I bought this movie out of the bargain bin at wal-mart the other day. It isn't something that would normally catch my interest, but I remember reading the book many years ago, and although I didn't remember a lot of details of the book, I remember enjoying it, and figured if I got even a fraction of the entertainment out of the movie as I did the book I would be satisfied. There are a few plot holes, but nothing too dramatic. The movie was thoroughly creepy. Connie was a convincing villain, and it was well cast. I think the kid was a bit on the quiet side for what I had always pictured him to be, but He still did a decent job. I bought this movie for 5 bucks, and it was well worth that. I would recommend this for renting, but paying much more than say 10 bucks to purchase it would be foolish. All in all a good movie although would have been much better as a feature film.
111 Reviews
Book to film...difficult
wingedheartart31 January 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Well....Stephen King's dialog in books is easy to read, comfortable and real. Or seems real. Why doesn't it translate better to movies? Some do of course, but not all. I think a LOT depends on the director and "feel" of the movie. The techniques, the lighting, the timing. This particular version was more on the level of syfy channel not so great movies, but SHOULD have been on a much higher level. I remember reading the book and whether you know it is a being or something living underground or not, the tension and well, TENSION is palpable. Sadly, this didn't show in the movie.
Could have been better. And the boy who is put in charge of saving everyone sure is calm. If I'd been a young kid who had seen all that, I'd be scared stiff, and MUCH jumpier. Kill the dog, hurry to let everyone out...not nonchalantly walking over to the desk, casually looking for keys...etc. etc.
Maybe the next movie based on a King novel will be better. We can always hope, right?
Could have been better. And the boy who is put in charge of saving everyone sure is calm. If I'd been a young kid who had seen all that, I'd be scared stiff, and MUCH jumpier. Kill the dog, hurry to let everyone out...not nonchalantly walking over to the desk, casually looking for keys...etc. etc.
Maybe the next movie based on a King novel will be better. We can always hope, right?
Strange thriller-god involved movie
sword_stelios12 June 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I haven't read the book which is an adaptation of Stephen King to the screen so I can't tell you how close to it this film is. However there are many blanks and failures in the plot which can make you really confused and angry with it.
But what stroke me most was the fact that it was the first movie I've ever seen which is called thriller and involves god and religion so much at times that you feel you are watching an informative show about religion being led by a 15 years old boy who seems to know the gist but gets entangled at the same time.
What really annoyed me was that stupid correlation with TAK "god" which makes ordinary people wonder "this film involves the god we all know with... ghosts(!) (are there any ghosts really?) and other(!) gods (exept the one we think that only exists?).. Personally I got irritated by all these.. Of course it's just a film and we are not supposed to believe in anything, but when you realize that it is reality and widely accepted truths that are mixed with myths and ridiculous lies you reasonably get furious...
Lastly, I want to add the fact that just when you relax and "travel" with all these theological issues that unfold at specific points, you get upset with quick and abrupt turns (where blood, horrible faces, corpses and nasty voices occur). You can say "Hey! it's a thriller, what did you expected?". Well, OK I agree! It's just that jumble with "fragile" issues like faith that I hate most! On the other hand, I feel obliged to highlight the incredibly excellent performance of that young actor Shane Haboucha - David which captivated me! The only reason I give that rate to the movie is for that boy! Perhaps I'm not the best person to judge actors but I found pretty amazing how well he acted and performed such a complicated and emotion-filled role!
But what stroke me most was the fact that it was the first movie I've ever seen which is called thriller and involves god and religion so much at times that you feel you are watching an informative show about religion being led by a 15 years old boy who seems to know the gist but gets entangled at the same time.
What really annoyed me was that stupid correlation with TAK "god" which makes ordinary people wonder "this film involves the god we all know with... ghosts(!) (are there any ghosts really?) and other(!) gods (exept the one we think that only exists?).. Personally I got irritated by all these.. Of course it's just a film and we are not supposed to believe in anything, but when you realize that it is reality and widely accepted truths that are mixed with myths and ridiculous lies you reasonably get furious...
Lastly, I want to add the fact that just when you relax and "travel" with all these theological issues that unfold at specific points, you get upset with quick and abrupt turns (where blood, horrible faces, corpses and nasty voices occur). You can say "Hey! it's a thriller, what did you expected?". Well, OK I agree! It's just that jumble with "fragile" issues like faith that I hate most! On the other hand, I feel obliged to highlight the incredibly excellent performance of that young actor Shane Haboucha - David which captivated me! The only reason I give that rate to the movie is for that boy! Perhaps I'm not the best person to judge actors but I found pretty amazing how well he acted and performed such a complicated and emotion-filled role!
