Search
Search results
Darren (1599 KP) rated 1920 London (2016) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: 1920 London starts as we meet the Prince Veer (Karwel) and Princess Shivangi (Chopra) living in London, they soon become the latest victim of an evil spirit which takes over Veer’s body, Shivangi must go into her past to find her former lover Jai Singh Gujjar (Joshi) a man that was left banished because of their affair, who has an ability to tackle unwanted spirits.
With the past being placed in the past, Jai comes to figure out how to save Veer and giving Shivangi a peaceful life, only the evil spirit isn’t going to let that happen.
Thoughts on 1920 London
Characters – Shivangi the princess who has just gotten married, she sees her husband become possessed, which forces her to return to her family for help, with her ex-lover being the only one that could save her husband. Jai Singh is the exorcist that was once the lover of Shivangi, but not being from the royal family means he was once banished for their love. Now he must help her fight an evil spirit, he speciality. Veer is the husband that gets stricken down by the evil spirit that has taken over his body.
Performances – We focus mostly on just the two stars of the movie, Meera Chopra and Sharman Joshi who are both great through the film dealing with the horror, the personal status they are facing and love they both feel.
Story – The story here follows a possession, this is a story I have seen many times, but the different is, I have only ever seen Christian or Jewish religions deal with the spirits, this time we get to see how Hindus treat unwanted spirits. The story does follow the traditional scares, but then here is a twist in the story which explains the possession, one about honour, love and revenge, which does make the story feel fresher, I learnt that this is part of a series of film, but I am confident there isn’t a connection between the previous ones. Most of this is by the books and that is al we want from a horror film.
Horror/Mystery – There are good scare moments in this film, nothing overly original, but they will give the jumps required, the mystery comes from just what the motivation of the evil spirit is to be doing the possessing.
Settings – The film takes the action to London, which I guess is new to the franchise, this is fine even though we spend most of the time in the mansions with no landmarks in the background, with the landmark scenes including the bridges only.
Special Effects – The effects are used well to create the horror moments, like most films the practical is good, but the CGI comes off weak.
Scene of the Movie – The final battle.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – While I understand this is a Bollywood film, the songs lose moments of tension in the film.
Final Thoughts – This is a horror that works for the exorcism genre well, it shows how a different religion reads evil spirits and does battle against them, which is interesting to see and does give us good moments of horror.
Overall: Good horror.
https://moviesreview101.com/2018/07/27/abc-film-challenge-world-cinema-1920-london-2016/
With the past being placed in the past, Jai comes to figure out how to save Veer and giving Shivangi a peaceful life, only the evil spirit isn’t going to let that happen.
Thoughts on 1920 London
Characters – Shivangi the princess who has just gotten married, she sees her husband become possessed, which forces her to return to her family for help, with her ex-lover being the only one that could save her husband. Jai Singh is the exorcist that was once the lover of Shivangi, but not being from the royal family means he was once banished for their love. Now he must help her fight an evil spirit, he speciality. Veer is the husband that gets stricken down by the evil spirit that has taken over his body.
Performances – We focus mostly on just the two stars of the movie, Meera Chopra and Sharman Joshi who are both great through the film dealing with the horror, the personal status they are facing and love they both feel.
Story – The story here follows a possession, this is a story I have seen many times, but the different is, I have only ever seen Christian or Jewish religions deal with the spirits, this time we get to see how Hindus treat unwanted spirits. The story does follow the traditional scares, but then here is a twist in the story which explains the possession, one about honour, love and revenge, which does make the story feel fresher, I learnt that this is part of a series of film, but I am confident there isn’t a connection between the previous ones. Most of this is by the books and that is al we want from a horror film.
Horror/Mystery – There are good scare moments in this film, nothing overly original, but they will give the jumps required, the mystery comes from just what the motivation of the evil spirit is to be doing the possessing.
