The Dark Tower

Tags

A Royal Affair, Cinema, Dallas Buyers Club, Doctor Foster, Film, Film Review, Idris Elba, Luther, Matthew McConaughey, Movie, Movie Review, Nikolaj Arcel, The Dark Tower, Tom Taylor

via youtube.com

“The Dark Tower” is a film adaptation of Stephen King’s series of novels by the same name. It stars respected actors such as Idris Elba (“Luther”) and Matthew McConaughey (“Dallas Buyers Club”), as well as English child actor Tom Taylor (“Doctor Foster”), and was intended to launch a film and television franchise.

“The Dark Tower” is an awkward film to review because although it gets almost everything wrong its inadequacy isn’t offensive. I wasn’t upset or angered by the mistakes that director and co-writer Nikolaj Arcel (“A Royal Affair”) made; I was merely disinterested because his inability to tell an interesting story was clear from the outset.

via joblo.com

This film had potential, but to get the most out of it there was always going to have to be a degree of invention on the part of the director. Unfortunately, this movie is completely devoid of anything resembling an original thought, and any potential that the narrative had was monumentally squandered from the moment the movie began. From the outset the presentation was immensely uninspired, lacking any kind of imagination or personality, and I didn’t feel as though Arcel had any love for the material that he was adapting.

Characters and concepts were thrust at the audience without so much as an inkling as to why we should care about them, and every aspect of the movie felt like a rehash of elements taken from better films. The characters are just there, much like everything else in the film, and there’s nothing special or interesting about them to create a feeling of investment.

The protagonist is an eleven-year-old boy, Jake Chambers (Tom Taylor), who for some unknown reason has the ability to see into another world (Mid-World) through his dreams. Due to nothing other than narcissism Jake comes to the conclusion that his dreams have significance, believing that the events taking place in his visions are causing earthquakes in the real world, and we as an audience are expected to believe this.

via variety.com

Jake is immediately dislikeable because the writers don’t give us a reason to sympathise with him when people dismiss his warnings. There’s nothing exceptional about him which dictates that we should believe what he’s saying – other than the fact that we’ve read the film’s synopsis – and his ramblings are consistent with those of a child with an overactive imagination! When reading a book this isn’t overly jarring because you’re constantly confined to one characters’ perspective and you can identify with their situation because you’re explicitly told how they’re feeling, but in a movie you have to make a character likeable before expecting people to care about what’s happening to them.

Jake’s mother, Laurie (Katheryn Winnick), is a much more relatable character than her son because she responds to his hyperactive imaginings in a logical way… by trying to put him in an asylum. Jake is being irrational and he needs help, so when Laurie tries to get him the help that he needs we don’t feel sorry for him or hope that he can somehow make an escape!

The reason that I’m making this point is that the first act ends with Jake running from monsters pretending to be workers from a psychiatric facility, in a scene which should’ve been triumphant for the character. However, because we don’t like or care about Jake we don’t want him to run away; we want him to get caught so that we can enjoy some action in a movie which lacks any kind of emotion.

via theplaylist.net

Herein lies the main problem of “The Dark Tower”, which is that the plot consistently takes the most boring avenue towards its conclusion. The most exciting direction that the plot could’ve taken at this point would’ve been to have Jake wheeled off to the asylum by the monsters because this would’ve created tension and allowed us to get a proper look at the villains of the film, thus giving us a reason to root for the protagonist. Instead, Jake ran from the supposedly threatening monsters and found a way to Mid-World on his own, rather than simply being taken there by the monsters and then escaping their grasps.

These kinds of issues are present throughout the first act, with the set-up of the film asking questions which are never answered. The start of the film could’ve been extended by another 30 minutes and it wouldn’t have suffered as a whole, and I have to ask myself what the writers thought they were achieving by skipping character development in the first act in order to focus on lacklustre action during the second and third acts.

Another issue which arises right at the start of the movie pertains to the titular tower. The tower is nothing more than a McGuffin and it doesn’t feel significant because we have no idea where it is geographically or why it requires a child to destroy it. Who made it? Why is it the key to the universe? Why should I care about it? If I don’t know anything about it and also have no reason to empathise with the film’s protagonist then how am I supposed to become even minimally invested in the narrative?

via collider.com

The Man in Black (the film’s main villain, played by Matthew McConaughey) is also underdeveloped and never feels like a threat because he’s always outside the main story. McConaughey’s performance is fine for what it is, but calling a performance fine in this film isn’t a compliment. I was constantly aware of the fact that I was watching McConaughey play a character, and at no point did I look at him and feel intimidated or enthralled.

