The Dark Tower

Idris Elba and Tom Taylor are the standouts of The Dark Tower, perfectly capturing the spirit of the books

Confession time: if the filmmakers behind The Dark Tower would’ve made a straight adaptation of the first book in the book series, The Gunslinger, I would’ve hated it. Though the series has a rabid fan base, it’s no secret—even among uber King fans—that The Gunslinger is a bit on the slow side. Not only that, but it’s kind of weird in the sense it’s very easy to picture fans reading it and thinking, as I did, “What is this? Is it a western? Fantasy? Sci-Fi?” It definitely doesn’t conform to any one specific genre. So when news broke that a film version of The Dark Tower was in production (for real this time!), I was both concerned and intrigued that it would be a mixture of aspects from the series instead of a page-by-page adaptation of The Gunslinger.

Having seen the film, is it—and the future of a potential Dark Tower film franchise—better for it? In some ways, yes; in others, no. Combining aspects of the books (specially book one, The Gunslinger, and book three, The Wastelands) makes sense on a thematic and storytelling level since the characters of Roland and Jake are tethered on an emotional level. The film’s partial New York setting also allows viewers a place they recognize which offsets the otherworldly qualities of the worlds and places familiar to Roland. On the other hand, it maybe introduces a bit too much of the series’ sprawling mythology that might throw casual viewers for a loop (pun completely intended).

So do the Pros outweigh the Cons? Is it a faithful adaptation? Is the future of The Dark Tower film series in danger? Let’s talk it.

For those unfamiliar with the basic premise, the film follows Roland (Idris Elba), the last of his people (gunslingers, sworn to protect the titular Tower) pursing revenge against a nefarious enemy called the Man in Black (Matthew McConaughey) for killing his family. But all of that changes when he meets Jake (Tom Taylor), a boy from our world plagued by dreams of Roland, the Man in Black, and a score of other things of which he should have no knowledge.

It is usually the case in book-to-film adaptations that viewers are pleased the characters look the same, but complain the essence isn’t there—the intrinsic sense of what makes them them. In The Dark Tower, the opposite is true: the characters may look a little different from their literary counterparts, but the essence—the coldness, single-mindedness, and skepticism of Roland; the innocence and bravery of Jake—is totally there. And so I wonder of viewers saying the opposite: would they be happy either way?

Idris Elba is fantastic as Roland, perfectly matching the source material counterpart’s cold, loner exterior, his single-minded determination, and proficiency with guns. He’s a commanding on-screen presence and brings an intensity to the role with his body language and expressions that the script sometimes doesn’t quiet achieve, not to mention great comedic one-liners as a fish out of water. He marvels at Coke, hot dogs and, in a particularly humorous scene, gives a New York City doctor a pair of ancient coins for her services.

McConaughey also gives a great performance as the Man in Black, harnessing the psychic abilities of children in attempt to bring the Tower down. He’s darkly comic, both fearsome and enticing, and plays the Man in Black with a sense of dark glee that lets you know he clearly enjoys causing chaos wherever he goes.

But as good as Elba and McConaughey are, it’s Tom Taylor as Jake who’s the real standout. Jake is saddled with much of the film’s big moments and Taylor couldn’t be more perfect. Ranging from portraying a haunted sadness that no one believes his dreams, to fear of the Man in Black’s pursuit, to an awe and boyish innocence regarding Roland’s origins, to a particularly pained moment in the film’s third act, Taylor nails the role and Jake’s emotional journey and it’s not hard to see why the decision was made for the film to feature him so prominently.

As good as Elba and Taylor are individually, it’s when they come together—the Roland-Jake relationship—that’s the highlight of the film. Jake’s innocence and candor softens Roland’s hard exterior, while Roland provides the role of a father figure Jake’s been missing. The scenes of them bonding, trusting, and learning about each other are pure magic, completely capturing the spirit of the books, and sure to make dire-hard Dark Tower fans pleased the filmmakers understand the relationship’s emotional beats. (Among their screen time together, one scene of Roland teaching Jake how to shoot while reciting the gunslinger’s credo gave me both chills and watery eyes.)