The book gets 10 stars, the movie gets 1 - Complete garbage
Blacklock2224 June 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I just finished reading almost 700 great pages of "Desperation" and was excited to see how it would look as a movie. I knew going in that it would most likely be changed and watered down a bit since it was made-for-TV, but I thought the extent of that would be no foul language (since in the book there's a ton of it) and less gore. Let me tell ya... There was a LOT more wrong than just that. Where to begin... So much was changed that it would be impossible to touch on all of it so I guess I'll just talk about the things that bothered me most.
The first half hour I have to say was not so bad aside from the bad camera angles (a lot of worms-eye-view shots), the stale acting and the cheesy "made-for-TV" look it had overall. It was a lot less dark and eerie than I pictured in my head, and they sort of rushed through everything and made minor changes here and there but those things were to just keep it current since the book was written 10 years ago and also they needed to speed things up based on the time they had for the film. So far, not a major upset. I can live with those things.
But then out of nowhere... Are you kidding me?
First of all, in the book the kid David had this entire back-story about his friend Brian almost dying and it was literally one of the most important back drops for the entire thing - they cut it out. Instead they showed his friend get hit by a car and David crying over him and that was that. Because that whole story line was cut out they also had to change the ending because the ending was based on something that happened there and MAN did they cheese up the ending by putting David's yearbook with a picture of Johnny and Pie in it. I almost lost it.
They cut out one character all together, Audrey who was a MAJOR character in the middle of the story which helps the people figure out what's going on. Instead of having her in the story they just gave Tom (the old drunk who lived in Desperation) more lines to describe things and keep the audience up to speed although it was still way confusing if you didn't read the book. Also, They didn't show them trying to escape and the road being blocked, which if I didn't read the book I'd be like, "what the hell is your problem, just drive out of town, why are you still there?"
What really bothered me though, is this - David had these voices he heard, which were meant to be the voice of God. In the movie it was his dead sister talking to him. And one of the coolest parts of the book is when David is passed out and goes up to the land of the dead in his dream and sees a guy in a NY Yankees hat. The guy in the hat tells him the story of the evil going on in Desperation and tells him that he needs to carry out God's work. When he wakes up, Johnny tries to leave and leaves his wallet behind. In going through Johnny's wallet he sees an old picture of Johnny back in Viet Nam and realizes that the guy talking to him in heaven was Johnny when he was younger. He also realizes that back in the day with his pal Brian (who they barely mentioned like I said) they named their tree house the "Viet Cong Lookout" which is where Johnny was killed. It all came together in a really cool way like an episode of Lost and was the coolest thing about the book and NONE OF IT HAPPENED in the movie. Instead, his dead sister showed him the LAMEST silent movie in the projection room of the theater to tell him the story of why the evil exists, and then for some reason he just "knows" he has to finish God's work. Terrible.
There was so much more that was left out or changed too but I'll be here all day if I go over them all. This movie was God awful. And the worst part is, if I try to tell someone how good the book is and they've seen the movie they're gonna be like, "oh yeah, I saw that on TV. That was pretty bad, no thanks." I mean, that's what I would say if I were them.
It's amazing to me that Stephen King actually did this Teleplay based on his own book. The book had almost 700 pages and the movie covered about 100 of them and then made up another new 100. If you haven't seen this movie version of "Desperation" then I say you should definitely read the book if you like Stephen King novels. Just for the love of God, stay away from the movie. The movie makes me want to drop-kick someone in the forehead. So corny. So lame.
The first half hour I have to say was not so bad aside from the bad camera angles (a lot of worms-eye-view shots), the stale acting and the cheesy "made-for-TV" look it had overall. It was a lot less dark and eerie than I pictured in my head, and they sort of rushed through everything and made minor changes here and there but those things were to just keep it current since the book was written 10 years ago and also they needed to speed things up based on the time they had for the film. So far, not a major upset. I can live with those things.
But then out of nowhere... Are you kidding me?
First of all, in the book the kid David had this entire back-story about his friend Brian almost dying and it was literally one of the most important back drops for the entire thing - they cut it out. Instead they showed his friend get hit by a car and David crying over him and that was that. Because that whole story line was cut out they also had to change the ending because the ending was based on something that happened there and MAN did they cheese up the ending by putting David's yearbook with a picture of Johnny and Pie in it. I almost lost it.
