Whispers

Given the incredible popularity of Dean Koontz's books, it amazes me that no-one has managed to turn any of his bestsellers into a hit movie; more than a handful have tried, but Koontz adaptations are, by and large, pretty lousy. Whispers is no exception.

I've read quite a few of Koontz's books (albeit, not this particular one), and the man spins a great yarn, so I doubt very much if he is to blame for this film's mediocrity. No... I blame director Douglas Jackson, who is clearly more at home working for the small screen, his film lacking in style or genuine thrills, and the film's star, Victoria Tennant, who is undeniably attractive, but isn't a great actress: she's been pretty terrible in everything that I have seen her in (even All Of Me, a film I adore).

Tennant is her usual wooden self, starring as author Hilary, who is terrorised by a psychotic man called Bruno Clavel (Jean LeClerc), who believes that the writer is his mother reincarnated. Chris Sarandon plays caring cop Tony who investigates and discovers the shocking truth behind Bruno's insanity (I don't want to give too much away: the perverse plot twists are the film's only redeeming features).

Delivering tepid scares, a smattering of nudity (brief side boob from Tennant, but mostly from her body double), and very little blood, Whispers is another dreary Dean Koontz dud.

The movie version of Whispers just does not do Dean Koontz' excellent novel justice, but it is still enjoyable and stuck fairly close to the original plotline created by Dean Koontz. The story is twisted and gruesome and has to do with a woman being stalked by a serial killer. Sounds simple, right? However the nasty, perverse elements of the story make this unique. This, again, was okay but if Koontz had scripted it would have been a lot better. The actress who played Hilary was about ten years too old for the part, had the wrong hair color (Hilary had long, black hair in the book) and I detected a faint British accent. Chris Sarandon was okay as Tony, nothing special, and the actor who played Bruno was very good, even though it wasn't how I imagined Bruno. I suggest that anyone who may be interested in seeing this, read the book first if you really want to. It's much better than the movie.

Have now seen this tvice and would not agree with the very low ratings the movie have got. Not that great acting, not the best story (did enjoy the book better) but still a enjoyable watch. Some nice occult stuff and all fans of a swedish car will have som nice driving scenes.

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!