Man in Black definitely rubs in)...and their confrontation is basically a camping trip. Oh yeah, and the Man in Black gets eaten by a spider in the last book. To quote Dave Barry, I am not making this up. (And I still love this series for the record) So I think they expanded Flagg's role because (a) it's a sequel, not an adaptation, and (b) practical reasons.
I will admit that Flagg did get pretty hammy (and I dunno, part of it is in character because Flagg/The Man in Black definitely is the sort to find enjoyment in what he does. He's kind of like Stephen King's version of the Joker in some ways or another), and some of his lines got pretty cheesy. "Have a great apocalypse"? Really? And I admit I was a little disappointed when Roland just straight up killed him. Not only for the anticlimax, but because of the whole thing that he could have learned his lesson from last time by freeing Jake instead of just pursuing his need for revenge. In the book, his need for revenge basically doomed Jake to fall to his death, it had consequences. Here, Roland just gets his victory easily. But then again, maybe it's just me. Maybe I'm a Self-Righteous Sally. Maybe.
So I guess overall, it's a very flawed movie, but it's nowhere near the abomination that critics and Stephen King fans are making it out to be. It's got some good acting from Idris Elba and Matthew McConaughey (despite my complaints about how he was written). Honestly, I think it would have worked better if they had adapted The Gunslinger (as best as the Gunslinger can be adapted, of course) first and then the other books before they made their own fan continuation of it. But it's not a terrible movie. It definitely deserves a higher score on Rotten Tomatoes than it got.
So...thoughts? Comments? What did other Stephen King fans think of it?