They cut out one character all together, Audrey who was a MAJOR character in the middle of the story which helps the people figure out what's going on. Instead of having her in the story they just gave Tom (the old drunk who lived in Desperation) more lines to describe things and keep the audience up to speed although it was still way confusing if you didn't read the book. Also, They didn't show them trying to escape and the road being blocked, which if I didn't read the book I'd be like, "what the hell is your problem, just drive out of town, why are you still there?"
What really bothered me though, is this - David had these voices he heard, which were meant to be the voice of God. In the movie it was his dead sister talking to him. And one of the coolest parts of the book is when David is passed out and goes up to the land of the dead in his dream and sees a guy in a NY Yankees hat. The guy in the hat tells him the story of the evil going on in Desperation and tells him that he needs to carry out God's work. When he wakes up, Johnny tries to leave and leaves his wallet behind. In going through Johnny's wallet he sees an old picture of Johnny back in Viet Nam and realizes that the guy talking to him in heaven was Johnny when he was younger. He also realizes that back in the day with his pal Brian (who they barely mentioned like I said) they named their tree house the "Viet Cong Lookout" which is where Johnny was killed. It all came together in a really cool way like an episode of Lost and was the coolest thing about the book and NONE OF IT HAPPENED in the movie. Instead, his dead sister showed him the LAMEST silent movie in the projection room of the theater to tell him the story of why the evil exists, and then for some reason he just "knows" he has to finish God's work. Terrible.
There was so much more that was left out or changed too but I'll be here all day if I go over them all. This movie was God awful. And the worst part is, if I try to tell someone how good the book is and they've seen the movie they're gonna be like, "oh yeah, I saw that on TV. That was pretty bad, no thanks." I mean, that's what I would say if I were them.
It's amazing to me that Stephen King actually did this Teleplay based on his own book. The book had almost 700 pages and the movie covered about 100 of them and then made up another new 100. If you haven't seen this movie version of "Desperation" then I say you should definitely read the book if you like Stephen King novels. Just for the love of God, stay away from the movie. The movie makes me want to drop-kick someone in the forehead. So corny. So lame.
Decently made, harshly edited, good cast....I have read the book so bear with me...
Robert_duder30 May 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I have read Desperation...twice...one of my favorites but unfortunately that means my expectations for this LONG awaited film adaptation were through the roof. And once you have read the book you have a whole new set of expectations for the film counterpart. That being said it was pretty well done for being compacted into two hours (three with commercials.) Much of the real meat and potatoes of the book had to be cut to give us the basics of what Desperation was all about. It's the best King film in a long time reminiscent of his eighties and nineties classic adaptations such as It, The Stand, and even Storm of The Century. King's stories are ultimately about isolation, that feeling of being all alone in the world against a supernatural terror and Desperation captures that fairly well.
Steven Weber, who I really like, joins his second Stephen King cast (the first one being the extremely well done The Shining mini-series.) Weber plays "roadie" Steve Ames. Weber is a strong actor and he could easily lead the cast but he fits in well and although his role is downplayed from the book he is a great addition to the cast. Tom Skerritt plays aging egotistical writer John Edward Marinville. Now when I saw his name attached to this role I didn't think he could do it. Marinville is a tough guy, a rough around the edges adventurer and I thought Skerritt couldn't pull it off and I will be the first to eat my words because Skerritt is excellent!! This may be one of his best roles certainly on Television. He is exactly the right person for this role. TV actress Annabeth Gish plays Mary Jackson. Her role is toned down as well from the book but still she does a lot and does well with what they give her character. She's a strong, independent female who ends up with the most terror around her but she fights her way back. I was also very hesitant about believing Ron Perlman could play the larger than life insane killer cop Collie Entragian, and again I eat my words. He is perfect!! He does look enormous and strong and completely crazy when he belts out "TAK!" Coincidentally EXACTLY how I felt about the book...I wanted Entragian to be in it more, I wanted him to last longer. He was the perfect adversary. Young TV Actor Shane Haboucha steals the show as religiously connected and enlightened David Carver. He is no stranger to acting but still this really put him at the forefront of the cast and he does very well. He holds his own against veteran Tom Skerritt on numerous occasions. Kelly Overton is kind of the scream queen of Desperation...stumbling on dead bodies and horrific scenes and belting out her petrified screams. Her romance with character Steve Ames (played by Weber) is toned down but you still get a connection between them which I think is really important to the story. Sylva Kelegian plays Ellie Carver whose best performance is after Tak takes over her body. She is good as the Mom and then the killer which shows her versatility as an actress. Matt Frewer who I immediately recognized from Honey I Shrunk The Kids, but is well known for his immense work in animation is okay as the Carver father Ralph. His role is almost non-existent, he barely has lines and any emotions he does have he comes across as whiny and scared. But for what they gave him in the role he does alright. Charles Durning plays the elder of the group Tom Billingsley and he looks the part but his character is more or less cut down to virtually nothing much like Ralph Carver. Sammi Hanratty is appropriately creepy as Pie Carver, David's little sister, murdered by Entragian but returns as a spirit to help save them all.
