The Dark Tower
In its struggle to set up the inevitable sequel, "The Dark Tower" (2017), fails to warrant a reason for one.
All cards on the table: I've never read "The Dark Tower" books by Stephen King. Going in, I didn't understand what the Dark Tower world was about. Upon leaving the theater, though, I didn't feel like I had a better grasp anyway so it might not even have mattered (or it would have made me angry; it's a toss-up).
The film, directed by Nikolaj Arcel, follows a boy named Jake (Tom Taylor) as he travels to another world, teaming up with Gunslinger Roland Deschain (Idris Elba), to face off against the Man in Black (Matthew McConaughey).
The best part of the film was the acting. Matthew McConaughey is eerily wonderful to watch in his role as the villain, Idris Elba is a strong presence as the damaged hero, and Tom Taylor holds his own as the kid with more to him than meets the eye.
And I'd like to say it was ok for someone who hasn't read the books. The acting was fine, the story was there, but I just can't bring myself to say so. I feel like "The Dark Tower" is that friend who can't figure out what pertinent information to share and what non-essential information to skip over in anecdotes, leaving you with an abundance of questions and lack of context.
"The really dramatic creed the Gunslinger utters? Yeah, don't understand why he says that (although I will say I'm ok with staying in the dark on that one; at first it makes no sense and upon further examination, it just makes less (and kind of becomes creepy)."
For a movie titled "The Dark Tower," I'm not even sure it was on screen for more than three minutes. I know it's pertinent, I just still don't know why. As far as the plan to destroy it, I'm not even sure why the Man in Black thought that would work. The really dramatic creed the Gunslinger utters? Yeah, don't understand why he says that (although I will say I'm ok with staying in the dark on that one; at first it makes no sense, but upon further examination, it just makes less (and kind of becomes creepy). Then there are the weird creatures which are everywhere and I have no idea why, or how, or who the heck they are. And, as just a note, I'm fairly certain Earth's modern medicine is pretty good, but not that good (you'll know when you go).
I once watched a movie that didn't explain itself; it unapologetically placed two characters in a situation and let the story unfold through them. There was no need to explain the world they existed in since the whole reason for the film was the character study. Miraculously enough, the setting was more beautiful for it.
"The Dark Tower" is not that type of film. Here, the setting is important, a character in its own right, and the film forgets that. It tries to go without explaining. Perhaps they were hoping to make us curious enough to buy a ticket to the sequel. Perhaps they thought the character study was more compelling. Perhaps they thought it would take too much time.
Whatever the reason, it came at a cost. I'm as big a fan of cinematic universes and sequels as the next person, but in order to do that, you have a reason to go back a.k.a., a really, really solid first film. "The Dark Tower" isn't contained. It can't exist on its own because it's too busy trying to set up questions they can conveniently answer in later films and in that, its only goal, it becomes unnecessary.
It's difficult to make people fall in love with a new world, to make them want to spend time there. But "The Dark Tower" didn't quite play their cards right. In the end, ok. It was an action movie in a fantasy world and that in itself made it more interesting than most. So, while I don't regret spending my five dollars to see it, it would have been better had the quality of storytelling matched the story I'm certain Stephen King originally crafted.