In addition to the film’s action sequences and Roland’s exciting final confrontation with the Man in Black (which I would’ve liked to be a bit longer), one of the things the film got completely right was the landscape of Mid-World—harsh, dry land; craggy mountains; a barren, alien landscape. The location scouting and landscape utilization is a definite plus. However, it makes it disappointing in a way because when the film got something so completely right as this, it’s barely featured before we’re whisked off to the next location or set piece—the Manni village, an ancient theme park, the Dixie Pig, Devar Toi. All of them work, but the short amount of time we’re afforded to spend in each makes me think they didn’t utilize all the cool settings to their advantage since everything moved so quickly. It’s kind of the equivalent of going to a carnival, seeing a cool ride, and your parent grabbing you by the hand to move you onto the next thing when you’ve only had a taste of the one preceding it.

Which leads into my main issue with the film: pacing and editing. The opening of the film should’ve been a smooth introduction into the world(s) viewers were about to see, but the editing, especially in the film’s first third, was so choppy, sloppy, and jarring, that all I could help thinking was that there had to have been a better, simpler, more streamlined way to introduce viewers to the characters, quest, and worlds of The Dark Tower. Early on, we bounce between Jake, his visions, flashbacks of Roland, and present-day Man in Black. It’s a little much early on. (Aside: as much as I love Jake, I feel like the film should’ve started with our protagonist, Roland the gunslinger.) Because of runtime and budgetary restrictions, it seems they were trying to introduce too much at once instead of letting the audience become introduced to the story’s various pieces at an organic, relaxed pace. It does allow itself to wind down after the climax, but the abrupt ending does leave a little to be desired. A kind of, “that’s it?” without feeding the viewer any morsel of information or intrigue to give them any reason to hope for a sequel.

To say The Dark Tower has a rich mythology is an understatement. Not only are we introduced to a mythical Tower that, if it falls, chaos will reign supreme, but there’s also the aspect of the beams that keep the Tower in place, Taheen, vampires, and ominous graffiti that reads ALL HAIL THE CRIMSON KING. Fans of the books will no doubt recognize the terminology and its implications, but it’s a lot for the casual moviegoer to take in when everything moves so quickly. I’m not so sure the film’s mythology would be completely grasped upon first viewing. While it offers exciting possibilities for potential future installments, it wouldn’t have hurt to have more expositional detail about the more fantastical elements of the story and why we should care.

Ultimately, the film is a case of “More please!” Would I have liked more action? More Roland interacting with the Man in Black, perhaps giving the viewer a deeper insight into their relationship and the mythology surrounding them? More time spent in the Manni village, the Dixie Pig, and all of the film’s other cool locations? Yes, definitely, because these are good things. What’s in the film works; there’s just not enough of it.

I have a feeling I wouldn’t have enjoyed The Dark Tower quite as much as I did if I wasn’t a fan of the books. It’s not a straight up, page-by-page adaptation (structurally or otherwise) and the editing and pacing is a little off, but it’s a good introduction into Roland’s world. The characters and acting all work, it’s escapist entertainment in the best way, and most importantly, the spirit of the novels is fully intact.

The road to a Dark Tower film was a long and rocky one, but now with its foot is in the door, there’s more than enough material for future installments and adventures in Mid-World if we are lucky enough to be invited along on them.

8/10

Goosebumps

Goosebumps manages to be fun and fresh for both kid and adult audiences

If you grew up in the 90s like I did, Goosebumps—in one way or another—was part of your childhood. For me, it was the TV series, plaguing my nightmares with creations such as Carly Beth’s haunted mask, demonic scarecrows, terrorizing lawn gnomes, and, of course, Slappy the dummy.

So when I heard they were developing a movie that would supposedly include the bulk of the series’ monsters, creatures, and horrors, I was skeptical. How would they possibly be able to give a decent amount of screen time to each so that the plot wouldn’t feel crowded and the movie rushed? After the trailer was released I was resigned to the idea that it would end up being more of a light, campy comedy-adventure hybrid of the series I remembered (minus the scares). Goosebumps lite. However, I was pleasantly surprised. Goosebumps manages to be fun and fresh whether you grew up with the series or are a kid who’s just been introduced to the horror genre.

In the film, Zach Cooper (Dylan Minnette) moves to a new town with his mother (the always engaging Amy Ryan) for a fresh start following the death of his father. But what he doesn’t realize is that they moved next door to R.L. Stine, who isn’t exactly the most friendly neighbor. He’s reclusive, mysterious, brooding, and extremely protective of his daughter, Hannah (Odeya Rush). One night after sneaking into Stine’s house, he and new friend Champ (Ryan Lee) find Stine’s collection of Goosebumps manuscripts. After discovering that opening the books releases their contents into reality, they learn the only way to rid the town of Stine’s creations is to get them back within the confines of their books.

