Fairaher The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

ChanFamous I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

SeeQuant Blending excellent reporting and strong storytelling, this is a disturbing film truly stranger than fiction

Hattie I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

Scott LeBrun 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.

TBJCSKCNRRQTreviews 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

nick_brandi2005 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.

gridoon 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)