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.
15 Reviews
You don't want it to speak up
TBJCSKCNRRQTreviews16 July 2009
I haven't read the novel, nor anything else by Koontz. Therefore, I cannot comment on how accurate and adaptation this is. I can, however, point out that this really is pretty standard fare, and at times, not even quite that. Let's get the couple of positives out of the way... while the editing and cinematography are average, there are a few cool shots. The mystery is fairly unexpected, and the plot twists are rather surprising. Pacing isn't too bad, and the 90 minutes don't feel as much longer than they are as you'd think. The reasons why this still sucks are plentiful... let's start with the characters. Can someone point me to where Hilary has any personality? Seriously, we're given zero reason to care about her, other than that she's the lead. It seems like she's arrogant, but even that isn't seen that often here. Sarandon is basically playing the exact same role as he did in Child's Play, the cop who's not sure what to believe. His partner is a despicable, intolerable jerk who spends the entirety of his screen-time being a misogynist(seriously, I haven't seen that much hatred towards the gender since Saving Silverman). I'm not sure there's a single likable human being, or one that the audience can relate to, in this whole thing, and most stand out only by the negative(and on notable occasions, downright sick and disgusting) traits. The music is unimpressive and not memorable. That goes for the dialog, as well. Development of any kind is handled in a lazy and careless way. This doesn't really build suspense, though it does try to. The trailer, the only special feature on the DVD, gives exceedingly big hints of what happens, and should probably not be viewed until after watching the movie. This has nudity, for the guys, infrequent, strong language, and some violence and disturbing content. I recommend it only to those with indiscriminate taste, or huge fans of those who had anything to do with making it. 5/10
Terminally dull.
gridoon3 June 2001
Warning: Spoilers
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)
Not nearly as good as the book...still watchable
ehosh24944 April 2002
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.
the film was a sad attempt and didn't justify the book at all!
PoopisPriceless10 October 2004
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!
Psst! This isn't very good.
BA_Harrison28 April 2020
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.
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.
Good Adaptation - For the First Hour
geoffandheather11 March 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Unfortunately, Koontz seems doomed to die without seeing a decent adaptation of his work. Whispers follows the original book very closely, seemingly until the production company ran out of money. All of the sets in the first half of the movie were meticulously recreated from the book - something which has been lacking in many other Koontz films. Despite its other (numerous) downfalls, I continued to watch in anticipation of some really great scenery. Wrong. By the time the detectives show up at the crack head's apartment (in the book), the movie is out of funds, and one of the most suspenseful scenes from the book, is ruined. Where the book offered grisly discovery, a search and a chase through the guys apartment, the movie offers the backseat of the guys car.
Let's face it - Koontz writes without a budget in mind, because imagination is free. If a Koontz novel ever gets made into a decent movie, no one will go and see it, because they have been let down so many, many, many times before. This is why Dean Koontz's Frankenstein is now just Frankenstien - if you had seen your work butchered that many times, you'd get out early if it looked like happening again!
Let's face it - Koontz writes without a budget in mind, because imagination is free. If a Koontz novel ever gets made into a decent movie, no one will go and see it, because they have been let down so many, many, many times before. This is why Dean Koontz's Frankenstein is now just Frankenstien - if you had seen your work butchered that many times, you'd get out early if it looked like happening again!
An insult to Koontz's work
deoarby16 January 2021
An insult to Koontz's work
ten-thousand-marbles17 January 2021
Lifetime movie-adjacent, but atmospheric and dark
drownsoda9016 January 2022
"Whispers" follows Hilary, a journalist who is stalked by a psychopath. When she eventually kills her attacker, she is mortified to witness him again--except this time, he does not seem to recall their past. She teams with Tony, a detective to unravel the mystery.
This adaptation of Dean Koontz's novel is certainly not a work of high art, but I found it a rather entertaining, somber chamber piece that recalls the murder mystery Lifetime TV movies of the 1990s. Shot in Montreal, the film has an autumnal coldness about it that leaps off the screen.