In terms of the Goosebumps brand, the film checks off all the right boxes: new kid moving to a small town? Check. Crazy things happening that the adults don’t believe? Check. Monsters, zombies, and inanimate objects coming to life? Check, check, and check. Goosebumps could have easily devolved into a mere show-and-tell of Stine’s various creations, but the film allows itself the time to breathe and introduce us to the characters. There’s not quite enough time to really flesh them out, but there’s enough details and emotional beats in the screenplay (Zach’s sarcasm and sadness over losing his dad; Champ’s fear of death; Hannah’s longing to be a normal kid) that allow us to feel connected to them and enjoy following them throughout the course of the film. Minnette, Rush, and Lee have good chemistry together, and I was pleasantly surprised by Jack Black as Stine. His performance is completely different from the writer he’s portraying (which was something I wasn’t a fan of originally), but it works well here with the perfect balance of mysteriousness, quirky humor, and over-the-top behavior that makes for an engaging character on the screen.

The real R.L. Stine isn’t shy about saying the Goosebumps books purposefully have a balance of humor and horror—scaring the reader then alleviating the tension with a few laughs—which goes the same for the film. The humor is really well done, with laughs both for the kid and adult audience that manage to be funny without being corny. Whether from the kids, adults (Zach’s trying-to-be-cool mom, zany aunt, or the pair of hysterical bumbling cops), or the film’s own self-awareness (characters mentioning the Goosebumps books and Stine’s comment how one featuring all his creations would never sell), the humor is clever and the laughs well-earned. One of the funniest moments of the film is Stine’s rant about “Steve” King (there’s another King reference that’s just as hilarious and smartly placed) that manages to be funny while giving further insight into Stine’s character. I’m not sure the kids in my audience got that one, but it shows that the film knows its audience and is neither playing down to the kids nor excluding the adults.

As for the monsters, they were actually integrated better than I thought they’d be (and the CGI, which I wasn’t confident in after seeing the trailer, was surprisingly impressive and sharp), with Slappy getting a lot of the screen time. It was a smart decision to make one of Stine’s most memorable (and creepy) creations the ringleader of the bunch, but I found myself wishing he would’ve been a little more scary and villainous, especially for something whose intent was to exact revenge on Stine for keeping him confined within the pages of a manuscript. Though a welcome presence on the big screen, with his quips and jokes, he seemed to be more mischievous rather than evil. Which is something you could say about the film in general. There are some creepy moments and images, but I wish it would’ve taken a few more risks with the scare factor.

It took nearly twenty years for Goosebumps to make it to the big screen, so this isn’t a movie that can be accused of being rushed. It manages to capture the spirit of the series (both television and, I assume, book). So whether your craving 90s nostalgia or a fun, entertaining movie to get you in the Halloween spirit, this is one that will be sure to give you…goosebumps.

8.5/10

 

 

Divergent

Release Date: March 21, 2014 Runtime: 140 minutes

On the tail of successful film franchises (Twilight and The Hunger Games) and some not-so-successful ones (The Moral Instruments and Vampire Academy) comes Divergent, the newest addition to the young adult book-turned-movie sub-genre, based on the best seller by Veronica Roth.

Despite their differences, a comparison to The Hunger Games is inevitable. Both feature young female heroines in a dystopic future, rebelling against some kind of government control. Though, Divergent avoids beings a mere carbon copy of The Hunger Games; it offers enough originality for it to stand on its own.

In the world of Divergent, a future Chicago is divided into five factions—Candor, Amity, Dauntless, Erudite, and Abnegation—and, on their sixteenth birthday, each resident gets to choose which faction they will enter for the rest of their lives. Will they remain in the faction they’ve been in since birth and, by extension, remain with their families? Or will they instead pick a new faction, one that they feel better suits their personality, and risk never seeing their families again?

But it’s not that easy for Beatrice ‘Tris’ Prior (Shailene Woodley) who is ‘Divergent’; rather than fitting into one particular faction, she fits into many—she has the selflessness of Abnegation, the bravery of Dauntless, and the knowledge of Erudite. The film revolves around her faction choice and the repercussions and discoveries that result from it, in addition to a relationship with Four (Theo James), an enigmatic Dauntless leader.

