Out of all of Koontz's work, why Whispers? Why was this a movie? For years, I was hoping they would turn The Bad Place into a movie, but no, this makes it to film. Why? Based on the 1980 book, Whispers follows a man who cunningly stalks a female victim ( played by Victoria Tennant). She kills him in self defense, but he seems to have returned. How? And what's worse, the police can't help her, because they don't believe her story. Has he returned from the dead, or is it an evil twin? Find out on a brand new episode of....Mystery Train Derailed! Some of the elements are okay, and when I say okay, I just mean okay, I mean they don't exactly work together, but it's okay to watch anyway. What am I talking about? Watch it, you'll see what I'm talking about. For the most part, Whispers is a just a "WTF" movie, some scenes are barely passable ( For example, tell me what you think of the man having his way with the woman in the morgue, or the man who is making out with his reflection in the mirror.) I want to say it's a mystery suspense movie, but there's very little mystery, and what I saw wasn't exactly suspense. In my opinion, all of Koontzs work that was brought to the screen got screwed, especially Watchers, which doesn't even come close to stacking up as tall as the book did. Maybe they should just....let sleeping dogs lie, so to speak. 4 out of 10. Hey? Seen Mr. Murder? That was a screwed up movie!

This adaptation of the Dean R. Koontz novel fails to really get any sparks going; in fact, were it not for some sex, nudity, and profanity, one might swear it was done for TV. The low production values don't do it any favours, nor does the attempt to fit the story into a standard hour and a half length. It's mildly effective, at least in the early going, but the filmmakers ran out of money at some point and came up with a conventional ending that is equal parts silly and squirm inducing. Even the big reveal here comes off as somewhat banal. Even the actors don't seem to really believe in the material.Victoria Tennant ("Flowers in the Attic") stars as Hilary, a journalist who less than three minutes into the film is attacked in her own home by Bruno (Canadian actor Jean LeClerc of 'All My Children'), whom she recognizes as a man whom she'd recently interviewed. Things get bizarre when first he seems to have an alibi for the night in question, and later, when he's attacked her for a second time and she's supposedly killed him, he turns up alive and well. Hilary and well meaning nice guy detective Tony (Chris Sarandon of "Fright Night" '85 and "Child's Play") decide to solve the mystery on their own time, tracing Bruno back to his home town of Lee Valley. They discover some pretty twisted stuff.Just judging by the material here, this could probably have inspired a somewhat better film, but it simply lacks style and doesn't have much punch. Tennant and Sarandon are passable but they've been better utilized in other things. Saving the picture to a degree is LeClerc, who creates a great screen psycho. Viewers who've seen their fair share of Canadian made movies will recognize supporting players Keith Knight ("My Bloody Valentine" '81) as the creepy Avril, Peter MacNeill ("A History of Violence") as misogynistic detective Frank, Jackie Burroughs ("The Dead Zone") as exposition provider Mrs. Yancey, and Vlasta Vrana ("Shivers") as a sheriff, as well as the ever endearing Eric Christmas ("Porky's") as cranky lawyer Rinehart.An effort from the legendary Canucksploitation producers, John Dunning and Andre Link ("Happy Birthday to Me", the aforementioned "My Bloody Valentine"), "Whispers" manages to remain watchable but is forgettable once it's over.Five out of 10.

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!

A terminally dull mystery-thriller, which may sound pretty sound theoretically but plays out very poorly. The ludicrous script is full of (MINOR SPOILER) people dying and then coming back to life when the plot requires them to, and the director doesn't seem able to work up any energy and suspense. The gooey sequence that kind of "explains" the film's title is the only halfway memorable one in this tiresome film. (*1/2)