Despite its low-key demeanor, it is actually rather entertaining, and I was invested enough to want to know the answers that the screenplay had laid out. Pacing-wise, the film's revelations are doled out in a fairly clunky manner in the final act (i.e. The two lead characters interview a variety of people in succession, which rather lazily puts together the puzzle). That being said, there are enough weird subplots and themes thrown in (the occult, incest(!?), and a possible Satanic connection, for starters) that, though they don't really go anywhere, add a strange darkness to the proceedings.
Victoria Tennant, known for her turn as the diabolical, selfish mother in 1987's "Flowers in the Attic", makes for a decent lead here; she is similarly detached, but this makes some sense given her character. Genre favorite Chris Sarandon does what he can in the hunky detective-turned-boyfriend role.
The film's finale is rather anticlimactic, but given its somewhat plodding pace, this is not a surprise. The showdown in the spooky mansion is decently-orchestrated. Overall, I should not have enjoyed "Whispers" as much as I did, because the reality is that it's a fairly somber flick that is not exactly well-put-together; however, for some ineffable reason, I found myself very much enjoying it, perhaps because of some sort of nostalgia factor. Still, for being as "Lifetime television movie"-esque as it is, "Whispers" harbors a strange darkness about it that gives it more mystique than it has probably earned. 7/10.
This adaptation of Dean Koontz's novel is certainly not a work of high art, but I found it a rather entertaining, somber chamber piece that recalls the murder mystery Lifetime TV movies of the 1990s. Shot in Montreal, the film has an autumnal coldness about it that leaps off the screen.
Despite its low-key demeanor, it is actually rather entertaining, and I was invested enough to want to know the answers that the screenplay had laid out. Pacing-wise, the film's revelations are doled out in a fairly clunky manner in the final act (i.e. The two lead characters interview a variety of people in succession, which rather lazily puts together the puzzle). That being said, there are enough weird subplots and themes thrown in (the occult, incest(!?), and a possible Satanic connection, for starters) that, though they don't really go anywhere, add a strange darkness to the proceedings.
Victoria Tennant, known for her turn as the diabolical, selfish mother in 1987's "Flowers in the Attic", makes for a decent lead here; she is similarly detached, but this makes some sense given her character. Genre favorite Chris Sarandon does what he can in the hunky detective-turned-boyfriend role.
The film's finale is rather anticlimactic, but given its somewhat plodding pace, this is not a surprise. The showdown in the spooky mansion is decently-orchestrated. Overall, I should not have enjoyed "Whispers" as much as I did, because the reality is that it's a fairly somber flick that is not exactly well-put-together; however, for some ineffable reason, I found myself very much enjoying it, perhaps because of some sort of nostalgia factor. Still, for being as "Lifetime television movie"-esque as it is, "Whispers" harbors a strange darkness about it that gives it more mystique than it has probably earned. 7/10.
Laudable performances mired by low-level production
FiendishDramaturgy19 January 2004
Warning: Spoilers
Just ONCE, I would like to see Koontz's work given to a decent screenwriter, director, and producer! JUST ONCE!
This is a good attempt by Jean LeClerc and Chris Sarandon, and an even better attempt by Victoria Tennant, but everything else is pure unadulterated garbage. The screenwriter should be shot for bastardizing Koontz's work this way and the director...please.
The story is a well-written story, but the screenplay is quite dull, unbelievable and horribly executed. The only elements which work are the performances by LeClerc, Sarandon, and Tennant.
On a personal note, I really wanted this to work. I adore Koontz's novels, but they have never given them the attention, backing, and talent they deserve. If they put the same money into Koontz's work that they shovel by the barrels-full into King's, Koontz would quickly rise above. But alas! Without powerful people who believe in his work, I fear he will never get the chance.
As an adaptation to the novel, this movie was a total suck-fest. As a stand alone movie, it wasn't that bad, though extremely weak in many places with huge plot holes and terrible, stiff, unprofessional dialog which never should have made it to the final cut. This movie failed miserably to live up to its potential. Had they followed the original work by Koontz, a bit more closely, and invested a decent amount of production money, this could have been a far better endeavor.
However, all I can manage to see in this, is how good it could have been, and wasn't.
It rates a 4.3/10 from...
the Fiend :.