Settings – The film takes the action to London, which I guess is new to the franchise, this is fine even though we spend most of the time in the mansions with no landmarks in the background, with the landmark scenes including the bridges only.
Special Effects – The effects are used well to create the horror moments, like most films the practical is good, but the CGI comes off weak.
Scene of the Movie – The final battle.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – While I understand this is a Bollywood film, the songs lose moments of tension in the film.
Final Thoughts – This is a horror that works for the exorcism genre well, it shows how a different religion reads evil spirits and does battle against them, which is interesting to see and does give us good moments of horror.
Overall: Good horror.
https://moviesreview101.com/2018/07/27/abc-film-challenge-world-cinema-1920-london-2016/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Marnie (1964) in Movies
Nov 6, 2020
Mediocre Hitchcock - but still pretty good
Heading into 1964, Alfred Hitchcock was on quite a roll. He had just rolled out - in order, VERTIGO (1958), NORTH BY NORTHWEST (1959), PSYCHO (1960) and THE BIRDS (1963) and his anthology series ALFRED HITCHCOCK PRESENTS had made him into a household name throughout the world. So it was with great anticipation/expectation that the world awaited his next major motion picture.
And while this film, MARNIE was not the critical or commercial success of his previous outings, it still has enough good in it that makes it a worthwhile film to watch.
Starring Tippi Hedren (THE BIRDS) and Sean Connery (fresh off his James Bond success in DR. NO and FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE), MARNIE is, basically, a "two-hander" (a film that is primarily focused on conversation between 2 people) about an habitual thief, Marnie, with deep psychological troubles who is loved (and handled) by a man who is seeking to get to the root of what makes her tick.
And..in someone else's hands..this film could have been overly melodramatic, but in Hitchcock's adroit hands, it is a deep and disturbing psychological thriller that succeeds more often than it doesn't.
Starting with what works, Hitchcock's Direction (obviously) is at the fore. He knows how to play out a moment - especially a scene where Marnie steals from a safe. Hitchcock locks the camera in place and plays the scene with no music and just letting the events play out. It is a typical suspenseful Hitchcock scene and very well done.
The other thing that works is the performance of Connery. His charm and screen charisma shines brightly. making a problematic character like the one Connery portrays seemingly benign. Also...Tippi Hedren's performance at the end of this movie almost rescues her character...almost.
What doesn't work? Well...let's start with the title character, Marnie, as played by Hedren. She just doesn't have the charisma and charm of Connery and never really brings her character to life. She overacts at times when she has one of her "episodes" (I would think that both Hitchcock and Hedren share the blame for this) it is almost laughable in it's over-acting and she just seems in over her head with this role. It is said that Hitchcock had the film and role of Marnie written specifically as a comeback vehicle for Grace Kelly. It is too bad that this didn't come to pass, as I would have LOVED to see what an actress of her caliber would have done with this role.
The other thing that doesn't really work for me is the 2 characters at the forefront of this film. Both Hedren's Marnie and Connery's Mark Rutland are not likeable (though, as I said earlier, Connery's charm and charisma rescue's the Rutland character), but neither of these characters are ones that us, the audience, particularly care for - and that is a problem with a film that is pretty much focused on these characters.
Not one of Hitchcock's best...but still good...and the ending almost makes up for the weaknesses of the earlier parts of the movie.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) - even mediocre Hitchcock is till pretty good.
And...you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And while this film, MARNIE was not the critical or commercial success of his previous outings, it still has enough good in it that makes it a worthwhile film to watch.
Starring Tippi Hedren (THE BIRDS) and Sean Connery (fresh off his James Bond success in DR. NO and FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE), MARNIE is, basically, a "two-hander" (a film that is primarily focused on conversation between 2 people) about an habitual thief, Marnie, with deep psychological troubles who is loved (and handled) by a man who is seeking to get to the root of what makes her tick.
And..in someone else's hands..this film could have been overly melodramatic, but in Hitchcock's adroit hands, it is a deep and disturbing psychological thriller that succeeds more often than it doesn't.
