Stephen Kings 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 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.

I just viewed the 'made for TV' movie and I thought that it was pretty good! I read both books over ten years ago and considering, it turned out to be better than I had expected, although I thought that the second book (The Regulators) was much better than the first (Desperation)! Ron Perlman was excellent (as usual!) along with Tom Skerritt. The supporting cast were pretty good also (Charles Durning and Matt Fewer were somewhat 'under used'). I was also quite impressed with how they stuck with the religious 'tone' of the story seeing how sensitive that people are nowadays. But all in all, it kept my 13 year old son 'glued' to the 'set after I explained the first and second book to him.

It doesn't compare to "The Stand" which I found absolutely fantastic but for a three hour film, it holds it's ground! Like myself and my son, we are hoping that Mr. King already have the follow-up, "The Regulators" already in the works. And if you haven't read both books yet, now would be a good time to find these 'gems' and read them. Trust me, you will not be able to put them down! King at his finest!!!!

Besides a mediocre performance from Tom Skeritt this adaptation of Steven Kings 600+ page novel is up to par with some of his best big screen productions. Each scene is expertly crafted right out of the pages of Desperation (probably due to the fact that King wrote the screenplay). The police precinct including the desk and each cell seemed as if it were pulled straight from the novel itself. The characters appearances and each detail down to the smiley face on the bag of marijuana that lands Peter and Mary in the slammer were constructed with sheer perfection. If you read the book you'll notice that they changed little things to get with the times, like the hitchhikers shirt instead of being Pete Tesh is Bob Dylan, and there's a small reference towards the end to Donald Rumsfeld and Adam Sandler.

When I saw that there was going to be a TV movie version of this book I was worried because of the graphic sequences needed to do Desperation justice. I was not disappointed. The animal sequences were the most impressive, with vultures and dogs standing as an animal army together. The scene where the dogs line the road for miles was one of the eeriest animal sequences King has ever incorporated in a film (Others including: Cujo, The Night Flyer, etc.).

In my opinion no one was more suited for the role of Collie Entragian than Ron Perlman, he gave the best performance in the entire production in my opinion (not to insult Steven Webber). Though Tom Skeritt wasn't as good as he could have been, he was still the perfect person for his role. Skeritt just didn't come off as an asshole as well as he should have. Everyone else was good, down to the Chinese actors who had absolutely no lines.

In summary if you read the book you will like this movie the only thing that wasn't in the movie was the tree-house that David went to in his mind (not necessarily a bad thing). The director did great job of filling in the viewer on loose ends throughout the film, and it is a strict adaptation of the novel. I've heard critics comment on his use of left wing ideology in this screenplay but I have no idea what they're talking about, maybe I'm just not politically coherent enough to understand, but I feel that the movie deserves the recognition as a horror movie over that of political satire.

Thank you so much for reading my opinion I appreciate you taking the time of day to observe what I have to say.