Plot. A small town falls under the control of aliens. Only one local drunkard (and at the same time a failed writer in one bottle) can save them.
In the 90s there was a huge number of TV adaptations of Stephen King. That's it for you. This is "Confrontation." Here you and “Langoliers” (which once with great fanfare showed on the first TV channel, the whole country watched). My favorite TV adaptation from the 90s by King is probably still “The Storm of the Century”.
As for the "Tomminokers" themselves. This painting was doused with gasoline and burned (like “Golden Years”, approximately). Why? Allegedly a damn bad adaptation of Stephen King. As far as I understand, everyone was particularly outraged by the denouement (the second series itself). It's not as tough as Mr. King's (although it's hard to call it happy, let's be honest).
Sluggish directing, again. Since the film is divided into two parts (each part for 90 minutes) – “Tomminoker” is banally boring, it becomes a bit boring. I agree with all the criticism of the work of director John Power, but I worked nostalgia, so I did not throw it into my cinematic garbage, I regretted.
Yeah, it's a weak production. It's not entirely clear where they spent their budget (according to the site, about $12 million). Was it all on the plate at the end of the movie? I don't know. This whole thing looks pretty cheap. That’s who I want to protect: the actors. Hand on heart, not the worst acting ensemble. Even small children tried to play.
In general, I will not recommend the viewing, but I did not have a crazy negative (I watched at a speed of 1.5). Just another failed attempt to film King. Frankly speaking, the Tomminokers need a competent reboot. King’s literary basis allows you to make a cool atmospheric fantastic horror, rather than showing dull bright green colors in daylight.
5 out of 10
The almost forty-year history of film adaptations of King’s works includes different pages. There are cult films - "Carrie", "The Shining", "It" and some others. And there are forgotten films, which include “Tomminoker”. In short, the two-part TV film tells how a resident of a provincial town came across a spaceship buried in the forest, about which terrible rumors have long been circulating and in which people have been missing for many years. And some people are starting to disappear again, while most are turning into tech geniuses who have a new word in appliances. But they do not realize that in exchange for this genius, the owners of the ship take away their life force. Only an alcoholic poet, the lover of the woman who found the ship, can help them.
Actually, the story is the most ordinary. A simple horror movie with a usual plot (remembers the classics - "Quothermass and the Well" and "Life Force") several inexpensive special effects and little-known (at least in our country) actors, playing, however, not so bad. It is also good that the actors do not have a stamped Hollywood appearance, they look like ordinary people, which are their characters. Special effects, consisting mainly of nuclear-green light, especially delights, perhaps, does not cause, but complaints too - the usual special effects for the usual low-budget horror.
Another thing I would like to mention is the atmosphere. Such old half-forgotten cheaps have their own, specific atmosphere, which can be called cozy. Such a film is pleasant to watch after a hard day or a significant intellectual effort - the most for brain drain. For this atmosphere I put 4 points, plus another point for acting.
5 out of 10
In a small town, an alien ship falls, with a green stone, from which the locals become obsessed, they plan to seize the land.
In American films, except that the lazy does not plan to take over the planet: machines, ghosts, robots, demons and sorcerers, but the most favorite topic is, of course, aliens. From the number of their species and races, it is easy to spin, and in most cases they are not always friendly. So in this film, they are aggressive invaders, hanging noodles in the ears of average Americans about the great and powerful.
Characters are ordinary, nothing outstanding and significant. The main character Gard, the hero of the loner, in the best traditions of the genre, he will definitely save the planet. But what I liked about him was that he was made a truly unusual person, and to the extent of an interesting character.
His girlfriend Bobby, a red beauty who perfectly coped with her role, slightly obsessed but not losing her head, is a pleasant character.
How is the film, without the sultry blonde Nancy bitch, who powders men's heads, and desires power and fame, perhaps the most cruel character, worse than aliens.
Grandpa and grandson, the cutest characters, liked it the most.
The alien ship, just beautiful, looks like an alien ship, the same fog, the same corridors, but on the outside with a completely different view. But the ship does not look impressive.
The film based on the novel by Stephen King is not the best of the adaptations, but you can see everything once.
6 out of 10
Being a fan of Stephen King as a writer, I could not ignore his works transferred to the screen (by the way, I got acquainted with the author thanks to the film based on it - namely, the film "It" in 1992 based on the novel of the same name). Some I liked some I didn't. “Tomminokers” is a rare example when I had more positive emotions than negative ones. Let me explain why.
King began his writing career quite a long time ago and that in the heyday of his career was more the exception than the rule (unlike today, when almost every little bit of popular graphomania shoot millions of “blockbusters”) – almost immediately followed the literary basis of the film adaptation. Until the second half of the 80s and, more precisely, until the time when the horror genre in the cinema began to slow down and gradually became an impressive layer of American (and that the sin is concealed - world) pop culture has already managed to come out quite decent and noteworthy films based on the novels of King (which were filmed by more than eminent directors and actors are often not lagging behind) such as "Carrie" 1976 Brian De Palma with a young John Travolta, "The Shining" Stanley Kubrick with Jack Nicholson in the main role of John Crister Carpenter, "Charpenter Zone" by John Carpenter. These films are known to the general public and in our time have already become cult. But at the same time, there was also the “reverse side of the coin”.