The sad thing about “The Dark Tower” is that none of the performances from the main cast are actually awful. They’re definitely bland, but none of the actors are afforded the opportunity to be anything more than that because they’re stunted by a woefully ordinary script!

At the end of the day there’s nothing exceptional or even passable about “The Dark Tower”. It takes liberties with its story, the cinematography is uninspired, and the characters are underdeveloped. The material lends itself to an entertaining film – there’s a road-movie, a fantasy epic, and even a young adult film within this awfully tedious science-fiction western – and any one of those movies would’ve been infinitely better than this one. The only positive thing that I can say about “The Dark Tower” is that it wasn’t compelling enough to frustrate me with its inadequacy, which isn’t exactly a glowing recommendation. Do yourself a favour and don’t bother paying to see this movie – if you’re interested in the material then there are eight books written by a brilliant author that you can read at home.

2/10

Advertisements

Finding Dory

Tags

Albert Brooks, Cinema, Destiny, Disney, Disney Pixar, Dory, Ed O'Neill, Ellen DeGeneres, Film, Finding Dory, Finding Nemo, Hayden Rolence, Idris Elba, Kaitlin Olson, Marlin, Movie Review, Nemo, Pixar

via flickr.com

“Finding Dory” is the follow-up to the Disney Pixar classic “Finding Nemo”, and whilst it isn’t quite as exciting or powerful as the film which bore it, it’s a nice family film.

The story follows Dory (Ellen DeGeneres) as she attempts to find the parents that she was separated from as a child, and this main plot thread does a great job of getting the audience emotionally invested in the titular character right from the outset. You can’t help but feel sorry for Dory as a child because she’s incredibly cute, and the fact that she’s forgotten all about her parents as a result of her short-term memory loss makes her finding them all the more pressing because it just doesn’t seem fair. We know from “Finding Nemo” that she’s a kind and loveable character, so we want her to get what she wants and reconnect with her family.

Still, this perhaps leads into my first problem with “Finding Dory”, which is that there isn’t a lot of character development going on with any of the characters that are carried over from “Finding Nemo”. We’re expected to care about them in virtue of the fact that we cared about them in that film, and we do, but from my perspective this is a hallmark of lazy writing.

via youtube.com

I personally don’t see why anyone who hasn’t seen that film would care about any of the characters in this film other than Dory, because existing characters like Nemo (Hayden Rolence) and Marlin (Albert Brooks) don’t do anything interesting, and whilst new characters like Hank (an octopus voiced by Ed O’Neill) and Destiny (a shark voiced by Kaitlin Olson) are entertaining and well voiced they aren’t properly fleshed out. I liked them for what they were (comic relief), and I’m sure they’ll appeal to children and be marketable as merchandise, but they weren’t interesting in any way. This might be a children’s movie, but that doesn’t mean that characters have to be one-dimensional or have motivations that are completely transparent.

Characters like Marlin and Nemo felt unimportant and were horribly underused, which is crazy because they matter so much to the returning audience! The writers should’ve doubled down on them as well as Dory because they are a big part of why people are buying a ticket to the film, so I was amazed by how dull the writers managed to make them! At no point did I ever feel worried for them or emotionally invested in their journey to ‘rescue’ Dory, and more often than not they got in the way of the story rather than enhancing it.

via pathoes.com

On top of these issues, the main plot device of the film (Dory’s memory loss) was very inconsistent in its application. It seemed to pop up whenever the plot needed it rather than being used in a constant and thoughtful way, which always gets on my nerves even when I’m watching an animated movie aimed towards families and children. The way that Dory’s memory loss was exploited in service of the plot made her affliction annoying rather than endearing, and took away from the likeability of Dory as a character which was a real shame in my opinion.