Mick Garris is NO stranger to King films, this being his 5th I believe?? He has done some really great work with King including the aforementioned Shining Mini Series, The Stand, and Sleepwalkers. King also actually penned the script for this TV adaptation which I am convinced saves this from being utter crap because at least King knows the characters intimately and knows what could be cut. I am sure that he would have liked to have had more included as well. What is left in is an interesting, perversive and violent horror flick that does put you in the edge of your seat numerous times. I was really surprised (not un-pleasantly about the religious undertone of the film. The characters especially David Carver talk a lot about faith and God and although King always has a bit of a religious tone to his books in one form or another this film especially really does preach a faith driven message. Some say that hurts the film I don't agree at all!! I think Stephen King is a brilliant writer and philosopher even if he doesn't mean to. I think that after reading the book it just feels so quick and adapted down to virtually nothing. It is indeed bare bones compared to the novel. I hate to compare the film to the novel but it's hard not to do especially when the novel is one of your favorites. If you don't read King but you love his films then you must see Desperation because it's a throwback to when he made really great adaptations and not the drivvle that's been appearing lately (Riding The Bullet.) Now if we could convince King and Garris to make Insomnia I'd be a happy man!! 7.5/10
Steven Weber, who I really like, joins his second Stephen King cast (the first one being the extremely well done The Shining mini-series.) Weber plays "roadie" Steve Ames. Weber is a strong actor and he could easily lead the cast but he fits in well and although his role is downplayed from the book he is a great addition to the cast. Tom Skerritt plays aging egotistical writer John Edward Marinville. Now when I saw his name attached to this role I didn't think he could do it. Marinville is a tough guy, a rough around the edges adventurer and I thought Skerritt couldn't pull it off and I will be the first to eat my words because Skerritt is excellent!! This may be one of his best roles certainly on Television. He is exactly the right person for this role. TV actress Annabeth Gish plays Mary Jackson. Her role is toned down as well from the book but still she does a lot and does well with what they give her character. She's a strong, independent female who ends up with the most terror around her but she fights her way back. I was also very hesitant about believing Ron Perlman could play the larger than life insane killer cop Collie Entragian, and again I eat my words. He is perfect!! He does look enormous and strong and completely crazy when he belts out "TAK!" Coincidentally EXACTLY how I felt about the book...I wanted Entragian to be in it more, I wanted him to last longer. He was the perfect adversary. Young TV Actor Shane Haboucha steals the show as religiously connected and enlightened David Carver. He is no stranger to acting but still this really put him at the forefront of the cast and he does very well. He holds his own against veteran Tom Skerritt on numerous occasions. Kelly Overton is kind of the scream queen of Desperation...stumbling on dead bodies and horrific scenes and belting out her petrified screams. Her romance with character Steve Ames (played by Weber) is toned down but you still get a connection between them which I think is really important to the story. Sylva Kelegian plays Ellie Carver whose best performance is after Tak takes over her body. She is good as the Mom and then the killer which shows her versatility as an actress. Matt Frewer who I immediately recognized from Honey I Shrunk The Kids, but is well known for his immense work in animation is okay as the Carver father Ralph. His role is almost non-existent, he barely has lines and any emotions he does have he comes across as whiny and scared. But for what they gave him in the role he does alright. Charles Durning plays the elder of the group Tom Billingsley and he looks the part but his character is more or less cut down to virtually nothing much like Ralph Carver. Sammi Hanratty is appropriately creepy as Pie Carver, David's little sister, murdered by Entragian but returns as a spirit to help save them all.
