Desperation

"Desperation" is one of my favourite King books. One of the problems in translating such a novel to the screen is to keep intact the cohesive eerie feel that the whole book has, and the organic way King links the horror and religious aspects of the text. The book deals with David's religious values as a beacon to fight evil, however, in the film David's religion is used merely as a tool to preach. King's book makes religion a supernatural and mysterious force in David's life. In the telefilm Religion is a much more dominant theme particular during the last half.

Mick Garris has done a fantastic job with every thing he has touched, especially King adaptations. This time he misses the mark by a long shot. The acting is quite poor, despite a talented cast. Scenes are never allowed to unfold, but are forced along, thus not giving the viewer a chance to soak up the atmosphere the way a King story demands. The child actor looks like he is perpetually about to cry ( a la Neve Campbell circa 'Party of Five'). Their is absolutely no rhythm to anything in the film, it's all forced.

Bottom line: you can miss this one. However, no one should miss Garris' s 'The Stand' which is an unbelievable work, and a daring accomplishment.

Well-done television adaptation of the Stephen King horror novel proves not only to be quite faithful to the novel, but an enjoyable treat for any horror fan.

Folks driving through rural Nevada are being captured by a crazed policeman, but something far more evil is at work in the town of Desperation.

Director Mick Garris is no stranger to the works of author Stephen King, in fact I believe this is his sixth film adaptation of one of King's stories. Between Garris directing and King himself having written the screenplay, Desperation comes off as a very faith adaptation that also keeps the same sense of suspense and bizarre atmosphere of the novel. It's a completely gripping tale that benefits from a mysterious set-up and some likable characters. The filming locations, music, and special FX (which are occasionally gory) are all excellent.

The cast is also quite good. Tom Skerritt, Annabeth Gish, and Steven Weber turn in good performances as some unlikely heroes. Ron Perlman is terrifically creepy as our warped villain. However the greatest performance of all is that of young Shane Haboucha as a spiritually-guided young victim.

All-around, Desperation is a solidly done horror-thriller that delivers on all fronts. A must-see for Stephen King fans.

*** out of ****

I seen the commercial for this movie off of a rental I had and had gotten excited because from the looks of it, it was not bad. Then I had to rent it and my thoughts are that for a desolate setting for a mid-western town was creepy enough for evil to go around fulfilling its vices. You have a great cast, full of veteran actors who all played their parts well. Many reviewers have commented on the boy characters nauseating faith in "god" and the nature of what god is. Some others have also commented that the usual King treat is depicted of a good ol' moral spar between good and evil but I don't see it as such. It was noted many of times that King had either begun this story while he had substance problems and or finished the book (story) in rehab. If this is true, then it's possible that the authors own bouts with the man upstairs became apparent in this film. Either way, I can see why the complaints but personally the kid and his faith didn't bother me. What bothered me was for a King film this ended too fast and no scary, slimy monsters to swat back into the darkness. But due to the villain mainly being bodiless is a new approach and was executed rather well. Another film (for TV) before this (I forget the names) wasn't all too great either. To be honest, I've lost track of his catalog but the last movie that I'd seen that left me satisfy was "Rose Red". I say rent it, be the judge and see if you like it or not.

I read Desperation (and its twin, the Regulators) years ago when they were released and like most King novels, though "gee, this would be a good movie if done right." I never knew about the miniseries and found it here on IMDb. Upon that discovery, my internal argument went: "Five stars, meh. King wrote the teleplay though, so it can't be all bad."

I took the plunge, watching this with my wife. I've read it, she has not. We are both King fans and enjoy his work. And in the end, we both like this production.

The teleplay closely follows the novel, and there are plenty of details for those who have read it. The casting could have been better, I think - all of the actors involved seemed a little less than convincing but they also weren't phoning it in. Ron Perlman was great as the lead bad guy, and as a reader he was just what I expected. Tom Skerrit was the other big name that people will know, and I didn't think he was enough of an asshole (the character in the book most decidedly is).

The movie itself plays out more like a horror flick of King's in the vein of Carrie or his earlier work, which is not a bad thing, but I felt it detracted from the deeper story underneath at times. I would have preferred more character development but again, King wrote the teleplay and if he felt it told the story, I can live with that. Kudos to King for providing the back story that is necessary to the plot in a concise way that the movie format needed instead of trying to weave it in more subtly.

My wife, having not read the book, had more questions about what was going on at times but agreed that it kept her interest right up through the end. Thus, my recommendation is to watch this if you like King's work, but it would not be an introduction to his world. I also believe that reading the book first will deepen your enjoyment of the movie because it, too, holds your interest and keeps you wondering.

So I am a big fan of Stephen King novels and movies alike and there is rarely a time i argue about a movie that deviates from a book. I haven't read the book before I watched the movie and still there was something very off about it. I should have been aware that Stephen King movies like to keep a low profile on the movie synopsis and it was a treat to see how well this movie started off. It was good... till the lead up to the conclusion. I couldn't help but comment on Ron Pearlman's character (and obviously the actors acting that brought the character to life. Had a good suspense and definitely an attention grabbing flow to the movie. But the ending... it seemed rushed.. there was too many questions and there was never a proper explanation (hell there was no explanation) for this... this... weird phenomena. Of course considering its something like another portal and supernatural but there was never really a very good connection between the questioning of faith in God and this bizarre incident. The ending was waay too rushed and the cool setup of "Tack" by Pearlman suddenly became a big time wuss... this movie would have made it to a 5 had it not disappointed me so much with the conclusion... Still its a movie anyone can enjoy and of course not all would find it as disappointing as I did.