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!

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!

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!

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 :.