Dark tower. Ripped off

“I do not aim with my hand, for he who aims with his hand has forgotten the face of his father. I aim with my eye. I do not shoot with my hand, for he who shoots with his hand has forgotten the face of his father. I shoot with my mind...
  “Well, that’s enough already, huh.”

When it comes to Stephen King adaptations, I'm filled with interest. No, paradoxically, after the above, I am not a fan or connoisseur of his work, and certainly not someone who can be called well-read person. But understanding that Stephen is one of greatest writers of our time and familiarity with his film adaptations, which give this very understanding, formed in my head a simple fact about the work of the “king of horror”: King is the guarantor of a high-quality and elaborate world of the work, the plot of the film. What is it this time?

"The Dark Tower" is the most The main thing King's life's work, in his own words. I've been waiting for this picture for a long time. The first information about intentions to make a film, no, a series of films based on the Dark Tower universe appeared in 2008. However, after an unpleasant cascade of changes in directors and main performers, Sony studio decided on both the actors and the vision of the project. Filming began in 2015, and that’s when fans’ asses began to burn.

There were no dissatisfied with the casting of Matthew McConaughey for the role of the Man in Black, but for another black The guy had a lot of complaints. Idris Elba bore little resemblance to Clint Eastwood, who served as the prototype for shooter Roland. King’s words on Twitter that the events of the film would differ from the book series were also not encouraging. But this bothered the "fans". What about ordinary spectators?

They faced not only creative problems, but also production ones: high staff turnover, a small budget for such a scale. $60 million-the same “Fellowship of the Ring” had it almost 100 . Advertising company The film was even launched more than three months before the premiere, which is catastrophically late in the world of modern film distribution, when the viewer should start “picking their brains” half a year, or better yet even earlier, from some Comic Con.

All this did not inspire confidence in the quality future painting. Were the fears true? Yes. "Dark tower" fell even before its construction.

“You can't change the future. Death is inevitable, and the Tower will fall..." © Walter Padik (HYY, PADIK)

Nikolay Arcel, the director of the film, together with the studio and Stephen King decided to give the viewer short story, practically a “sketch” from the world of the book, only having common “reference points” with its original, but not repeating it. This did not work. If “Tower” had been released in the 80s or at least the 90s, it would have been a huge success.

Old films were shown huge by today's standards, the amount of information to the viewer, spending modest time on revealing the “lore” or completely ignoring it. How much did you know about the T-800, Alien or Thing? No, they were just " bad Boys", and the mystery made them even better. But this is not 1938 or even 1984, no one reads newspapers (look for the reference) and is not ready to watch a film without a detailed look at what is happening, which requires “thinking through”, which is what “The Dark Tower” is.

Modern cinema has not turned into a conveyor belt, no, it has made a conveyor belt out of us, accustoming viewers to clichéd submission. In classic theater arts, from which cinema originated, character development, climax and rich exposition are indeed necessary, but remember this simple thing: theater is always art, cinema is often entertainment. Many viewers cannot hear or notice the most obvious notes and references, and many do not want to. The concept of “good and bad”, where a bolt is put on revealing characters, is ubiquitous and, scary to say, beloved. I do not support this, I preach the opposite approach, but sometimes this does not interfere with viewing. In the case of The Dark Tower, a lot understandable without words and requires no explanation. But not all.

But no matter how much I want to defend or find mercy for the picture, it is still bad. Let's look at it in more detail:

11-year-old boy Jake suffers from nightmares. In visions, he sees the Dark Tower, the Gunslinger, the Man in Black, monsters and much more. The stepfather is jealous of his wife for his adopted son and wants to get rid of him. However, Jake is not crazy, on the contrary - gifted"radiance". When the monsters from his dreams come after him disguised as employees of a mental hospital for teenagers, he escapes from home and finds a portal to another world.

The teenager meets Roland the Shooter there, last person, capable of destroying evil in this post-apocalyptic world. The main characters go to last Stand with an evil wizard in the person of Matthew McConaughey's character. Simple and very fast serving looks great and pleases everyone first half film. However, with every minute of the second part, more and more questions arise, and the impression worsens. And How it's a shame it becomes a thought how easy it was to fix it.

The Dark Tower was created with the franchise in mind, which partly explains why there's so little content. But after such an unsuccessful start, there may not be any talk of an R-rated sequel. Although the ending doesn't help...