This is a good attempt by Jean LeClerc and Chris Sarandon, and an even better attempt by Victoria Tennant, but everything else is pure unadulterated garbage. The screenwriter should be shot for bastardizing Koontz's work this way and the director...please.
The story is a well-written story, but the screenplay is quite dull, unbelievable and horribly executed. The only elements which work are the performances by LeClerc, Sarandon, and Tennant.
On a personal note, I really wanted this to work. I adore Koontz's novels, but they have never given them the attention, backing, and talent they deserve. If they put the same money into Koontz's work that they shovel by the barrels-full into King's, Koontz would quickly rise above. But alas! Without powerful people who believe in his work, I fear he will never get the chance.
As an adaptation to the novel, this movie was a total suck-fest. As a stand alone movie, it wasn't that bad, though extremely weak in many places with huge plot holes and terrible, stiff, unprofessional dialog which never should have made it to the final cut. This movie failed miserably to live up to its potential. Had they followed the original work by Koontz, a bit more closely, and invested a decent amount of production money, this could have been a far better endeavor.
However, all I can manage to see in this, is how good it could have been, and wasn't.
It rates a 4.3/10 from...
the Fiend :.
Not that bad a 6
robert-nyman26 August 2020
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.
Underwhelming thriller.
Hey_Sweden18 August 2013
Warning: Spoilers
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.
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.
boring
callanvass22 December 2003
Excellent Canadian thriller
lor_5 June 2023
My review was written in December 1990 after watching the movie on Live video cassette.
Direct-to-video release "Whispers" is a superior thriller, with potential as a sleeper success in the home video market. Name of novelist Dean R. Koontz co9uld be a boost.
In a field glutted with predictable would-be chillers, Canadian made pic delivers a truly novel storyline and a very satisfying payoff.
Steve Martin's wife Victoria Tennant is well-cast as a patrician writer who's attacked in the opening scene by Jean Leclerc, a rich guy she met briefly. The police, led by Chris Sarandon and his sexist partner Peter MacNeill, take a lackadaisical attitude until a second attack occurs and Leclerc is killed by Tennant in self-defense.
With plenty of intriguing details and foreshadowing, film evolves into a maybe he' a vampire picture, as Leclerc returns to wreak havoc. Explanation of what's really going on is offbeat and ingenious. In fact, if this film had received a theatrical release, it would probably have been advertised with a "Don't reveal the ending" warning like such classics as "Diabolique".
Often in satin lingerie, Tennant is an ideal lady in distress while Leclerc has the rugged good looks to personify her nemesis. With old-age makeup on, Canadian actress Jackie Burroughs is terrific in a single scene as a former brothel madam recounting the story of Leclerc's boyhood. It's a perfect example of how to inject exposition without boring the audience.
Finale explains the film's title as the chirpings of cockroaches in an extremely gruesome scene.
Direct-to-video release "Whispers" is a superior thriller, with potential as a sleeper success in the home video market. Name of novelist Dean R. Koontz co9uld be a boost.
In a field glutted with predictable would-be chillers, Canadian made pic delivers a truly novel storyline and a very satisfying payoff.
Steve Martin's wife Victoria Tennant is well-cast as a patrician writer who's attacked in the opening scene by Jean Leclerc, a rich guy she met briefly. The police, led by Chris Sarandon and his sexist partner Peter MacNeill, take a lackadaisical attitude until a second attack occurs and Leclerc is killed by Tennant in self-defense.
With plenty of intriguing details and foreshadowing, film evolves into a maybe he' a vampire picture, as Leclerc returns to wreak havoc. Explanation of what's really going on is offbeat and ingenious. In fact, if this film had received a theatrical release, it would probably have been advertised with a "Don't reveal the ending" warning like such classics as "Diabolique".
Often in satin lingerie, Tennant is an ideal lady in distress while Leclerc has the rugged good looks to personify her nemesis. With old-age makeup on, Canadian actress Jackie Burroughs is terrific in a single scene as a former brothel madam recounting the story of Leclerc's boyhood. It's a perfect example of how to inject exposition without boring the audience.
Finale explains the film's title as the chirpings of cockroaches in an extremely gruesome scene.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
