Whispers

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!

"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.

My review was written in December 1990 after watching the movie on Live video cassette.

Direct-to-video release "Whispers" is a superior thriller, with potential as a sleeper success in the home video market. Name of novelist Dean R. Koontz co9uld be a boost.

In a field glutted with predictable would-be chillers, Canadian made pic delivers a truly novel storyline and a very satisfying payoff.

Steve Martin's wife Victoria Tennant is well-cast as a patrician writer who's attacked in the opening scene by Jean Leclerc, a rich guy she met briefly. The police, led by Chris Sarandon and his sexist partner Peter MacNeill, take a lackadaisical attitude until a second attack occurs and Leclerc is killed by Tennant in self-defense.

With plenty of intriguing details and foreshadowing, film evolves into a maybe he' a vampire picture, as Leclerc returns to wreak havoc. Explanation of what's really going on is offbeat and ingenious. In fact, if this film had received a theatrical release, it would probably have been advertised with a "Don't reveal the ending" warning like such classics as "Diabolique".

Often in satin lingerie, Tennant is an ideal lady in distress while Leclerc has the rugged good looks to personify her nemesis. With old-age makeup on, Canadian actress Jackie Burroughs is terrific in a single scene as a former brothel madam recounting the story of Leclerc's boyhood. It's a perfect example of how to inject exposition without boring the audience.

Finale explains the film's title as the chirpings of cockroaches in an extremely gruesome scene.

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.