While some fans of the book will no-doubt be upset at the changes from page to screen, Divergent takes the occasionally episodic nature of the book and makes it more fluid. Some scenes are added, spliced, or omitted altogether to effectively streamline and cover the book’s 400+ page count in just under a two and a half hour runtime. But for all the good things from the book that the film is faithful to, it’s also faithful to the bad as well. At times, there’s too much exposition, too much downtime in between pivotal scenes, and not enough supporting character development.

Much like Jennifer Lawrence in The Hunger Games (see, it’s inevitable), Divergent is Shailene Woodley’s film. She plays Tris with a cautious bravery and inner strength that really allows you to get inside her head. And it’s telling that in a pivotal scene, Woodley injects it with such raw emotion that it blows its source material out of the water. It’s also a plus that director Neil Burger allows Tris to narrate the film’s opening minutes. It’s a short time, but the addition of the first person narration gives us a deeper connection to Tris in an addition that The Hunger Games (unfortunately) decided to omit.

Despite the inevitable changes from book to film, Divergent ends up being an otherwise faithful adaptation. It may be too heavy on exposition at times, but its unique twist on dystopia drew me into its unique world enough for me to anticipate the next one.

8/10

 

Man of Steel

In a summer already filled with superhero sequels, prequels, reboots, and remakes, is there room for one more? Whether the casual viewer thinks so or not is irrelevant, because Zack Snyder’s Superman reimagining, Man of Steel, zoomed—faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive!—into theaters this summer.

The film revolves around Clark Kent’s (Henry Cavill) learning about—and later coming to terms with—his Kryptonian past before embracing it to become the Superman we all know. In other words, as Clark’s Earth father—played by Kevin Costner in an honestly genuine performance relays to his son—he’s not from here. The film cleverly gives us glimpses into Clark’s past via Lost-style flashbacks using events in Clark’s present to serve as a window back into his past.

Introduce Lois Lane, a feisty, independent news reporter who stumbles onto Clark’s secret. Will she expose Clark’s otherworldly nature? Or will she keep the knowledge—that an alien has inhabited Earth for 33 years—to herself? Adams is great in the role, portraying a Lois with surety, confidence, and a touch of wonderment but unfortunately, she’s not given much to do in the film. As we follow her throughout Metropolis, it seems as if Lois is basically there to remind viewers that: Hey! Look! Someone knows Clark’s secret, and… And what? That’s just it; we never feel anything in all the mayhem—in the way of worry, fear, or wonder—as to what Lois’s actions will be—and where they’ll lead.

Produced by Christopher Nolan, it’s difficult not to compare the film to Nolan’s Dark Knight trilogy—a trilogy praised for its grounded take on a superhero origin story complete with its own moody cityscapes and brooding hero. And , for the most part, those hallmarks are definitely present in Man of Steel. It’s dark and brooding (and yet ever-realistic) nature continues throughout the film reminding the viewer that—even when Kryptonian ships descend from the sky to make contact with Earth—this is not your grandma’s feel-good superhero romp. Furthermore, not once do the “becoming Superman” portions of the film become boring or cheesy—they feel real, almost as if it would be perfectly acceptable to look outside and see a red caped-man flying around the sky while shooting laser beams from his eyes and defeating alien invaders.

Though the script isn’t as tight as it no-doubt could’ve been, for the most part, the cast is great to watch with no weak performances (aside from the occasional woody Cavill). Michael Shannon is especially brilliant as General Zod, a Kryptonian military leader hell-bent on destroying Superman. Shannon plays the roll with terrifying menace and makes it clear early on that Zod is not a guy you want to meet at night in a dark Smallville alley.

Regardless of its flaws, one thing that Man of Steel gets spot-on is its breathtakingly seamless visuals. Whether in the sci-fi spectacle of the destruction of Krypton or the collapsing of Smallville, the GCI is top notch, enough so that you don’t even think of GCI. Though for as much as the GCI helps the film, Man of Steel also falls too much into that all-familiar superhero-norm of too much of a good thing: lavish set pieces—buildings, city streets, alien space crafts—for the sole purpose of destruction. Unlike Christopher Nolan’s Gotham City, we never feel anything relating to loss or heartbreak when destruction falls upon Smallville. And because of such a crutch on the big destruction scenes, it’s difficult to tell just where the climax lies. The scenes surrounding it are a feast for the eyes, but you can’t help to wonder: wait, what’s happening now?

