The Tommyknockers, dir. by John Power (1993)

Searching the Internet for positive reviews of one of my childhood favorites, The Tommyknockers, turned out to be much more difficult than I'd imagined. Based on what I found, it seems I'm one of about twelve people on the planet who actually enjoyed this film.

The miniseries version of one of Stephen King's less well received novels premiered in 1993, in that period of time when miniseries based on his work were particularly popular. It (another great adaptation with a few glaring flaws and a disappointing conclusion) had come out three years before, and The Stand was right around the corner, as were The Shining and The Langoliers.

I saw the two-part Tommyknockers when I was eleven, on its original airing, and that's probably about the best age to appreciate this film. If my first viewing occurred later in life, no doubt some of its more glaring inconsistencies and shortcomings would beharder to ignore. There are certainly holes in the story, the ending is somewhat unsatisfying, and some of the subplots are left hanging without much resolution. And yet my love for this movie is almost completely undiminished eighteen years after first seeing it.

My parents tolerated, while not quite encouraging, my interest in King's books and movies. At my insistence, we rented Stanley Kubrick's The Shining and had a family screening. I'd put my age at ten and my brother's at eight, so, understandably, our parents made us leave the room during the scene in which the young woman steps out of the bathtub naked and transforms into an old, scary woman, still naked.

Our family was always somewhat technologically challenged; we had one TV in our house when I was a kid, and our VCR's programming would never allow us to watch one channel and record another. If it had been up to me, I'd have replaced the VCR for one that could effectively utilize that function, but I didn't have enough of my own disposable income to buy something like a VCR.

And our television--we had one of those big-box wooden floor models--had a very sensitive volume setting, and if you changed the volume using Remote #1 and then tried to change it with Remote #2, it completely screwed the whole TV up. I thought we'd gotten this problem fixed in time for the Tommyknockers premier. For some reason, I was unable to watch Part One the night it aired, so my parents taped it for me. The TV sounded fine, but the next day, when I put the tape in, the volume was off, very low and fuzzy, making the tape unwatchable.

Fortunately, my neighbors had recorded it as well, their whole family fans of Stephen King miniseries. So I went over to their house and watched the first part; it ended just in time for Part Two to come on. The first half was such a great setup, I couldn't wait to see what the second part offered. Unfortunately, the show takes a bit of a downturn once that second part starts up.

The story is set in Haven (a fictional town which sits next door to Derry, the setting for It and a few other King stories). In the Anderson Woods, Bobbi (Marge Helgenberger) and Gard (Jimmy Smits) have stumbled upon a large, mysterious object, buried in the ground, its topside very near the surface. As they uncover more of the object, strange things begin to occur around town; the residents of Haven are suddenly gifted with bizarre abilities, churning out odd new inventions, while at the same time losing teeth and becoming more robotic and inhuman.

Nearly three hours of build-up leads to a conclusion that, even as a kid, struck me as kind of weak. I won't give it away here, in case you're not familiar with how things turn out for the Tommyknockers and the residents of Haven, ME, though most reviews I've come across pretty much throw it right out there, and the European DVD box art shows an image of one of the Tommyknockers, which is pretty crazy. I was disappointed with the ending, as a kid, possibly only because I wanted something else, something a bit more standard as far as Stephen King stories go. Watching it on second, third, twentieth viewing, I found more to like about the ending, and can't really view the movie the same as I did that first time. The climax comes as more of a surprise than in the book, as the real goings-on in the Anderson Woods are hinted at earlier in the novel than in the movie. And despite its shortcomings, the final revelation of the Tommyknockers doesn't come off nearly as silly as the climax of It.

Also, if you haven't read the novel, it isn't nearly as bad as its reputation. It's one of everal of King's books written in the seventies and eighties that dealt with his own alcoholism, in a veiled, metaphorical manner, and in particular, there are a lot of aspects of the novel that deal with Gard's and Bobbi's separate struggles with dependence, that aren't gone into in as much detail in the film. The Tommyknockers is a pretty good book, and the miniseries is great, especially if you're younger than fifteen.

Horror Film Director Feature #2: Mick Garris

Known for his Stephen King adaptations, and for creating the impressive Showtime Masters of Horror (2005-2007) series, Mick Garris has been working in television and film for about thirty years, as a writer, producer, and director.

