Stephen Kings Tommyknockers

This is how movies were done in the 90's. Good and solid story behind, actors not too famous not newbees, some old veteran and low budget. These movies were meant to be aired on tv, not blockbuster movies so what do you expect? It, The Stand, Red Rose.... always the same format. It's horror/sci-fi , not mainstream. And if you do it 30 years after with more money and some well paid actors (look at It) the outcome is still the same if not worse. If you like these movies, cheap and cheesy, watch them and enjoy them considering the time they were made at.... or else ignore them and watch Money Heist as you probably more that kind of person

One of King's lesser novels is transformed into one of the worst adaptations of his work so far. King's incredible imagination has always proved difficult to translate to the screen, which seems too small to contain everything on the page. There have been, literally, a handful of decent adaptations of his work, but it is usually the less graphic stories, or those dealing with a psychological horror rather than a physical presence that transfer best.

'The Tommyknockers' treads familiar King ground, and is very reminiscent if 'Needful Things', with an unknown force entering the lives of the community and turning one against the other for it's own end. There is a tormented and fallible hero, innocence is lost and found, there's an old codger with tales to scare the kids, and strange goings-on down at the old Indian burial ground. All par for the course then. The version I've seen was a shortened video version, which made no sense at all. Characters and events seemed to materialise without warning and act without any compulsion at all. It appears that most of the plot development has been removed too, but, to be honest, sitting through another 60 minutes would've only induced more boredom, not enlightenment. The result is an amateurish, uninteresting, and frightless mess.

For some reason I always avoided this movie, despite enjoying most of the Stephen King movie adaptations as a teenager. It was simply because of the horrible title that I stayed clear of it. But having a chance to have seen it in 2015, after all these years, I finally got around to watching it.

The idea behind "The Tommyknockers" was adequate; a buried alien spacecraft holds some extraterrestrial force that invades the minds of the residents of a small rural community. Personally, then I didn't fully understand the thing with the missing teeth. And the thing that the people were unearthing just didn't appear extraterrestrial at all.

Now, I say mediocre Sci-Fi horror because it just didn't manage to step beyond and become interesting.

As for the acting, well they had some good talents on the cast list, with a number of familiar faces. The actors and actresses did good jobs with their roles, despite having storyboard limitations working against them.

The special effects in "The Tommyknockers" weren't impressive, not even by the standards back in 1993. However, I will say that the inside of the alien spacecraft was actually quite good. And the creature design of the alien creatures was good as well, it was the typical "grey one" design, but buffed up with a pinch of horror. And it worked out quite well.

"The Tommyknockers" isn't the best of Stephen King movie adaptations, but it is adequate enough for a single viewing.

Stephen King's bestseller "The Tommyknockers" is adapted for television in a form of mini-series, three hours long movie aired as two hour and a half long episodes. The film is full of well-known faces, which are not famous enough for me to know their names, but which leave the impression of dear friends that I have not seen for a long time. The only face I immediately linked with the name is the face of Traci Lords, although the first association to this name definitely isn't a face. The first hour and a half introduces us to the Haven, a small town in New England, brings us closer to its inhabitants and slowly introduces us to the story through a series of inexplicable events. Near the end of the first part, these events are getting more and more serious, but altogether it can not be classified as horror. The film is based almost exclusively on characterization, while only indications of the real plot test our patience in anticipation of the second part. Although it captured King's atmosphere well enough, to many of you it will probably be boring, for what most movies pack in the first ten minutes this one stretches to ninety. However, I quite enjoyed it. In the second part, the story gradually accelerates, culminates, and ultimately disappoints with the outcome that essentially makes sense, but is made in an over-the-top manner that is inconsistent with the rest of the film. And once again a good movie is spoiled by an explicit display of unconvincing creatures and an action finale that is naive and stupid. If the end had been left indecisive, only implying what happened and leaving us to wonder and speculate, the film would have been more balanced and stronger. But I'm not surprised, because spoiling a potentially good story in this way is quite common, and when it comes to adaptations of Stephen King, one can say that it's a tradition.

5,5/10

decent flick is well made and creepy but suffers from a plodding pace and overacting and weak production values for a TV movie this is pretty good and very watchable and mildly entertaining worth the look although it's nothing special