The script does not consider it necessary to tell us, at least in the form of a flashback, about why this world turned into a wasteland. There is no mention of the villain’s past: why is Walter such a bad guy and wants to rule not over people, but over demons. Nothing is clear about the rat-headed minions of evil either. And most importantly: why is the Tower destroyed by children's screams? Who is the Scarlet King? Who created the tower?! There is no exhibition. Viewer don't have to read romance to get ultimate viewing experience. And if he reads it, he will hate the film for its “flatness.” A vicious circle of cinematic suffering.

Dialogues are monotonous and boring. Roland speaks either in pretentious speeches or jokes, there is no other choice. But at least makes good jokes. Walter's replicas look much more natural. The characters are undeveloped and superficial, although I explained above why this is tolerable. But you shouldn’t expect any development of the heroes, except maybe from Jake – he was a great success: a multi-faceted teenage hero without a shadow of feat and features in the style of “Divergent”.

The picture literally lacks a 10-15 minute addition in the form of a couple of flashbacks showing the beginning of time, the world of demons and the formation of the Man in Black, and everything would have become Wonderful. We would get a clear, consistent and completely snot-free fantasy action film. But instead, it was decided to reshoot some of the scenes in order to make the film less dark, and then completely cut the remaining film. In the first trailer you will easily find more than one scene that was not included in the film.

Actor play

If we ignore the fact that the characters are simple and do not develop, then they excellent. Both black guys are cool and charismatic. But you wouldn’t expect anything else from actors of this level. Tom Taylor, who played Jake, is pleased: the young actor shows a full range of emotions, from gasp and fear to courage and back. And this is his first film work... He will go far.

And also on minor roles famous artists, such as Jackie "Rorschach" Earl Haley and "Thor fan" Claudia Kim.

The graphics are pleasing to the eye, the picture has a varied palette of colors and locations. The shootout scenes look good. However, the ending is very ridiculous and chaotic, enemy bots are “dying like flies,” and the Man in Black’s abilities sometimes look insufficiently impressive, discordant with the cool beginning.

Intense sound from Tom Holkenborg.

Extremely contradictory a film with poor elaboration of everything and a predominance in the negative. Looks good until the middle, but towards the end it can cause multiple facepalms. But I absolutely disagree with the film's devastating 18/100 rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Yes, it’s a passable film with a lot of bad stuff, but it doesn’t cause any significant hostility during the session, the humor is pleasant, teenage snot is absent as a class, good action. 5/10 .

If you read the original and for some unknown reason ignored the facts that it would be not a film adaptation in the normal sense, but a step towards transferring to the screen new history Arrow and the Man in Black - only pain awaits you © Master Yoda.

The Dark Tower, a film adaptation of the main work of American science fiction writer Stephen King, has been released on screens around the world. The series of novels about Roland the Archer, searching for the Dark Tower at the center of the universe, has become a cult favorite for many fans of the works of the “king of horror.” And now - the long-awaited film adaptation of books that were considered, in principle, unsuitable for film adaptation.

The film is somewhat reminiscent of Harry Potter, " The night Watch"and the novels of Vladislav Krapivin at the same time (the family conflict generally evokes a feeling of déjà vu with Krapivin's story "Three from Carronade Square"). Unneeded by his parents, the boy Jake has the gift of clairvoyance and superpowers, which the worthless tormentor of children - the man in black - wants to use to destroy the pillar of the universe. The villain simply bombards the Dark Tower with “child’s tears” placed on a conveyor belt. Fortunately, the boy comes across Shooter Roland and together they organize such a fight for peace that no stone is left unturned.

All this is touching, well-intentioned, very patriarchal - with family values ​​and the protection of the tower, as the center of world good, from world evil. There are completely New Testament scenes in the film - a raid by the villain’s servants on a village in search of a boy, killing all the children they come across on the way - clean water massacre of the innocents.

True, in accordance with Hollywood racial correctness, the Arrow, invented based on the character of Clint Eastwood in the films of Sergio Leone, is played by... a black actor Idris Alba. In New York, he looks, of course, not like a knight from an ancient order from another world dimension, but like a gopnik “from heaven”: just as soon as he starts rapping.

But the villain, of course, must certainly be white and with the manners of a true aristocrat. And so Matthew McConaughey, who was recently considered as a candidate for the role of the Shooter himself, goes into a dark corner - evil, of course, must be white, with delicate facial features and exquisite, sophisticated irony.