Mick Garris is NO stranger to King films, this being his 5th I believe?? He has done some really great work with King including the aforementioned Shining Mini Series, The Stand, and Sleepwalkers. King also actually penned the script for this TV adaptation which I am convinced saves this from being utter crap because at least King knows the characters intimately and knows what could be cut. I am sure that he would have liked to have had more included as well. What is left in is an interesting, perversive and violent horror flick that does put you in the edge of your seat numerous times. I was really surprised (not un-pleasantly about the religious undertone of the film. The characters especially David Carver talk a lot about faith and God and although King always has a bit of a religious tone to his books in one form or another this film especially really does preach a faith driven message. Some say that hurts the film I don't agree at all!! I think Stephen King is a brilliant writer and philosopher even if he doesn't mean to. I think that after reading the book it just feels so quick and adapted down to virtually nothing. It is indeed bare bones compared to the novel. I hate to compare the film to the novel but it's hard not to do especially when the novel is one of your favorites. If you don't read King but you love his films then you must see Desperation because it's a throwback to when he made really great adaptations and not the drivvle that's been appearing lately (Riding The Bullet.) Now if we could convince King and Garris to make Insomnia I'd be a happy man!! 7.5/10
Ugh
wryterzblock31 January 2013
Desperation is my favorite Stephen King book. And this movie, if you want to call it that, is quite possibly the worst adaptation of a King work that I've ever seen.
At first I wanted to blame it on the fact that it was a movie made for television. But that's not true; IT was also a TV movie, and it was spectacular.
For having what was not a horrible gathering of acting talent at all, Desperation just seemed REALLY cheesy. Even Ron Perlman, who can ham it up like nobody's business and make it look awesome, made me cringe.
Don't waste your time with this. And PLEASE do not judge the book by this movie. Desperation the book is a thrilling and moving piece of work. Desperation the movie is just a piece of...
At first I wanted to blame it on the fact that it was a movie made for television. But that's not true; IT was also a TV movie, and it was spectacular.
For having what was not a horrible gathering of acting talent at all, Desperation just seemed REALLY cheesy. Even Ron Perlman, who can ham it up like nobody's business and make it look awesome, made me cringe.
Don't waste your time with this. And PLEASE do not judge the book by this movie. Desperation the book is a thrilling and moving piece of work. Desperation the movie is just a piece of...
A Movie Divided In Two Parts
claudio_carvalho25 May 2007
Warning: Spoilers
While driving through the Nevada desert to Salt Lake, the couple Peter Jackson (Henry Thomas) and his wife Mary (Annabeth Gish) are stopped by sheriff Collie Entragian (Ron Pealman) because their car has no license plate in the back. When they open the trunk to get some tools, Collie finds a package of marijuana and arrests the couple, becoming insane and abusive, and the couple claims that they have stolen the car. While driving to the jail of Desperation, the terrified couple sees corpses everywhere in the town; in the entrance of the police station, they see the body of a young girl, and the sheriff shoots and kills Peter. In the jail, Mary sees a couple and their religious son David Carver (Shane Haboucha) and an old local, Tom Billingsley (Charles Durning). Meanwhile the deranged sheriff arrests the successful and arrogant writer John Edward Marinville (Tom Skerritt) that is traveling in his motorcycle through the country promoting lectures. John gives a troubled and jammed call in his cellular to his assistant Steve Ames (Steven Weber), who is following him in a support trunk with the hitchhiker Cynthia Smith (Kelly Overton). When the group of survivors escapes from the jail and meets Steve and Cynthia, David discloses that one hundred and fifty years ago, a group of Chinese slaves released in the cave-in, an earth demon "waisin" called Tak, or the unformed heart. When the mine collapsed, all of them died, but something came out of the mine. The group under the leadership of David and under the protection of God decides to battle against the pagan god Tak and get the world free of his evil.
"Desperation", as most of the adaptations of Stephen King to the screen, is irregular and may be divided in two parts: the creepy first one is excellent, with Ron Pealman perfect and scary in the role of the common man possessed by a very evil and powerful fiend. When his character vanishes, the story comes downhill, with the weak and expressionless Shane Haboucha performing a strong character that should be the counterpoint to the sheriff, but actually is terrible. Tom Skerritt also seems to be miscast, since the does not fit exactly to the description of Steve Ames. Anyway, "Desperation" is intriguing and above average in the genre, but had potential to be better and better. My vote is seven.