But in a world with too many half-hearted and rushed films attempting to bring in audiences (and, let’s face it, cash) to the theater, Man of Steel provides a film that overall succeeds in storytelling and impressive visuals; and though it no doubt had potential for more character development, the film earns its status as a summer blockbuster. Not every superhero film is going to be a Dark Knight, but as Man of Steel does, they can try. And if that’s the future of comic book movies (and superhero movies in general), then I’m okay with that.

8/10

Oz the Great and Powerful

We all know the story: young Dorothy Gale whisked away from the bland plains of Kansas to the colorful, yet perilous city of Oz. And now, seventy years after MGM first released The Wizard of Oz, comes Oz the Great and Powerful, set roughly twenty years before the original. If you’ve seen the fantastical trailers with their explosive CGI and familiar-looking characters and places, you’re probably aware that the film serves as an origin story of shorts, showing how conniving sideshow magician Oscar Diggs became Oz (played by a surprisingly delightful James Franco). Franco is obviously comfortable in the role, managing to be humorous, entertaining, and just plain fun to watch as he adjusts to the world that so many viewers have known for years.

Due to MGM copyright issues, Disney legally couldn’t use some of the crucial aspects of the original: the ruby slippers, Dorothy’s trio of friends, even the shade of green of the Wicked Witch of the West (but there are a few Wizard of Oz nods that fans will pick up along the way). However, director Sam Raimi & Co. don’t treat it as an impediment, instead using the opportunity for some creative reimagining. Oz is still Oz (magical and unpredictable) and Emerald City is still Emerald City: it’s green and glamorous and big, but structurally different, while adding elements from L. Frank Baum’s original novel (China Country, Winkies, Quadlings, to name a few).

Raimi’s vision of Oz is a feast for the eyes, though as positively satisfying and showy as the CGI is, at times, its downfall is just that: it’s showy. It’s a case of style over substance, and the heavily computer-generated landscape has the ability to take the viewer out of the land that Raimi has so painstakingly created, reminding the viewer that it’s not real. But once the film gets past the initial immersion of the audience into the re-imagined Oz and lets the story come to the forefront, the ball gets rolling.

The film’s opening mirrors that of The Wizard of Oz, in that it starts in that tonal mixture of black-white-brown to introduce us to a familiar-looking dusty, barren Kansas. The decision could’ve easily felt like a gimmick—and at times you’re wondering if it’s going to one-handedly undermine the deftness of the original—but there are no gimmicks here. It feels true, genuine, as if Dorothy Gale herself could show up at any minute (Michelle Williams as a plain-Jane farm girl and Oscar’s love-interest makes me think how good of a Dorothy she’d be) with Toto running at her heels.

Oz’s first third is slow, but not boring, due to a bit of lack of direction. Are we focusing on the hunt to kill a Wicked Witch? Or the dangerousness of the Dark Forest? Or the spectacle of Oz itself? There’s enough information and scenery to present early on that the film seems to get lost in itself at times and lose its cohesiveness, something that could’ve been fixed with tighter, more focused writing and editing. Regardless of its small shortcomings, the story is engaging and exciting to watch as it unfolds, never feeling like an adrenaline-shot rehash of The Wizard of Oz. The three witches are captivating as well with Mila Kunis, unfortunately, being the weakest of the three (she’s not terrible,but her flat performance in early scenes make it feel as though she was miscast; she just doesn’t synch with her character as much as the others do).

For a PG film, Oz features some pretty dark scenes, which helps to balance the often-upbeat imagery of Oz itself. While it’s great to see that Disney isn’t afraid to shy away from that territory with visuals of explosions, a Witch hell-bent on revenge, and hoards of sharp-toothed flying monkeys, it also makes me wish that they’d pushed the envelope a little more. The darkness of the film was effective, though it would’ve been nice to see the full height of the Wicked Witch’s evil to really up the ante.

Overall, Oz is as great as its title suggests, a strong film that succeeds in being its own entity, a clever prequel tale instead of some cheap reimagining of the original, while never forgetting the film that precedes it. And while the visuals are, at times, style over substance, Oz the Great and Powerful remains a creative, satisfying origin story that’s far from disappointing as we learn more about the enigmatic-no-more Man Behind the Curtain.

(A very solid) 7.5/10