Starting with what works, Hitchcock's Direction (obviously) is at the fore. He knows how to play out a moment - especially a scene where Marnie steals from a safe. Hitchcock locks the camera in place and plays the scene with no music and just letting the events play out. It is a typical suspenseful Hitchcock scene and very well done.
The other thing that works is the performance of Connery. His charm and screen charisma shines brightly. making a problematic character like the one Connery portrays seemingly benign. Also...Tippi Hedren's performance at the end of this movie almost rescues her character...almost.
What doesn't work? Well...let's start with the title character, Marnie, as played by Hedren. She just doesn't have the charisma and charm of Connery and never really brings her character to life. She overacts at times when she has one of her "episodes" (I would think that both Hitchcock and Hedren share the blame for this) it is almost laughable in it's over-acting and she just seems in over her head with this role. It is said that Hitchcock had the film and role of Marnie written specifically as a comeback vehicle for Grace Kelly. It is too bad that this didn't come to pass, as I would have LOVED to see what an actress of her caliber would have done with this role.
The other thing that doesn't really work for me is the 2 characters at the forefront of this film. Both Hedren's Marnie and Connery's Mark Rutland are not likeable (though, as I said earlier, Connery's charm and charisma rescue's the Rutland character), but neither of these characters are ones that us, the audience, particularly care for - and that is a problem with a film that is pretty much focused on these characters.
Not one of Hitchcock's best...but still good...and the ending almost makes up for the weaknesses of the earlier parts of the movie.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) - even mediocre Hitchcock is till pretty good.
And...you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
If you check back in the archives of The Wasteland you will see that from time to time I do find myself down the dark, fascinating yet morbid rabbit hole of true crime documentary. I do find the majority of them a little ghoulish, but when done particularly well they can become incredible insights into the human condition at its worst, and the state of the legal and punitive systems that deal with the most extreme cases. How these systems fail, and why, is more of a draw for me than any attempt to understand the person behind the evil crimes. Although I must admit to some curiosity in that regard on a certain level.
One such documentary series that really impressed me was Conversations With a Killer: The Ted Bundy Tapes, directed by Joe Berlinger. It was very detailed without being sensationalist or forcing drama and tension into the presentation in a manipulative way. I have a particular fascination with Ted Bundy and his crimes, simply because it is such a compellingly bizarre story, of an educated, seemingly ordinary and charming man, that did absolutely horrific things. So, seeing that the same producer had turned his hand as a film-maker, and his deep knowledge of the case and the man, towards a feature film, I had to give it a watch at some point, despite some mixed reviews.
The first thing anyone will want to talk about here, naturally, is the casting of Bundy against type, with the former teen sensation Zac Efron taking on such a huge and daunting role you would have thought beyond him. Physically the resemblance between Efron and Bundy is remarkable; even more so when the period hair styles and costumes are added in. His instinctive understanding of the charm aspect of Bundy is also very spooky – you do get the sense of almost liking him on one hand and fearing him on the other. As an acting exercise, his work here is far more impressive than anything else he has ever done, bar none, hinting that as he moves into his 30s Efron will make a fine supporting actor if well cast.
What is missing from this portrayal of Bundy, however is his own amusement and psychopathic detachment from the crimes that is apparent in documentary footage. Efron’s Bundy is much more serious and sinister, without pushing the boundaries of playing “evil” too far. Whether this was the actor or the director’s choice is unclear. It means ultimately that the tone is earnest and threatening, almost inviting us to like and respect him more. Whereas, with a touch more of the misplaced levity that made watching and listening to the real Bundy so sickening we would have a closer impression of how, despite appearing “normal” on the surface, he never truly was.
Lily Collins is perfectly fine as Bundy’s girlfriend, Liz Kendall, but, again, she makes no attempt to portray the true naivety and denial apparent from footage of the real person, instead choosing to portray her as an innocent woman truly duped by a criminal mastermind. It is a fine performance in the context of this film, I just doubt it is that close to who Liz really was.