Title (Brazil): "Desespero" ("Desperation")
"Desperation", as most of the adaptations of Stephen King to the screen, is irregular and may be divided in two parts: the creepy first one is excellent, with Ron Pealman perfect and scary in the role of the common man possessed by a very evil and powerful fiend. When his character vanishes, the story comes downhill, with the weak and expressionless Shane Haboucha performing a strong character that should be the counterpoint to the sheriff, but actually is terrible. Tom Skerritt also seems to be miscast, since the does not fit exactly to the description of Steve Ames. Anyway, "Desperation" is intriguing and above average in the genre, but had potential to be better and better. My vote is seven.
Title (Brazil): "Desespero" ("Desperation")
Possibly the worst Stephen King film ever
izazael28 October 2006
This has to be, by far, the worst movie adaptation of a Stephen King book ever, and that's definitely saying something.
The script is absolutely terrible, with the characters saying some of the most unbelievable and bizarre comments that I've ever heard. The acting is sufficiently B grade for a bad horror film, and the plot fantastically predictable.
One of the most painful things about the movie is the complete lack of a connection between the actors or characters. Where you expect an emotional connection between two characters, there always seems to be a void -- especially between the mother and her son, and the couple in the car. Even when the script indicates a strong emotional connection, there is no spark between the actors.
Like with most Stephen King adaptations, the storyline skips ahead rapidly in parts, with characters discussing issues which were introduced in the book but omitted in the movie -- so they come as a complete surprise, or just as a confusing side remark that leaves the audience wondering where the heck it suddenly came from. Unless you've read the book, it can make for a disorienting experience.
Unless you're an absolute masochist, steer clear of this one -- there's absolutely no value in it.
The script is absolutely terrible, with the characters saying some of the most unbelievable and bizarre comments that I've ever heard. The acting is sufficiently B grade for a bad horror film, and the plot fantastically predictable.
One of the most painful things about the movie is the complete lack of a connection between the actors or characters. Where you expect an emotional connection between two characters, there always seems to be a void -- especially between the mother and her son, and the couple in the car. Even when the script indicates a strong emotional connection, there is no spark between the actors.
Like with most Stephen King adaptations, the storyline skips ahead rapidly in parts, with characters discussing issues which were introduced in the book but omitted in the movie -- so they come as a complete surprise, or just as a confusing side remark that leaves the audience wondering where the heck it suddenly came from. Unless you've read the book, it can make for a disorienting experience.
Unless you're an absolute masochist, steer clear of this one -- there's absolutely no value in it.
Not Bad At All
tytianacs23 May 2006
I just viewed the 'made for TV' movie and I thought that it was pretty good! I read both books over ten years ago and considering, it turned out to be better than I had expected, although I thought that the second book (The Regulators) was much better than the first (Desperation)! Ron Perlman was excellent (as usual!) along with Tom Skerritt. The supporting cast were pretty good also (Charles Durning and Matt Fewer were somewhat 'under used'). I was also quite impressed with how they stuck with the religious 'tone' of the story seeing how sensitive that people are nowadays. But all in all, it kept my 13 year old son 'glued' to the 'set after I explained the first and second book to him.
It doesn't compare to "The Stand" which I found absolutely fantastic but for a three hour film, it holds it's ground! Like myself and my son, we are hoping that Mr. King already have the follow-up, "The Regulators" already in the works. And if you haven't read both books yet, now would be a good time to find these 'gems' and read them. Trust me, you will not be able to put them down! King at his finest!!!!
It doesn't compare to "The Stand" which I found absolutely fantastic but for a three hour film, it holds it's ground! Like myself and my son, we are hoping that Mr. King already have the follow-up, "The Regulators" already in the works. And if you haven't read both books yet, now would be a good time to find these 'gems' and read them. Trust me, you will not be able to put them down! King at his finest!!!!
Religious propaganda
shinsrevenge19 January 2016
Warning: Spoilers
The first half of the movie can be described as interesting. Ron Perlman plays the role of a possessed cop, who has built his web like a spider on the town Desperation and the main road. He preys on travelers, catching them in his prison to use them as future hosts. Because the demon possessing him uses up the human bodies quickly.
