Matt_Layden

It's no mistake now that the team behind the Cloverfield series is simply purchasing films that are already shot or written and re-working them to fit within their "world". This entry into the series is no different, but at least we have a direct connection and explanation for things, which make this film the main one that will connect every single 'Cloverfield' entry from here on out.

In an attempt to produce endless energy, a group of people board a space shuttle known as The Shepard. Over 600 days in space with failure after failure, they finally manage to create something. But that something is not what they expected and now they have to fight to survive and deal with the horrors they've unleashed.

There is a moment in the film that is pure exposition, delivered by Donal Logue that really felt forced in there to be an explanation for the monster in the original film. It was such an awkward jumble of words that it stands out like a sore thumb. I felt like they could have delivered this information a bit differently, by someone on the ship maybe. There are other moments of missed opportunities as well, specifically when you are dealing with time paradoxes and alternate realties.

The film tries to deliver a sense of dread, but it doesn't really get there. There are moments where the weirdness explodes and we are dealing with severed limbs still working or body horror involving eyes and skin. I get the sense that they wanted these weird occurrences to really amp of the mystery. Sometimes it works, other times it does not. As a whole though, the film does deliver an edge of your seat sic/fi space survival flick.

Paramount clearly thought they had a stinker on their hands, which is why they dumped the film to Netflix. Saying this film sucks is a disservice to the material. It's ambitious enough to try and create a connecting tissue to the other films and anything else that Bad Robot wants to come up with. I applaud that, as well as their explanation for why things happened, to me is good enough. This film will be the most divisive one yet, that is clear.

Stephen King terrified people with IT, his second longest novel next to The Stand. Bringing kids fears to life with the embodiment of Pennywise the dancing clown. In 1990, the 'epic' story was turned into a two part TV-Mini series starring Tim Curry and John Ritter. As a kid, that film was terrifying due to the performance of the friendly clown with a sinister undertone. Looking back now, it's incredibly cheesy and 'of the time'. So an update was needed and Stephen King has had a huge year; with The Dark Tower, Netflix's Gerald's Game and a new TV series The Mist, he's back in the spotlight.

In the town of Derry, Maine, kids go missing. So much that the rate is six times the national average. One of those kids is Georgie, a little boy who disappeared down the sewers. His brother Bill, has never stopped looking for him. Along with his friends, he plans to search the sewers, hoping to find at least a body. Along with his friends, known as The Losers Club, they make it their mission this summer...but when they find out the answers lead to a child killing clown, their nightmares become a reality.

IT was going to be a big success, but no one anticipated how big a success. After a massive weekend at the box-office, people are looking to be scared again, in R-rated territory no less. The road to the finish line was a long one for the film, with Cary Fukunaga wanting to write and direct. Those plans fell through and his reasons were that the studio wanted to make a generic 'jump scare' film, where he wanted to tell a deeper story about the kids. The finished film, courtesy of Mama director Muschietti manages to balance those two aspects quite well. The decision to split the film in two and use the first half to focus on the kids only was an interesting move and one that let the story breathe a little bit more. We're already being pulled in plenty of directions with the numerous characters, to have to be pulled into their adult version too would be too much.

The story has been "updated" and takes place in the 80's. Hot off the heels of Strangers Things, IT plays into some nostalgia here and it works.The kids look and act the parts very well and all have great chemistry. I was particularly impressed with Sophia Lillis who plays Beverly. She looks like a young Amy Adams and has enough charisma to have a career in the industry. With just enough sass, but obvious fear lurking under the surface, she has the most to engage with. Her nightmare sequence in the bathroom might be a tad bit of overkill and doesn't feel as sinister as the 1990's TV version. Something about the father touching the blood on the sink irks me more from the TV version than him simply not noticing the room completely covered in it in this film. It also makes the 'clean-up' part a little bit less believable here. Bill, our defacto lead character, is tormented by the loss of his little brother, this is his defining characteristic. These two characters get the most attention while we just float around the rest of the kids stories. The one with the least amount of screen time has to be Mike, who is the outsider of the group. These kids made me laugh and made me believe in their friendship, which makes the film work and connect.

Skarsgård had the difficult task of following in Tim Curry's footsteps. He does a really good job with Pennywise though. His otherworldly eyes were not CGI, he managed to move them in different directions himself and his creepy voice added to the sinister feel the character needs. One look at him and some audience members gasped. There are plenty of jump scares and the audience fell for almost every single one. Surprisingly enough, I didn't. I'll fall for a good jump scare any day of the week, but IT failed to get even one out of me. I don't know why, maybe it was the obvious horror beats leading to each one but the film didn't 'get me'. It felt scary, but not once was I scared, if that makes sense. Maybe because the whole film takes place during the daytime it adds a sense of security? I don't know, but plenty of people in the theatre seemed frightened.