A wonderful film, overall. For those who have not read the original - Stephen King's novels, which are about something else altogether. This is a story about the search, if not for God, then for the secrets of the universe. And no beaver-donkey fight for you. The dark tower is an ancient Celtic symbol of the center of tradition. One can recall, for example, the famous poems of W.B. Yeats.

Heard: at the guards on the black tower
The wine is sour and the food is meager,
But, without dreaming of a better brush,
Warriors are always faithful to their oath,
They watch the tower:
Enemy banners will not pass.

The dead are standing in their coffins full height,
Winds blow from the shores,
Old bones creak.

Banners come, threaten, bribe,
They whisper: “Your king has been forgotten long ago,
New ones are now approaching the throne,
Do you care?"
But if it has long since decayed,
So why did fear overcome you?

In the coffins there is the dim light of the moon and stars,
Winds blow from the shores,
The oppression of their heavy wind is the roar,
Old bones creak.

Our old cook, what about the first dawn
Climbs up, catches birds in a snare,
He assures us, swears to us of this:
Like, the royal horn sounded.
I wish I could lie to the old man!
Our army keeps the oath.

The darkness of night thickens in the graves,
Winds blow from the shores,
The oppression of their heavy wind is the roar,
Old bones creak.

(Translation by A. Serebrennikov)

But the tower as an image of tradition and knowledge is completely outside the ethical horizons. In King's novel, the Shooter, after a conversation with the man in black (who is not an enemy, but, on the contrary, a guide), easily steps over the death of the boy Jake and rushes further for secret knowledge. A purely Gnostic idea - knowledge (essentially occult) above goodness, conscience and life.

This Gnostic path ends rather badly. Having reached the end of the story, Roland discovers behind the last door... the beginning of the story and, with his memory erased, falls into a new circle of the squirrel running around in a wheel. No higher Truth top level no, there is only an endless circle of lost Ego.

Photo: www.globallookpress.com

King's hero constantly repeats the catechism of the shooters:

"I don't kiss with my hand,
He who aims with his hand has forgotten the face of his father.
I aim with my eye.
I don't shoot with my hand
He who shoots with his hand has forgotten his father's face.
I shoot with my mind.
I don't kill with weapons
He who kills with weapons has forgotten the face of his father.
I kill with my heart."

Our stupid film translators remade this into “disgracing his father,” but this, of course, is not about patriarchal morals, but about the universe turning away from its creator. Stephen King's saga is a story about worlds in which there is tradition and honor, but who have forgotten the face of their Father and are immersed in the hopelessness of an eternal cycle.

The inconsistency with King's books and primitiveness benefited The Dark Tower. A craft with shooting, fireworks, and a beginning Harry Potter is much kinder, more humane, and closer to Christian values. If in modern Western culture somewhere else there is a citadel of simple and healthy Christian values, namely in the dark towers of Hollywood. However, they are successfully squeezed out from there too.

Watch the Tsargrad TV program "Cinema with Kholmogorov"

“The Dark Tower” comes out in theaters today. The director, Danish Nikolaj Arcel, filmed the saga of Stephen King of the same name, not forgetting to carefully warn the writer’s radical fans that his New film- This is more of a sequel to the series, rather than a detailed retelling of the series.

For loyal fans of King, the multiverse of The Dark Tower has a special meaning, and the writer himself considers it his magnum opus. A total of eight books are combined into the series (including the interim part “The Wind Through keyhole"), which contain references to about 20 other works from King's bibliography. According to the horror master's universe, in addition to our (“core”) world, there are other dimensions that are held by the Dark Tower. Walter O'Dimm (played by Matthew McConaughey in the film), aka the Man in Black, tries to destroy it, but he is actively prevented by Roland Deschain (Idris Elba), the last of the order of archer knights, the ancestors of King Arthur.

We watched the film with four King fans and asked them to tell us how accurately the film adaptation conveys the Dark Tower universe, why they love the writer, and how faithful the images of the characters are. The text contains spoilers.

Felix

22 years old, journalist

Maksim

26 years old, social teacher

Rinat

21 years old, student

Valentine

30 years old, IT specialist

Relation to King

Felix: I've read about 50 books by Stephen King. When I was seven, I was given “It,” and until I was 14, I only read King. This is my favorite author. I love that the characters react truthfully to supernatural yet realistic events. Of course, these are all rather archetypal images from American literature about horror, but King manages to make it exciting every time. Favorite book - “It”. I consider Salem's Lot (2004) to be the best adaptation. By the way, King rightly criticized Kubrick for “The Shining”: almost all film adaptations, even the most low-budget ones, did not touch the author’s main idea, but Kubrick simply created his own work, completely distorting the essence - for example, he made Wendy some kind of hysterical.