John Malkovich also, as the judge who spoke the title of this film in his closing remarks of the real court case, seems to be presenting a movie version of the real person that doesn’t capture the essence of the real dynamic so much as giving us a neat, glossy version of the real man. Put all this together and you still get the facts of what happened without anything changed or misleading, but you also get the impression that it is a heightened drama of events rather than anything even close to presenting the most interesting or disturbing aspects of the story.
In some ways then, it makes this production a touch cowardly. It is very much the certificate 15 version for an easy watching audience. The crimes themselves are not shown, or even discussed in much detail, merely hinted at and brushed over. It assumes you have some knowledge of the more gruesome facts up front, but also, oddly, presents itself as if he may actually be innocent in some way, because this was the view Liz Kendall maintained until even after his death in reality.
Worryingly, this makes the film almost a romance, where the good things about Bundy are given equal weight. Are we being invited to decide for ourselves if he was evil, or even guilty at all? I don’t think that is the point they are going for, but it isn’t that far off! For me then, this film is a curious failure that invites debate and interest, therefore always holding your interest and attention, but is dangerously close to being offensively dismissive of the victims.
Ultimately, I can’t decide whether it is something that should in any way be recommended. If it were a fiction it would play as a decent if unspectacular character study. It looks great, the period detail of the production is very well done and it is eminently watchable. However, the fact that these events were real, and in reality so much more disturbing, leads me to the conclusion that this is problematic viewing to be treated with caution.
One such documentary series that really impressed me was Conversations With a Killer: The Ted Bundy Tapes, directed by Joe Berlinger. It was very detailed without being sensationalist or forcing drama and tension into the presentation in a manipulative way. I have a particular fascination with Ted Bundy and his crimes, simply because it is such a compellingly bizarre story, of an educated, seemingly ordinary and charming man, that did absolutely horrific things. So, seeing that the same producer had turned his hand as a film-maker, and his deep knowledge of the case and the man, towards a feature film, I had to give it a watch at some point, despite some mixed reviews.
The first thing anyone will want to talk about here, naturally, is the casting of Bundy against type, with the former teen sensation Zac Efron taking on such a huge and daunting role you would have thought beyond him. Physically the resemblance between Efron and Bundy is remarkable; even more so when the period hair styles and costumes are added in. His instinctive understanding of the charm aspect of Bundy is also very spooky – you do get the sense of almost liking him on one hand and fearing him on the other. As an acting exercise, his work here is far more impressive than anything else he has ever done, bar none, hinting that as he moves into his 30s Efron will make a fine supporting actor if well cast.
What is missing from this portrayal of Bundy, however is his own amusement and psychopathic detachment from the crimes that is apparent in documentary footage. Efron’s Bundy is much more serious and sinister, without pushing the boundaries of playing “evil” too far. Whether this was the actor or the director’s choice is unclear. It means ultimately that the tone is earnest and threatening, almost inviting us to like and respect him more. Whereas, with a touch more of the misplaced levity that made watching and listening to the real Bundy so sickening we would have a closer impression of how, despite appearing “normal” on the surface, he never truly was.
Lily Collins is perfectly fine as Bundy’s girlfriend, Liz Kendall, but, again, she makes no attempt to portray the true naivety and denial apparent from footage of the real person, instead choosing to portray her as an innocent woman truly duped by a criminal mastermind. It is a fine performance in the context of this film, I just doubt it is that close to who Liz really was.
John Malkovich also, as the judge who spoke the title of this film in his closing remarks of the real court case, seems to be presenting a movie version of the real person that doesn’t capture the essence of the real dynamic so much as giving us a neat, glossy version of the real man. Put all this together and you still get the facts of what happened without anything changed or misleading, but you also get the impression that it is a heightened drama of events rather than anything even close to presenting the most interesting or disturbing aspects of the story.
