Desperation

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 wanted to say after finishing Desperation I felt like I had wasted three hours of my life. I have been an avid King fan for years but all I can say is I hope the book was better than the movie. Someone tell me it is please !!! I wont give anything away for those that were lucky enough not have seen it. Now lets see what did this movie lack ? For starters plot. The plot was thinner than Kate Moss and there was no character development, which King normally in his worst novels still does well. This movie had zero. This was the biggest mess of a battle between good and evil I have ever seen. In closing to any one who did not watch it on ABC last night I beg of you don't waste your money even renting this if it ever comes out on DVD. Again if the book was better great!

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.

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.

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.