I actively follow King - I read his Twitter and often publish news about him. I think that he pays too much attention to politics, and I myself am an apolitical person, so this is not so interesting to me. Well, grandfather has his own habits - what can you do?

Maksim: I have all of King's books in Russian. My favorite is “Confrontation”. I love the way King writes about the horrors hidden in ordinary things. These stories may not seem so scary to some, but it’s hard to deny that King masterfully reveals his characters in them. I also like that at the end of the book he addresses us, “ dear readers" This kind of internal dialogue is very cool. I don’t read King’s Twitter - I don’t follow his life, but his work. It turns out A new book- I’m running to the store. A Political Views- this is his personal opinion. I read in some biography of King that he allegedly dislikes Russians. I don't care, the main thing is that he loves his readers.

Valentin: In total, King is difficult to read - he has more than 80 books. I familiarized myself in detail with about 30 works. Favorite book is “The Confrontation”. King masterfully builds a narrative - he reveals the characters in such a way that by the end of the book you really begin to worry about them. King's Twitter is cool, but too political - he really doesn't like Donald Trump and devotes five posts a day to it, but I'm apolitical.

Rinat: I've read more than half of King's works. It perfectly conveys the atmosphere - for example, the dying world of The Dark Tower. Favorite book is probably “The Shining”. The best film adaptations are “The Shawshank Redemption”, “1408” and “The Green Mile”. I follow King, but I’m upset that he began to devote too much time to Trump: I’m still interested in literature. I have a positive attitude towards the fact that King is considered a feminist. I support feminism; it is, first and foremost, about equality. And I don’t take into account any inadequate people who propose to drive men into reservations.

Shooter

Felix: The shooter doesn't look authentic at all. He looks like an action hero or even a comic book character, but not the Roland Deschain that was in the book. But specifically in the film, his confrontation with the stereotyped antagonist looks quite harmonious. Idris Elba plays well - he takes great aim and really talks like a shooter. But this is not Roland. The fact that the actor is black could have been carefully integrated into the plot, but here it is Elba’s performance that hurts the eye - this is simply not his role.

Maksim: Idris Elba plays well, I even forgot he's black. But according to the book, Roland should be more gloomy, only then, when he and Jake gather their ka-tet, he will become more or less sentimental. We were shown his emotional side when he called Jake his son, but it happened too quickly. It is clear that it will not be possible to fit everything into the timing, because “The Dark Tower” is eight books, and not an hour and a half of screen time. But when the shooter gets to New York, he does not seem like a tourist, he does not have obvious culture shock - he does not seem like an alien from another world at all.

Rinat: You can’t call Idris Elba’s performance a failure, and it’s not even because he’s black. I was more embarrassed that in the film he was portrayed strictly positive character, although in the books he did a lot of nasty things - for example, he carried out a massacre in Tull and quite deliberately sent Jake into the abyss to meet the Dark Man.

Valentin: What main character- black, absolutely normal. Idris Elba is great. On the other hand, it is clear that the filmmakers were afraid that there would be no dark people on the screen, which is why they took Elba, although in theory Roland is similar to Clint Eastwood - King himself said this. They will have problems if the film pays off and they decide to continue filming: in the book, one of the main characters is a crippled black woman with a split personality. I don't understand how they will translate this to the screen if they were afraid to make the main character white.

Man in black

Valentin: It seems that his image was assembled from several works where he appears under different names. In the film, he is presented to us as the main antagonist, although in the plot of the book he is just one of the Scarlet King’s henchmen. Here he is directly the personification of evil - the devil-tempter, driving people to madness. With King, he was more philosophical, plus he did not have a strict goal of catching Jake.

Felix: It's clear that McConaughey is trying harder than Elba, but the problem is in the script. Even an actor as accomplished as McConaughey had little to gain from Walter's textbook portrayal of pure evil in the film. He played his role to the maximum, but the villain still ended up being boring and annoyingly familiar. Book Walter mostly kept a low profile, very little was known about him, and his image benefited from this. Having brought him to the fore, the creators were unable to preserve the charisma and dark charm of the King antagonist.

Valentin: Felix, you still need to understand that the goal of the creators of the tape is to bring us to their finale, a happy ending. That's why they had to make such a clichéd villain.