His first horror feature was Critters 2 (1988), and Garris has been working steadily in the genre ever since. I'm not sure how many people would care enough to argue, but I'm going to go ahead and say that Critters 2 is the best of that series. Expanding upon the first in nearly every way, the outerspace-bred Krites move past the farmhouse they first terrorized, and this time take on the entire town, during Easter. The action culminates with an enormous "Critter Ball," made up of hundreds of the little bastards, rolling over townsfolk, immediately shredding their skin, turning them into skeletons (there's a good deal more blood in this movie than you can get away with in a modern PG-13-rated film).

For my money, Critters 2 is as good as it gets, far as horror-comedy B movies go.
Garris followed that one up two years later, with the TV movie Psycho IV: The Beginning. Not exactly a career highlight, but not a bad film. Another two years, and Garris came out with Sleepwalkers, his first Stephen King adaptation (based on a King-written screenplay). A crazy story about incestuous mother and son shapeshifters.

He got a good deal of shit from horror (and Kubrick) fans for his update of The Shining (1997). I'd argue, though, that the faults with the second movie version of King's novel, lie mostly in the screenplay, written by the author, which sticks very close to his book but never quite builds tension the way Kubrick's film did.

There's more agreement on his 1994 TV movie The Stand. I never could get into this one, both before and after reading the novel. It's hard to say exactly what it is about it that I don't like, except to say that in every scene, it feels like I'm watching television. There are moments in Tommy Lee Wallace's TV adaptation of It that make you forget you're watching network television. I'd say the same for Garris's Quicksilver Highway and Desperation (2006), but The Stand always looks and feels like it needs a bigger budget, and some of the acting and dialogue is pretty limp.

But the movie does have its admirers, a pretty big fanbase actually, and is by no means a bad film. I just wouldn't suggest it as a good example of Garris's best work.

One of his more curious adaptations is the under-appreciated TV movie Quicksilver Highway (1997), which features two forty-minute stories, one an adaptation of Clive Barker's short story, "The Body Politic," the other based on King's short story, "Chattery Teeth." Both stories are representative of each writer's best short form material, and Garris's film is worthy of the source material. The first half deals with a man whose hand has suddenly become possessed, and the second with novelty store chattery teeth attacking a menacing hitchhiker.

Masters of Horror was a good series, and in addition to holding a "created by" credit, Garris has directed a couple episodes himself. Check out Valerie On the Stairs. It's available on Netflix Instant View. Garris followed this up with the network television series Fear Itself. From the little I saw of that show, it didn't seem to capture the energy of Masters of Horror (2008-2009), but when you start trying to combine horror and the three-letter companies, ABC, NBC, CBS . . . it probably isn't destined to work out.

I'd like to see him get back to something with a bit of humor in it. Critters 2 and Quicksilver Highway stand as two of his best works, and while Garris's later work has its share of great moments, some dark comedy might be in order.

Maybe something to top that giant Critter Ball?

Garris is currently in production on an adaptation Stephen King's Bag of Bones as a television series. Look for that later this year.

Duma Key by Stephen King (2008)

 

Mark and I discussed Duma Key over at Goodreads.  Here's the transcript of our monumental conversation.

M. Buozis:  So, let me get this big criticism out of the way. I really enjoyed about 75% of this novel. King has a way of creating believable, likable middle class characters, seamlessly incorporating their thoughts and actions and all sorts of pop culture references. For the most part he leaves the supernatural elements in the background. For 75% of most of his novels these elements seems more psychological than other-worldy. And then King explains everything for you, leading up to the climax, and the supernatural elements are so much harder to swallow because he's done such a great job of creating believable characters in a rich setting.

So, here, he ruins the novel with pirate ghosts. Edgar's wonderfully strange powers are shucked off as the corruption of an ancient sea witch. His love for his daughter and his fear for her going out in the world, which are the emotional touchstones of the novel, are given short shrift to a fleet of zombies.

I don't like it. He's done this in most of his other novels, and usually fails for me, with a few important exceptions like The Shining.

But I guess he's got to give the people what they're after so...

Mark Rooster:  I'm going to agree with you here, although I think I probably liked the book a little more than you did.

This one is written in a slightly different style than I've come to expect from King--would you agree on that? It has almost more of a . . . I don't know, old-fashioned sort of style to it? I don't think that's quite the word I'm looking for. But it's definitely got less of his creative grammar and style, with half-sentences in parentheses and italics all throughout. It seems like he was going for something a little different with this one.

I enjoyed that, and the story hit me pretty well, until the last two hundred pages or so. But all the explanation about the ghost ship and the old lady's family got tiring after a while, and I found that I just didn't care too much what was really going on.

I'd have been fine with the story sticking to those elements you mentioned, even if no explanation was ever given regarding Edgar's new artistic ability.

