Whispers (1990)

Best movie of this year hands down!

Admirable film.

The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

Out of all of Koontz's work, why Whispers? Why was this a movie? For years, I was hoping they would turn The Bad Place into a movie, but no, this makes it to film. Why? Based on the 1980 book, Whispers follows a man who cunningly stalks a female victim ( played by Victoria Tennant). She kills him in self defense, but he seems to have returned. How? And what's worse, the police can't help her, because they don't believe her story. Has he returned from the dead, or is it an evil twin? Find out on a brand new episode of....Mystery Train Derailed! Some of the elements are okay, and when I say okay, I just mean okay, I mean they don't exactly work together, but it's okay to watch anyway. What am I talking about? Watch it, you'll see what I'm talking about. For the most part, Whispers is a just a "WTF" movie, some scenes are barely passable ( For example, tell me what you think of the man having his way with the woman in the morgue, or the man who is making out with his reflection in the mirror.) I want to say it's a mystery suspense movie, but there's very little mystery, and what I saw wasn't exactly suspense. In my opinion, all of Koontzs work that was brought to the screen got screwed, especially Watchers, which doesn't even come close to stacking up as tall as the book did. Maybe they should just....let sleeping dogs lie, so to speak. 4 out of 10. Hey? Seen Mr. Murder? That was a screwed up movie!

I haven't read the novel, nor anything else by Koontz. Therefore, I cannot comment on how accurate and adaptation this is. I can, however, point out that this really is pretty standard fare, and at times, not even quite that. Let's get the couple of positives out of the way... while the editing and cinematography are average, there are a few cool shots. The mystery is fairly unexpected, and the plot twists are rather surprising. Pacing isn't too bad, and the 90 minutes don't feel as much longer than they are as you'd think. The reasons why this still sucks are plentiful... let's start with the characters. Can someone point me to where Hilary has any personality? Seriously, we're given zero reason to care about her, other than that she's the lead. It seems like she's arrogant, but even that isn't seen that often here. Sarandon is basically playing the exact same role as he did in Child's Play, the cop who's not sure what to believe. His partner is a despicable, intolerable jerk who spends the entirety of his screen-time being a misogynist(seriously, I haven't seen that much hatred towards the gender since Saving Silverman). I'm not sure there's a single likable human being, or one that the audience can relate to, in this whole thing, and most stand out only by the negative(and on notable occasions, downright sick and disgusting) traits. The music is unimpressive and not memorable. That goes for the dialog, as well. Development of any kind is handled in a lazy and careless way. This doesn't really build suspense, though it does try to. The trailer, the only special feature on the DVD, gives exceedingly big hints of what happens, and should probably not be viewed until after watching the movie. This has nudity, for the guys, infrequent, strong language, and some violence and disturbing content. I recommend it only to those with indiscriminate taste, or huge fans of those who had anything to do with making it. 5/10

Unfortunately, Koontz seems doomed to die without seeing a decent adaptation of his work. Whispers follows the original book very closely, seemingly until the production company ran out of money. All of the sets in the first half of the movie were meticulously recreated from the book - something which has been lacking in many other Koontz films. Despite its other (numerous) downfalls, I continued to watch in anticipation of some really great scenery. Wrong. By the time the detectives show up at the crack head's apartment (in the book), the movie is out of funds, and one of the most suspenseful scenes from the book, is ruined. Where the book offered grisly discovery, a search and a chase through the guys apartment, the movie offers the backseat of the guys car.Let's face it - Koontz writes without a budget in mind, because imagination is free. If a Koontz novel ever gets made into a decent movie, no one will go and see it, because they have been let down so many, many, many times before. This is why Dean Koontz's Frankenstein is now just Frankenstien - if you had seen your work butchered that many times, you'd get out early if it looked like happening again!

I actually saw the movie before I read the book. When I saw the movie I was upset because I wondered why Dean Koontz had made such a bad book/movie. The movie was confusing and didn't have a flow at all, it was choppy and made me want to throw a rock at the TV. I couldn't connect with the characters at all, so i didn't care about what happened to them(normally I love the characters because I can relate to their personality or problems). Then I read the book and loved it. I often re-read the book, and the movie is collecting dust. I wish someone would make a Koontz movie that follows the plot of his books, then the movies wouldn't suck so much. DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE UNLESS YOU NEED TO WASTE MONEY!