Felix: So this is their main mistake. To heavily smooth out King's stories is a thankless task. It’s better, on the contrary, to darken them. That's what Darabont did - he rewrote the ending of "The Mist" and ultimately produced one of the best film adaptations of King. The dark man in the film is not fully revealed. In fact, all we were shown was that he was directly responsible for the deaths of the shooters and Roland's family. In fact, he was just following the orders of the Scarlet King, whom he serves. In the film, the Man in Black appears as main villain, but this is far from the case. But Matthew McConaughey was very well chosen for the role of the Man in Black, just look at his grin.

Final shootout

Maksim: The shooter killing Walter was never mentioned in the books. The heroes of "Confrontation" and "Eyes of the Dragon" were able to expel him from their world, but the Man in Black never died. In general, the Man in Black is a symbolic collective of all the evil that is in the world, and not a mortal. It's like the ring and the Eye of Sauron in The Lord of the Rings.

Felix: It is doubtful that a shooter could kill the Man in Black, but in principle it is quite possible. That is, this, of course, is not canon, but this option has the right to be considered. In general, in the film, Walter’s death turned out to be somewhat too stupid, but in the book he dies in an extremely idiotic way.

Valentin: The devil cannot be killed. Absolutely the same Man in Black in "Confrontation" a second before atomic explosion just teleported to another place.

Universe

Rinat: The director couldn't handle King's atmosphere at all. In the middle world we were shown only one settlement. The soothsayer in the book is replaced by oracles - demons with whom the shooter has repeatedly met. Regarding the key world: many believe that this is our world, because Stephen King lives here, in this regard it is difficult to complain about any inconsistencies.

Valentin: The film depicts the middle world very accurately: both the abandoned Penny Wise amusement park and the village that was attacked are depicted perfectly and according to the book. There's a great Easter egg in the campfire scene - Roland brings a spider to a tower drawn in the sand. According to the books, his son Mordred is born as a result of mixing the blood of the Scarlet King, Roland himself, Suzanne and the invader spirit that took possession of Suzanne's body. He has the ability to turn into a spider, and his goal is to destroy the tower.

Maksim: It is important to understand that The Dark Tower is very non-linear, and its universe operates according to different rules that are difficult to understand - hence the spider children born to four parents. In general, Roland’s world looks very beautiful and unusual - this is approximately the same desert that I imagined while reading. In this regard, everything is reliable, there is nothing to complain about.

Rinat: I wouldn't say that the rules are completely different there. Yes, there are demons and magic in this universe, but as we know, “any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” And the NCP and LaMerk Industries corporations were much more technologically advanced than us. Although, if I’m not mistaken, the Ancients had magic even before the advent of those advanced technologies, the remnants of which we see on the screen.

Felix: The atmosphere of King is completely lost, only a shell remains of it. It feels like the director didn’t even read the books, but just skimmed through brief retelling and made his own summer blockbuster for the masses - just like Marvel and Disney.

The director clearly succeeded in the key world better than the middle one - in the film we see the familiar New York, under which lies secret society. He managed to convey this feeling of paranoia, mass surveillance by the Scarlet King's minions. But the middle world looks rather artificial. Yes, it has all the basic elements, but the atmosphere of desolation and post-apocalypse is not felt.

Inaccuracies of the film adaptation

Rinat: We were not shown who the Scarlet King is - he is only mentioned in graffiti in the house with the portal. The beams and earthquake were supposed to show towards the end. I was also confused by the translation - the shooter’s oath said “he who kills not with his heart has forgotten the face of his father” and so on, and on the screen they persistently repeat “he who kills not with his heart disgraces his father.” The fact that eight books were made into one film greatly affected the quality.

Felix: I expected it to be worse, but the book deserves it best film adaptation. But in order to interest new readers and give a start to a new film franchise, it will do just fine.

It's strange that the universe in the film was created with King fans in mind, considering great amount references to his bibliography. But at the same time, the authors of the film adaptation clearly did not try to please the fans: in the film there are a lot of discrepancies with the book, and the characters’ personalities were also greatly smoothed out - they made the protagonist out of ideal hero, on the contrary, they made the antagonist into a supervillain who grins at the victims in the face - it looks unnatural and boring. Instead of a long story about the search and battle for moral principles It turned out to be a formulaic story of confrontation. The focus on the PG-13 rating killed a potentially cool and dark film - it would seem that “Deadpool” and “Logan” proved that you can shoot with an R rating and make money with a shovel, but at Sony, apparently, everyone is not so brave.

