Whispers

"Whispers" follows Hilary, a journalist who is stalked by a psychopath. When she eventually kills her attacker, she is mortified to witness him again--except this time, he does not seem to recall their past. She teams with Tony, a detective to unravel the mystery.

This adaptation of Dean Koontz's novel is certainly not a work of high art, but I found it a rather entertaining, somber chamber piece that recalls the murder mystery Lifetime TV movies of the 1990s. Shot in Montreal, the film has an autumnal coldness about it that leaps off the screen.

Despite its low-key demeanor, it is actually rather entertaining, and I was invested enough to want to know the answers that the screenplay had laid out. Pacing-wise, the film's revelations are doled out in a fairly clunky manner in the final act (i.e. The two lead characters interview a variety of people in succession, which rather lazily puts together the puzzle). That being said, there are enough weird subplots and themes thrown in (the occult, incest(!?), and a possible Satanic connection, for starters) that, though they don't really go anywhere, add a strange darkness to the proceedings.

Victoria Tennant, known for her turn as the diabolical, selfish mother in 1987's "Flowers in the Attic", makes for a decent lead here; she is similarly detached, but this makes some sense given her character. Genre favorite Chris Sarandon does what he can in the hunky detective-turned-boyfriend role.

The film's finale is rather anticlimactic, but given its somewhat plodding pace, this is not a surprise. The showdown in the spooky mansion is decently-orchestrated. Overall, I should not have enjoyed "Whispers" as much as I did, because the reality is that it's a fairly somber flick that is not exactly well-put-together; however, for some ineffable reason, I found myself very much enjoying it, perhaps because of some sort of nostalgia factor. Still, for being as "Lifetime television movie"-esque as it is, "Whispers" harbors a strange darkness about it that gives it more mystique than it has probably earned. 7/10.

Try to imagine a Lifetime movie and an afternoon soap combined into one. How Koontz allowed this mess to happen is beyond me. Stay away.

The problem is that in the book you have lots of thought going in in peoples heads and that is what keeps the book so interesting you are always learning something about the characters and you get a chance to fall in love with them but the movie just does not let you get involved with the characters. Still I use the movie as a way to let my husband see a little about the book I have been reading so that he knows what was going on. Some things were changed quite a bit but it is easy to see why. you can not turn a 400+ page book into an OK length movie without changing some things to fit in the plot. My point is it will not kill you if you see this movie, but then again just read the book instead. OK.

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!

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