In some ways then, it makes this production a touch cowardly. It is very much the certificate 15 version for an easy watching audience. The crimes themselves are not shown, or even discussed in much detail, merely hinted at and brushed over. It assumes you have some knowledge of the more gruesome facts up front, but also, oddly, presents itself as if he may actually be innocent in some way, because this was the view Liz Kendall maintained until even after his death in reality.
Worryingly, this makes the film almost a romance, where the good things about Bundy are given equal weight. Are we being invited to decide for ourselves if he was evil, or even guilty at all? I don’t think that is the point they are going for, but it isn’t that far off! For me then, this film is a curious failure that invites debate and interest, therefore always holding your interest and attention, but is dangerously close to being offensively dismissive of the victims.
Ultimately, I can’t decide whether it is something that should in any way be recommended. If it were a fiction it would play as a decent if unspectacular character study. It looks great, the period detail of the production is very well done and it is eminently watchable. However, the fact that these events were real, and in reality so much more disturbing, leads me to the conclusion that this is problematic viewing to be treated with caution.
Maxwell's Point
Book
With girlfriend DS Jacquie Carpenter back at work and little baby Nolan rapidly growing into a...
Inward Bound
Book
Abraham Pais's Subtle Is the Lord was a publishing phenomenon: a mathematically sophisticated...
Songs of Love and Death: All-Original Tales of Star-Crossed Love
8.0
Rate It
Book
N this star-studded cross-genre anthology, seventeen of the greatest modern authors of fantasy,...
Debbiereadsbook (1487 KP) rated Silent Partner (Fox Hollow Zodiac #3) in Books
Jul 27, 2024
I haven't read the other books, gonna go back!
Independent reviewer for GRR, I was gifted my copy of this book.
This is book 3 in the Fox Hollow Zodiac series, and I have NOT read books 1, Huntsman and book 2, Again. Somethings were missing for me, mostly about the Fox Institute and what it was there for, but since Riley spends very little time there, and what HE was doing there was explained, I let it ride. I think I might go back and read books 1 and 2, though. Not because I need to, but because I want to know about Liam/Russ and Noah/Drew and their stories. They play a part here.
Riley runs from his abusive ex, and finds himself a study subject in The Fox Institute, since Riley is psychically silent: no one can read his mind. Which is great, but Brandon is a psychic! And a moose. There is immediate attraction, but Riley is scared. His ex might show up and ruin everything.
I liked the fact that Brandon doesn't get that "MINE" moment, when he meets Riley. Yes, he is attracted, but only the MOOSE half of Brandon calls for his mate. Brandon the MAN doesn't quite feel it. He does, in the end, but not at the beginning. I liked that Riley was wary enough of Brandon as a psychic to question him, but the fact that his moose makes him feel safe surprises Riley. I liked that fact that they got to know each other, before acting on the attraction.
I liked Brandon's group of friends and the support he gets from them. I liked that they took Riley in, once they were a couple.
I struggled a bit with the fact that Riley's ex just turned up: there was no build up to that. The ex was talked about, and then he appears. Could have done with more on that but said ex does get his just desserts!
All in all, I liked this a lot. I'll go back and read the first two books, just as soon as I can.
4 very good stars
*same worded review will appear elsewhere
This is book 3 in the Fox Hollow Zodiac series, and I have NOT read books 1, Huntsman and book 2, Again. Somethings were missing for me, mostly about the Fox Institute and what it was there for, but since Riley spends very little time there, and what HE was doing there was explained, I let it ride. I think I might go back and read books 1 and 2, though. Not because I need to, but because I want to know about Liam/Russ and Noah/Drew and their stories. They play a part here.
Riley runs from his abusive ex, and finds himself a study subject in The Fox Institute, since Riley is psychically silent: no one can read his mind. Which is great, but Brandon is a psychic! And a moose. There is immediate attraction, but Riley is scared. His ex might show up and ruin everything.