Maksim: The film adaptation turned out to be very crumpled. The only plus is the hints that there will be a continuation of the series. In general, the ending of “The Dark Tower” suggests that you can continue to invent anything you want. But the film's running time of one hour and 35 minutes was clearly not beneficial: many of the characters did not have time to open up.

You can’t say anything at all about the plot - they distorted everything possible. First of all, Roland never fought the Dark Man. In the book he followed him, but there was no fight. Secondly, in the entire book series the shooter purposefully walked towards the Dark Tower, but in the film he is only interested in revenge. Thirdly, according to the book, Jake's father is alive, but here he is dead.

Rinat: In general, it is interesting that in this iteration Roland is driven precisely by revenge on the Man in Black. Maybe that's why he was able to save the tower.

Maksim: In general, the film adaptation is more of a continuation of King's books. By the way, did everyone notice Eld’s horn behind Roland’s back?

Felix: Yes, this is very important: when reaching the Tower, the shooter is forced to return to the beginning of the path each time. The presence of a horn in the book symbolizes the end of this cycle, last way arrow. He picked it up from a deceased comrade - therefore, he did not forget about his true mission, that is, saving the Tower.

Valentin: My biggest complaint is with the script. As someone who has read the eight Dark Tower books twice, with all the branches, I can say that I had a very hard time watching the ending. They twisted everything shamelessly. As a result, I just watched a good action movie - it is clear that, as in any film adaptation, they cut out a lot of the subtleties of the original in favor of shooting and chasing. If a 16-year-old schoolboy were here instead of me, he would already be writing an angry comment. In general, this film is good for those who have not read the book: everything is told in detail, from the starting point to the ending point.

Photos: Sony pictures

Cinemafia watched the film adaptation of Stephen King and collected for you Interesting Facts about the film.

One of the most anticipated films of this year (although let's not lie, decades), opened in theaters on Thursday. The clash of Idris Elba and Matthew McConaughey as forces of good and evil in the film adaptation of the cult work of Stephen King. The shooter guards the Dark Tower, which is the center of all worlds, and the Man in Black seeks to destroy it. And there is one boy living in New York who sees these heroes in his dreams. He can upset the balance of power, but in what direction?

1. The history of The Dark Tower goes back almost 50 years.

The first publication about Strelok was in October 1978 in The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction. At the same time, King said that he had been thinking about this story eight years before. By 1982, four more stories had been released, which were then combined into a single book.

2. The history of adaptation is also not short - it all started almost 10 years ago.

JJ Abrams and his Lost colleague Damon Lindelof were the first to come up with the idea of ​​an adaptation in 2007. But two years later they abandoned this idea, giving way to the possible director of the cult series, Ron Howard.

Along with Universal Pictures and screenwriter Akiva Goldsman, Howard planned a trilogy of films interspersed with two seasons of a television series that would bridge the gaps between the films. Javier Bardem was cast main role, and the film crew has almost begun the serial part of the adaptation. But Universal soon decided to cancel the project entirely due to filming delays and budget problems.

A few years ago, Sony teamed up with Media Rights Capital to finally breathe screen life into King’s creation, and Howard, by the way, remained as a producer. Goldsman is also listed as the author of the script, although Nikolay Arcel rewrote it for the Sony project.

3. The film is a sequel to the book series.

For those who haven’t read it, the Dark Tower book series is cyclical, that is last book- this is the forerunner of the first. Arcel's film is an alternate sequel to the last book.

4. Elba added mysticism to his hero.

Idris Elba described Roland in an interview: “ There is certainly a mysticism to it. He is about 200 years old. He has existed in this world for a very long time, and therefore is deeply attached to the whole mystical component of the film. Roland, I would say, is the main embodiment of this. When the viewer first sees him, he is a stoic, silent character, but when you get to know him better, you realize how much he knows about this world and its history».

5. The leading actors exchanged sweet tweets after the cast was officially announced.

6. Stephen King liked it.

Everyone, of course, was worried about how the author would react to the film. But the strict King said: “ It's not exactly my story, but it fits the mood and theme exactly, so I'm happy».