I don’t want to seem insensitive here or be overly critical because I know from experience that mental illness is unpredictable and attacks at the most inconvenient of times, but it frustrates me that the film doesn’t at least acknowledge the fact that Dory’s mental illness is erratic. A small amendment whereby Dory’s short-term memory loss was triggered by moments of stress and anxiety, or something of this ilk, would’ve solved the problem easily and conveniently.

via cosmopolitan.com

Despite the negative aspects of the film I did enjoy it for what it was. The comedy in the film hit the mark most of the time, particularly when the sea lions were involved, and I found myself laughing at jokes a lot more often than I was expecting to. They were probably my favourite new characters for the sole reason that they really did make me laugh, and I thought that Idris Elba’s voice acting was great.

“Finding Dory” will please the majority of returning viewers as it hits a lot of the same beats that “Finding Nemo” did, and visually it’s more than interesting enough to hold the attention of younger viewers. However, for me it was lacking in terms of both story and character development, making it rather average overall.

6.5/10

The Jungle Book (2016)

Tags

Akela, Bagheera, Baloo, Ben Kingsley, Bill Murray, CGI, Christopher Walken, Cinema, Disney, Film, Film Review, Giancarlo Esposito, Idris Elba, Jon Favreau, Kaa, King Louie, Lupita Nyong'o, Movie Review, Mowgli, Neel Sethi, Raksha, Rudyard Kipling, Scarlett Johansson, Shere Khan, Walt Disney

“The Jungle Book” (1967) is a timeless classic; it’s one of Disney’s finest animated films and a generation of children have grown up with it. This 2016 adaptation of Rudyard Kipling’s work doesn’t quite live up to that standard, but it does an adequate job of capturing the heart of the story whilst divulging significantly in terms of tone and aesthetics. Whilst it may not be as memorable or as exceptional as the film which we all think about when we hear its three word title uttered, it does have a capable director at the helm (Jon Favreau), an impressive voice cast, and fantastic CGI. It’s a more than decent attempt at bringing a famous story to the big screen and I enjoyed my time watching it.

The story is very familiar if you’ve seen the 1967 film, with only a couple of variations. It follows Mowgli (Neel Sethi), a young boy (man-cub) who has been raised by wolves. He was found alone in the jungle by the panther known as Bagheera (Ben Kingsley) when he was just an infant, and since then he has lived in harmony as part of Akela’s (Giancarlo Esposito) wolf pack. However, his way of life is challenged when Shere Khan (Idris Elba), a Bengal tiger with a hate of humans, discovers his presence amongst the pack. This then leads to a perilous journey across the jungle as Bagheera attempts to escort Mowgli back to his own people and away from the villainous Khan.

via filmkult.refresher.sk

Things play out a lot like they do in the animated film, as Mowgli meets Kaa (Scarlett Johansson), a snake who may or may not want to have him for dinner; King Louie (Christopher Walken), a giant orangutan who wants to learn the ways of man, and in particular their control of ‘the red flower’ (fire); and Baloo (Bill Murray), a sloth bear who needs Mowgli’s help to collect honey to eat. It’s a tale of wonder and adventure, and although the stakes never feel particularly high due to the nature of the film and its target audience, it’s a lot of fun.

Possibly the best thing about the film was its casting, because in my opinion the actors chosen to voice each role were spot on. Idris Elba has a powerful voice which I felt suited Shere Khan perfectly, Bill Murray was great as the voice of Baloo and his comedic tendencies suited the nature of the character, and Ben Kingsley expertly portrayed the wisdom that Bagheera possesses.

(Left to right) Christopher Walken as King Louie, Scarlett Johansson as Kaa, Lupita Nyong’o as Raksha, Idris Elba as Shere Khan, and Ben Kingsley as Bagheera.

The CGI complemented the voice performances brilliantly; all of the animals in the film looked as realistic as you could possibly expect, and their mannerisms were faultless. The only issue that I had with the CGI was that when action was taking place I found it difficult to tell exactly what was going on, because things would blur and the screen was a little too dark. This was mostly a lighting issue, because when bad things were happening the screen’s brightness matched the tone, meaning that it was pretty hard to make out exactly what was going on. Although this was definitely intentional, because it made Shere Khan’s presence more menacing and captured the fact that animals can’t use man’s fire to light their way, it was quite heavy-handed and hampered the experience at various points.

Despite the fact that I enjoyed this film and appreciated a lot of the decisions that were made, this issue isn’t the only one I have with it, and in fact there were quite a few aspects that I didn’t like.

