This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

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.

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 :.

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.

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)