I liked the fact that Brandon doesn't get that "MINE" moment, when he meets Riley. Yes, he is attracted, but only the MOOSE half of Brandon calls for his mate. Brandon the MAN doesn't quite feel it. He does, in the end, but not at the beginning. I liked that Riley was wary enough of Brandon as a psychic to question him, but the fact that his moose makes him feel safe surprises Riley. I liked that fact that they got to know each other, before acting on the attraction.
I liked Brandon's group of friends and the support he gets from them. I liked that they took Riley in, once they were a couple.
I struggled a bit with the fact that Riley's ex just turned up: there was no build up to that. The ex was talked about, and then he appears. Could have done with more on that but said ex does get his just desserts!
All in all, I liked this a lot. I'll go back and read the first two books, just as soon as I can.
4 very good stars
*same worded review will appear elsewhere
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated The Bird Eater in Books
Sep 13, 2019
I've read some of Ania Ahlborn's work before and loved it. The Bird Eater was no different. I loved this book and was completely enthralled throughout!
I thought the world building in The Bird Eater was fantastic! There were a few times when I was questioning the main character's choices such as why he didn't describe or ask around about the boy that was shadowing him. However, I don't know what I would do if that situation ever happened to me. I loved how the story took place in a small town. I find small towns creepier than big cities.
The pacing was perfect! Never once did I feel bored with this book. In fact, it was hard to put down. I constantly had to know what would happen next!
I'm a big fan of horror, but I'm really picky about what kind of horror I read. Luckily, the plot for The Bird Eater held my attention. At the beginning of the book, the reader is introduced to a teenage boy who has an affinity for evil. Aaron's aunt is murdered by this boy, and Aaron is shipped off to another state. After the death of his young son, Aaron returns to his childhood home on the advice of his therapist. From there, Aaron spirals into what he thinks is insanity but what is actually something a lot more sinister. There's a little bit of a plot twist, but I didn't feel like it was a big one. I didn't think there was a cliff hanger ending, but let's just say that another book could be written to make this a series if the author wanted it to be.
I found the characters to be very well written. It was easy to like Aaron and also to feel sorry for him. He's a man who is very depressed and still grieving the loss of his young son. Aaron's wife has left him due to him being so depressed. He wants to get better for himself and also so his wife will take him back. The spooky kid was also a great character. I thought he had just the right enough amount of scariness without making him a cheesy character.
I really enjoyed the dialogue in The Bird Eater. The author didn't use words that I found difficult to understand. The dialogue seems to be written for the average person (such as myself). I felt the dialogue flowed very smoothly and never once felt disjointed or awkward. There is some swearing is this book and a lot of violence and gore. This book doesn't really have any sex in it though.
Overall, The Bird Eater is a fantastic book that will delight fans of the horror genre. With a great setting, fantastic world building, and a super sinister character, this is a book that horror fans can not afford to miss! I'd recommend The Bird Eater by Ania Ahlborn especially to those aged 18+ who are big fans of horror and thrillers. The violence and gore may put some people off though.
I thought the world building in The Bird Eater was fantastic! There were a few times when I was questioning the main character's choices such as why he didn't describe or ask around about the boy that was shadowing him. However, I don't know what I would do if that situation ever happened to me. I loved how the story took place in a small town. I find small towns creepier than big cities.
The pacing was perfect! Never once did I feel bored with this book. In fact, it was hard to put down. I constantly had to know what would happen next!
I'm a big fan of horror, but I'm really picky about what kind of horror I read. Luckily, the plot for The Bird Eater held my attention. At the beginning of the book, the reader is introduced to a teenage boy who has an affinity for evil. Aaron's aunt is murdered by this boy, and Aaron is shipped off to another state. After the death of his young son, Aaron returns to his childhood home on the advice of his therapist. From there, Aaron spirals into what he thinks is insanity but what is actually something a lot more sinister. There's a little bit of a plot twist, but I didn't feel like it was a big one. I didn't think there was a cliff hanger ending, but let's just say that another book could be written to make this a series if the author wanted it to be.