Personally, I can’t help but feel that the tone of the film would’ve been served better if it wasn’t restricted by a PG rating. In my opinion, a film’s certification should suit the film, rather than the film suiting the certification, because this ensures that the vision behind the film is realised more accurately. There are various points at which Shere Khan is asserting his authority, and other points at which animals inevitably die, and it’s incredibly frustrating that these important moments are sugar-coated for younger members of the audience. It’s understandable, but it definitely weakens many scenes and gives the whole film a cheaper feel.

via disney.wikia.com

Still, this point isn’t meant as a damning criticism of the movie by any stretch of the imagination, because it’s an issue that’s completely unavoidable. You just can’t make a Disney film with a genuinely dark tone, because as a company they target a young audience and they have an image to maintain, something that would be impossible to do if the certification for the film was anything more than a 12A.

Another aspect of the film that I personally didn’t like was the narration, because whilst Ben Kingsley did a fine job of reading his lines, I didn’t feel as though his voice-over was a necessary addition to the film. The fact that the film starts with the book opening means that the narration feels like a natural extension of the way that the story is being told, rather than a device to explain crucial plot points, so it wasn’t massively detrimental to the film, but I still felt that it didn’t need to be included and it immediately destroyed my immersion in the film.

My biggest issue with this movie was by far the child actor who played Mowgli. His mannerisms were fine but his delivery was awful, and it was really apparent that he was just talking to himself in a studio. I know that a lot of people would give him a pass because he’s very young in real life and he had to carry a big-budget film on his shoulders, but that’s not something that I am willing to do. From my perspective, using this as an excuse is like saying ‘so-and-so is a bad actor, so we shouldn’t be surprised by the fact that his acting is bad’. Being a child doesn’t mean that you can’t be a good actor, and the fact that a task is difficult shouldn’t mean that it can’t be done well, so for my money the fact that Neel Sethi is a child doesn’t excuse his poor performance.

THE JUNGLE BOOK – Pictured: Neel Sethi as Mowgli. ©2016 Disney Enterprises, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Finally, I’d like to quickly explain why I think that a lot of critics who have reviewed this film have been slightly misleading as to why it’s worthy of your time. Many critics have praised the writing of this film because they feel that character motivations are fleshed out more carefully than they were in the original. A particular focus has been placed on Shere Khan (Elba), who many believe is a more believable and relatable character than he was in the 1967 version.

I just can’t accept this point, because in my opinion the entire opposite is the case. Khan’s motivation for hating humans in this film is explained through Kaa, who shows Mowgli his past as she attempts to eat him. The vision shows Mowgli and the audience that Khan was blinded in one eye because of man’s red flower, which occurred when he attacked and killed Mowgli’s father. From my perspective, this doesn’t explain why Shere Khan hates humans at all, because he was the cause of his own accident. He attacked Mowgli’s father without provocation and thus must’ve hated humans already, or at least have been an evil character prior to their meeting. The only thing that this flashback demonstrated was that Shere Khan had unknowingly spared Mowgli’s life in the past, but this can’t be the reason that he wants to kill Mowgli because in the flashback it’s clearly shown that Shere Khan was unaware of Mowgli’s presence! Therefore, Khan’s motivations are circular and the film actually does a terrible job of explaining them.

via disney.wikia.com

I also felt that Bagheera’s motivations were unclear, because although he is portrayed as a heroic character, this doesn’t really explain why he would help Mowgli when he was a baby given that he was basically a free dinner. Animals follow the law of the jungle, and from what I’m told in the books one of those laws is to not harm man, so it makes sense that Bagheera doesn’t harm the boy. However, at no point in the movie is this fact explained to the audience. When I watched the film I assumed that the law of the jungle wouldn’t state that harming man was a problem because man so often harms the animal kingdom, and it seemed as though the writers were appealing to a human sense of morality to explain Bagheera’s actions so that the audience could relate to him. Therefore, at least in my opinion, the writers did a disservice to the character by leaving out important information relating to his actions – information that was in fact crucial to the plot.

Although I do feel that this version of “The Jungle Book” has quite a few issues, I still think that it’s an accomplished take on Rudyard Kipling’s work. It isn’t spectacular, but the aspects of it which I perceive to be negative are all understandable to a reasonable degree. Furthermore, the casting, voice performances, and the CGI are great. It’s a pleasant watch, and although you won’t leave the theatre talking about a film of the year contender, I would suggest that you will probably enjoy the experience.

6.5/10