M.B.:  I guess the important distinction I'd make between King's novels and stories that I like a lot and the ones that are ruined by the endings, is that the supernatural elements in the good ones always seem completely vital and character-driven. In The Shining for instance, the supernatural elements are so linked with Jack Torrance's alcoholism that the problems become almost indistinguishable. The same could be said about Carrie. We know from the beginning this girl has some strange powers and it is vital to the story that she use them to get back at all the kids who are screwing with her. Here in Duma Key, and in a few other King novels I've read, most notably 'Salem's Lot, the supernatural element doesn't even seem necessary. It almost seems like an afterthought he contractually has to include so his publishers can rest assured that they've got another best seller on their hands.

As far as the style is concerned, I didn't notice much of a deviation from what I've come to expect from King. I think he did a bit of the cutting off sentences and using weird indefinite perspectives, especially in the sections that were all italics. I love how he references pop culture all the time. Most writers can not pull this off, but he seamlessly interjects rock lyrics into conversation through the chummy rapport of Edgar and Wireman.

He's a master of making likable characters. I thought Wireman and Edgar's shrink Kamen were particularly likable. This seems like almost an archetype for King characters. Most of his books include a person who is benevolent to the main character, almost a father figure that guides both the main character and the reader through some crazy stuff.

M.R.:  Your last sentence immediately reminded me of the old guy in Pet Sematary (I can't remember his name at the moment). I think you're right about that, he does use that kind of character a lot in his books. Kamen was a great sidekick for Edgar in this one.

I tend to like King's books more often than not. There are a few of his I haven't thought were all that great, but of his more recent ones that I've read (and though I'm catching up, I'm still not that up on his stuff from the last fifteen years), this was one of the best. But I agree that the supernatural stuff was handled less artfully than in some of his other novels.

M.B.:  One thing I really did enjoy was King's handling of Edgar's new found talent for painting. The way he describes the paintings, the odd juxtapositions and surreal descriptions, is convincing and believable. While non-supernatural art does not have the power that Edgar's paintings seem to have, the idea that a painting can affect people in some way is intriguing. Some questions every artist asks himself are, 'how does my art actually affect people?' or 'does my art make a difference?' Here Edgar gets an answer to these questions, but not in a favorable one at all. He would've been better off painting pictures that were less powerful both as valuable art and conduits for negative energy.

The whole art scene in this small Florida city is also rendered really well. The small time curators and art critics who take themselves very seriously and who know how to turn a profit come off as genuine.

Kamen and Wireman both reminded me a bit of the cook from The Shining. They all seem to have some connection to some other realm (which is all probably explained in some other King book) and use that connection to protect the lead characters.

Then perhaps the most important thing is the relationship between Edgar and his daughter Ilse.

M.R.:  I liked the stuff with Ilse quite a bit. Was sad to see her get killed. Although not as sad as if she'd been in the book a bit more. Though I don't have any suggestions as to how there could have been more material with her.

M.B.:  I think this father-daughter relationship is at the heart of the book. In a way, Edgar comes off as a bit of a materialistic jerk at the beginning of the novel. Through Ilse, we see that he is a caring father, if not a completely fair father (especially in his preference for Ilse over his other daughter). If Ilse wasn't so central to Edgar's recovery and his art, there'd almost be nothing the ghost could do to him that would hurt him. He'd lost everything else, his ex-wife, his physical capability.

The question is, what does Ilse really have to do with this ghost? Is she just the conduit through which the ghost attacks Edgar and then uses him to wreak havoc. And what gain does the ghost have in killing everyone it does? Is it protecting Duma Key? Is it collecting souls for a ghost ship armada? King doesn't make it clear.

M.R.:  I guess it could just be a pissed off ghost who enjoys causing trouble and havoc in Edgar's life?

M.B.:  But then it has no emotional resonance. It's just bad luck.

M.R.:  Yeah, I see what you're saying. I really think the last two hundred or so pages of this book are somewhat of a letdown. Not a letdown on the level of the mechanical spider at the end of the movie version of "IT," but still a letdown.

What did you think of the epilogue? I found it pretty satisfying. The way Wireman ended up dying kind of randomly, and Edgar was basically left by himself. Very much of a downer, but it worked great. I wonder if he recovered the other paintings.

M.B.:  Yeah, I liked the epilogue. The ending definitely needed to remain melancholy, but at least King didn't have everyone die. That might have been too much of a bummer, in a book that was pretty melancholy throughout.

M.R.:  It's definitely one of his saddest novels. I liked reading that in close time with Sarah Langan's "The Keeper." Two very sad ghost stories.

In the clip below, King discusses Duma Key.