I found the characters to be very well written. It was easy to like Aaron and also to feel sorry for him. He's a man who is very depressed and still grieving the loss of his young son. Aaron's wife has left him due to him being so depressed. He wants to get better for himself and also so his wife will take him back. The spooky kid was also a great character. I thought he had just the right enough amount of scariness without making him a cheesy character.
I really enjoyed the dialogue in The Bird Eater. The author didn't use words that I found difficult to understand. The dialogue seems to be written for the average person (such as myself). I felt the dialogue flowed very smoothly and never once felt disjointed or awkward. There is some swearing is this book and a lot of violence and gore. This book doesn't really have any sex in it though.
Overall, The Bird Eater is a fantastic book that will delight fans of the horror genre. With a great setting, fantastic world building, and a super sinister character, this is a book that horror fans can not afford to miss! I'd recommend The Bird Eater by Ania Ahlborn especially to those aged 18+ who are big fans of horror and thrillers. The violence and gore may put some people off though.
Ghost Files: The Face of Guilt
Games and Stickers
App
FANTASTIC HIDDEN OBJECT PUZZLE ADVENTURE GAME FROM THE CREATORS OF ENIGMATIS AND GRIM LEGENDS! ...
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated The Dark Tower (2017) in Movies
Dec 2, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
Ahh, the Dark Tower, Stephen King's epic tale that spans 8 core books and crosses over with almost everything he has ever written as well as some he hasn't (unofficially of course). A Saga that has inspired many and disappointed a few (well I'm told the end of book 7 is self indulgent, I'm only at book 4 and that was a while ago). Anway, the Dark Tower books are epic and so they try to put all this epicness in to a hour and a half film and when you consider that IT is only one book and that took 2 films with another possibly on the way and the Stand is only one book and has a hole mini series you can imagine that there is a bit of editing of the source material.
The Dark Tower bring three of the characters from the books; Roland, the gunslinger, Jake, a boy from our world and the Man in Black aka Walter. Unlike the books the film focus' mainly on Jake, a boy who is having dreams about Roland and Walter and who is being hunted by Walter's forces.
The story line is loosely based on the books as Roland hunts the Man in Black across not only his own world but ours as well and attempts to kill him in revenge for his father's death whilst Walter is attempting to destroy the Dark Tower and bring darkness to all the worlds.
Interestingly, although there are many nods and easter eggs to Kings other works, the film version of The Dark Tower is linked more to the Shining and Doctor Sleep than IT or the Stand as it gives Jake 'The Shine' and makes it an integral part of the plot.
As long as you're not expecting too much of the books 'The Dark Tower' is quite a good film, it has a slightly more Sci-Fi feel that the books and the final battle would feel at home in most first person shooter games but, when seen either as it's own thing or possibly as a tie in to the two shining films it's quite a good action film.
The Dark Tower bring three of the characters from the books; Roland, the gunslinger, Jake, a boy from our world and the Man in Black aka Walter. Unlike the books the film focus' mainly on Jake, a boy who is having dreams about Roland and Walter and who is being hunted by Walter's forces.
The story line is loosely based on the books as Roland hunts the Man in Black across not only his own world but ours as well and attempts to kill him in revenge for his father's death whilst Walter is attempting to destroy the Dark Tower and bring darkness to all the worlds.
Interestingly, although there are many nods and easter eggs to Kings other works, the film version of The Dark Tower is linked more to the Shining and Doctor Sleep than IT or the Stand as it gives Jake 'The Shine' and makes it an integral part of the plot.
As long as you're not expecting too much of the books 'The Dark Tower' is quite a good film, it has a slightly more Sci-Fi feel that the books and the final battle would feel at home in most first person shooter games but, when seen either as it's own thing or possibly as a tie in to the two shining films it's quite a good action film.