Muschietti has a creative eye for the unnatural. Looking over Ben's shoulder in the library and seeing an old lady stare him down without him knowing is effective, as is the use of the stabilizing camera effects on Pennywise's face while everything else shakes wildly. Small camera movements, such as straightening a picture, are done creatively here and add to the immersive feel the film wants. Even though the film feels predictable in the horror beats, with each scare simply leading into more anticipation for the next one, the film as a whole works. IT does a great job of me wanting to see the next chapter.

This film, which was inspired, not adapted from the Stephen King novels of the same name, takes a sweeping epic, dumbs it down, loses the focus and lazily tries to make it look cool for a younger audience. This film is bad and I went in with an open mind, hoping to find some redeeming qualities about it. While there are some good ideas, I can't help but feel that this will be somewhat heartbreaking for fans of the books who were actually excited to see it.

Jake Chambers is a young boy who suffers from horrific nightmares. In those nightmares, he sees The Man in Black, who kidnaps children and uses a device to suck their minds right out of their head. All in an effort to destroy the Dark Tower. The Dark Tower is the centre of the universe, protecting all worlds from the evil that lies beyond, out in the darkness. Roland, the last of the Gunslingers, soldiers sworn to protect the tower, is on a mission to kill The Man in Black. When Jake discovers a portal that leads to their world, he jumps in and finds Roland. Together they must stop The Man in Black, or their world and all worlds, will end.

I couldn't help but think to myself, that people would never want to see a film that was loosely inspired by The Lord of the Rings. They would much rather see that literary masterpiece adapted to the big screen. Imagine Peter Jackson used the same characters and made a different story, but still slapped the title on it? So I can't help but wonder why they thought it would be a good idea to loosely adapt The Dark Tower and not do a straight adaption from the books. I kind of get the idea they were going for, in regards to how the book series ends, but they missed the mark and by a wide margin.

I'm sure fans of the series would pick up numerous nods to the books here and there, but that is not enough. Graffiti on the wall of Hailing The Crimson King will get a knowing nod from people, but that's it. I'm sure they would rather see the actual story from the books on the screen. Arcel and writer Goldsman, oversimplify an epic story into a 90 some odd minute shoot em up. Sure, it looks cool when Elba reloads his guns, but I want something more than that. It doesn't help that the film essentially has two and a half action sequences, which might look neat to those who haven't seen a film like John Wick.

Elba does his best with the clunky dialogue, but he can't save it. McConaughey chews up the scenery, as expected. His character is "worse than the devil". He can kill people by simply telling them to stop breathing. He does this numerous times. He can catch bullets, incinerate people, basically force anyone to do anything. Mucho powerful. But here's the expository dialogue part "Roland, you've always been immune to my magic, haven't you?" So there you have it, he can't hurt our hero in the "stop breathing" category. He can still use the force to hurl objects at him and watching McConaughey move his hands around to control items like broken glass or rocks is unintentionally comical.

Bad special effects plague this film. There is a sequence at night where a demon, which apparently breaks through the barrier, attacks Roland and Jake. It's hard to make out what it looks like, or what the heck is going on. But in the end does it matter? Who know the Gunslinger will eventually put it out of its misery. I snickered at seeing how bad they rendered humans falling around or getting hit by cars. It only happens a few times in one particular sequences, but it's something that still hasn't been perfected and probably never will.

The entire film feels clunky, unexplained or unexplored. I never got a sense of Roland's world. There are abandoned structures all over and they have no idea what they were used for, but we clearly know they are carnival rides, as does Jake. How does anyone who never read the books have a clue as to what this means. Arcel seems uninterested in exploring that side of the story and instead streamlines it from point A to point B. This isn't a story to do that, especially if the goal is to branch it off into a series. I suspect this will be the only film they make.

With generic action sequences, oversimplification of an epic story, shoddy effects and some questionable performances (Jake's friend is the biggest offender), The Dark Tower is a big missed opportunity. Here is a series that could have been several films, sweeping multiple genres and taking viewers on a ride they probably wouldn't of forgotten. Instead we get this film that I already have forgotten. Ho-hum, despite a big budget, we have yet another King adaption failure.