7. There are several secrets hidden in the poster.

Of course, many have noticed that the poster for The Dark Tower is very similar to the poster for Inception, but it hides more mysteries that you don’t immediately pay attention to. The outline of the tower, which consists of upside-down New York skyscrapers, is quite obvious. And the main characters are very clearly visible against its background. But the antagonist of the film - the Man in Black - is hiding in the shadows. To find it, look to the right of the tip of the tower.

8. Tom Taylor and his homage to his hero Jake Chambers.

Tom was chosen for this role from a dozen applicants. And for the official announcement of receiving the role, he chose the famous phrase of his hero.

9. Words into pictures.

For the release of the film, one portal wished for three famous phrases from the book using pictures. Try your hand too. The answers are at the end of the article.

10. Easter eggs.

The Dark Tower is part of Stephen King's vast multiverse. Therefore, in the film there was a place for references to other works and film adaptations of the author. For example, you can see Pennywise in the film. And one of the actors, Nicholas Hamilton, played Lucas Hanson in The Dark Tower, and soon we will see him in It.

11. And then there will be a series.

This week it was announced that the film will be a prequel to the Arrow series. It is not yet known whether Idris Elba will return to this role, but he will definitely appear in the cast. The series will be executive produced by Akiva Goldsman, Ron Howard and Brian Grazer, who originally envisioned bringing King's books to television. 10-13 episodes are planned, filming will begin in 2018.

1. First a smile, then a lie. At the end - shots.
2. Battles lasting 5 minutes give birth to legends that have existed for millennia.
3. I don't kiss with my hand,
   He who aims with his hand has forgotten the face of his father.
   I aim with my eye.
   I don't shoot with my hand
   He who shoots with his hand has forgotten his father's face.
   I shoot with my mind.
   I don't kill with weapons
   He who kills with weapons has forgotten the face of his father.
   I kill with my heart.

“I do not aim with my hand — he who aims with his hand has forgotten the face of his father. I aim with my eye! I don’t shoot with my hand — he who shoots with his hand has forgotten his father’s face. I shoot with my mind! I do not kill with weapons — he who kills with weapons has forgotten the face of his father. I kill with my heart!”

The plot of the film tells about the confrontation between dark and light forces for the dark tower, which keeps our world and several parallel worlds in balance. It also tells about the fate of an 11-year-old boy, Jake Chambers, living in New York, who sees mysterious visions in his dreams, in which there are Dark tower, Shooter and Man in Black, and sketches them on paper. His parents believe that he is mentally ill and are planning to send him to a clinic. He escapes from home and finds himself in another world, passing through a magical portal in an abandoned house. There he meets the Dream Gunslinger and tries to confront the Man in Black. Unfortunately, the film turned out to be very superficial, since purely physically it cannot even cover a small part literary cycle and convey the universe that King created in his works over the course of decades. If you are not familiar with the original source, it will be extremely difficult to understand the story! The plot immediately immerses the viewer in fragments of a fantastic universe, and most of the information about it is presented through the visuals of the picture. Here we see some Parallel Worlds, a tower that unites these worlds and protects them from some kind of danger. An incomprehensible, empty villain who wants to cause chaos and destroy the balance of the worlds, strange monsters appearing from outside, as well as " special", who, together with a tough shooter, is trying to stop all this. Everything is too superficial! We are not told the backstories of the main characters, they do not explain the concept and laws of the universe, and due to this the film looks " pacifier"One gets the impression that the film was shot not according to the script, but according to its brief retelling, and this is sad.

There is not much to say about the acting, due to the poor development and disclosure of the characters. The only thing I can mention is the main character - a boy, who was played well by Tom Taylor, and only because of his more or less developed character. Idris Elba or the dark-skinned Strelok (a departure from the canon), just a cool dude, and Matthew McConaughey is a stylish, cool dude on the other side of good! That's basically it. As for the other characters, they served as an entourage around the main characters and were no longer memorable.

There is no soundtrack in the film, just cuts of epic music from strategy games that are inserted into the action scenes. The compositions go in the background and when viewing you don’t pay the slightest attention to them.

The visuals and action weren't particularly impressive. Yes, the worlds are visually perceived quite well, but they are still cheap" crawls out", and when viewing this is clearly visible. Some special effects do not cause anything but a grin, but the action scenes are staged quite well, considering the budget of the film.

The end result was another passable film. With a superficial plot, weak script, empty characters and ordinary visuals. I don't recommend it to fans of King's work, because " farts"The latter will explode with dissatisfaction! Non-fans can watch it, but it’s unlikely for you" will come in"This film is too superficial, perhaps for one time only. 0