Nowadays, it is hardly possible to bring any single variable to the fact that in the works of King, in addition to really serious and strong films, tons of various body and cinema of slag are also shot (which are only squeezed out of a small story “Children of the Corn” 10 (!!!) of various films), which in artistic terms have no more value than the current “youth and adolescent” series. It also happened that the directors managed to find a “golden mean” and instead of begging the studios for money to shoot expensive movie screens, they shot low-budget but quite strong things (although there are unfortunately not many such examples I can remember except for “Tomminokers” perhaps only the already mentioned “It”). What is this film remarkable and what is frankly a failure? I want to say right away - I am not familiar with the novel based on (exactly on the motives) of which the film was made (in the printed version I have not once met and not a fan of electronic reading), so I will objectively try to evaluate not the original source but what was done on it. And this is what's done.
First of all, he has all the pros and cons of paintings of this genre and format of the early 90s. These are modest special effects (which for me personally plus since the bet is more on the atmosphere), and a somewhat boring story without any unexpected turns, not the most famous and brilliant actors. At the same time, what I love about movies of this kind is that the atmosphere here plays a much more important role and it is specifically outlined, which in our time is sometimes beyond explosions and spacecraft the size of New York and you will not see. The impression left after viewing is something between the impressions of any of the series of "X-Files" and horror films of the 80s on the same "Nightmare on Elm Street." A bit thrashy - but generally interesting. The downsides are not so much (only two), but they are very weighty – this is actually as I said actors and the plot. Unfortunately, many of King's brainchildren are famous for their overstretched development of events. In my case, it seems to have come from the source. As a rule, compensation is played by the actors, but unfortunately, and this in the film is not that much (except that quite strong work of Jimmy Smits). It’s not that the vast majority of these actors are not as well known as Nicholson or Walken, but that they perform their roles as they say “get off.” We do not feel the realism of what is happening - sometimes it seems that everything that is happening on the screen is just not too skillfully staged by the local youth school matinee. And coupled with a really bright atmosphere - the feeling of immersion in the plot is incomplete.
“Tomminokers” is clearly not the example of a good thrash that you want to watch again and again. Is the movie bad? Probably not. But if it came out in the form of a movie, I think the authors would have tried to do something more watchable.
I didn’t read the books before, because I wanted to know if the script didn’t match the book, what new meaning did the creators prepare for their viewer? It's split into two episodes, but I'd rather have three, because I watched it for 40 minutes for four days, just to catch up with sleep. At the beginning of each series there were shots from the life of the town, which ended absolutely stupid - they, like everything else from the screensaver, were not in the film!
But nevertheless, the plot as well as the written script in its “strong”, starting the viewing the next day, I remembered exactly what I had seen before, and therefore a fairly integral picture remained in my mind. The actors play as if they were not in a movie, but in a Mexican TV series, and the additional feeling of this creates the face of the main character.
And now the book. I read it after watching it, and I completely agree with the critics that there is almost nothing left of the book. And the inconsistencies start from the beginning, and the more you read, the stronger the difference becomes. I will immediately say that the ending in the book is quite different, but even the fact that it is different, did not reveal to me the main thing - what Stephen King wanted to convey to the reader, so long, but really fascinating work?
All right, the book -- the movie went off, too. Its ending makes you wonder what happened after it was over. It is also unclear what the script writers wanted to convey to the viewer? I can see that a similar morality can be seen in the film “Armageddon” in 1998, or in the very first “Matrix”, it is so better to revise them than “this”, which, although it is not disgusting to watch, but there is absolutely no sense in “this”.
3 out of 10
Late at night, believe it or not, Tomminoker, Tomminoker, Tomminoker, knocked on the door.
The first thing I want to say is that I read the novel and I really liked it, so I really wanted to look at the film adaptation.
My keen interest in the film was not overshadowed by the first part, because to my surprise it was very, very good! All the familiar characters were guessed at first sight, familiar scenes, familiar phrases, in general, except for a few small flaws like the green glow around inventions (well, what is it about?). In order for the viewer to guess that the strange aggregate is not the fruit of civilization and progress?, the film turned out to be good. The second part was a complete disappointment. I am going to talk about her shortcomings now.
Immediately from the first minutes there was complete nonsense - the events unfolded sharply, sometimes the connection between them was not even noticed and if I did not read the book, I think it would be difficult to connect everything with each other. Everything was crumpled up like in some miserable soap opera, in which the beginning was still nothing, and the ending was squeezed to the bone. Yes, yes, I understand that the work of 670 pages is extremely difficult to film without loss! It's almost impossible! But it wasn’t so terrible to do it!! Do not squeeze four hundred pages in an hour and a half! But I still had to watch it through. “The endgame has to save the whole movie!” I thought. But no miracle happened. The finale was so wretched that this film is fit to be included in the lists of the worst adaptations!
Bottom line: If you’re intrigued by a trailer or movie description, never watch it! You will be wasting this time! Better read the book! Yes, it will take much more time, but there is a fully revealed plot, it describes how and why all the mysterious changes began to occur and the finale is really worth it!
4 out of 10