After catching quite a few people and killing some of them for... entertainment, I guess, he finds his mortal enemy in a boy. I forgot the name of the kid, but his message keeps ringing in my ears since he insists in repeating it for the rest of the movie in countless occasions. "Love god, trust him and endure whatever he wishes to bring upon you. Always do, whatever he asks without doubting anything." I'm not a religious man, but that isn't even what was annoying me. It was the hypocrisy. They spend time talking about the "free will", only to sum up that mankind is supposed to give up this free will and become nothing more than a puppet or slave to an omnipotent being. Which - even according to the movie - may or may not slay or save everyone at whim. Like a kid playing with toys and occasionally breaking some of them.
Anyway, the fight between the demon and the humans isn't bad. It fulfills its purpose. The background story is kind of lazy though. They included some content with the former Chinese workers and the mine where the demon was accidentally freed some hundred or more years ago. And just when you might start getting curious about it one of them asks "What's the goal of the demon?" to which the boy answers "Does't matter. We only care about what god wants". They didn't even take the time to explain that. Like I said, lazy.
Without these flaws it could have been a good movie, but as it is you might want to look for something better to spent your time on.
After catching quite a few people and killing some of them for... entertainment, I guess, he finds his mortal enemy in a boy. I forgot the name of the kid, but his message keeps ringing in my ears since he insists in repeating it for the rest of the movie in countless occasions. "Love god, trust him and endure whatever he wishes to bring upon you. Always do, whatever he asks without doubting anything." I'm not a religious man, but that isn't even what was annoying me. It was the hypocrisy. They spend time talking about the "free will", only to sum up that mankind is supposed to give up this free will and become nothing more than a puppet or slave to an omnipotent being. Which - even according to the movie - may or may not slay or save everyone at whim. Like a kid playing with toys and occasionally breaking some of them.
Anyway, the fight between the demon and the humans isn't bad. It fulfills its purpose. The background story is kind of lazy though. They included some content with the former Chinese workers and the mine where the demon was accidentally freed some hundred or more years ago. And just when you might start getting curious about it one of them asks "What's the goal of the demon?" to which the boy answers "Does't matter. We only care about what god wants". They didn't even take the time to explain that. Like I said, lazy.
Without these flaws it could have been a good movie, but as it is you might want to look for something better to spent your time on.
For anyone who read the book before seeing the movie.
cristinacorman24 May 2006
Besides a mediocre performance from Tom Skeritt this adaptation of Steven Kings 600+ page novel is up to par with some of his best big screen productions. Each scene is expertly crafted right out of the pages of Desperation (probably due to the fact that King wrote the screenplay). The police precinct including the desk and each cell seemed as if it were pulled straight from the novel itself. The characters appearances and each detail down to the smiley face on the bag of marijuana that lands Peter and Mary in the slammer were constructed with sheer perfection. If you read the book you'll notice that they changed little things to get with the times, like the hitchhikers shirt instead of being Pete Tesh is Bob Dylan, and there's a small reference towards the end to Donald Rumsfeld and Adam Sandler.
When I saw that there was going to be a TV movie version of this book I was worried because of the graphic sequences needed to do Desperation justice. I was not disappointed. The animal sequences were the most impressive, with vultures and dogs standing as an animal army together. The scene where the dogs line the road for miles was one of the eeriest animal sequences King has ever incorporated in a film (Others including: Cujo, The Night Flyer, etc.).
In my opinion no one was more suited for the role of Collie Entragian than Ron Perlman, he gave the best performance in the entire production in my opinion (not to insult Steven Webber). Though Tom Skeritt wasn't as good as he could have been, he was still the perfect person for his role. Skeritt just didn't come off as an asshole as well as he should have. Everyone else was good, down to the Chinese actors who had absolutely no lines.
In summary if you read the book you will like this movie the only thing that wasn't in the movie was the tree-house that David went to in his mind (not necessarily a bad thing). The director did great job of filling in the viewer on loose ends throughout the film, and it is a strict adaptation of the novel. I've heard critics comment on his use of left wing ideology in this screenplay but I have no idea what they're talking about, maybe I'm just not politically coherent enough to understand, but I feel that the movie deserves the recognition as a horror movie over that of political satire.
Thank you so much for reading my opinion I appreciate you taking the time of day to observe what I have to say.
When I saw that there was going to be a TV movie version of this book I was worried because of the graphic sequences needed to do Desperation justice. I was not disappointed. The animal sequences were the most impressive, with vultures and dogs standing as an animal army together. The scene where the dogs line the road for miles was one of the eeriest animal sequences King has ever incorporated in a film (Others including: Cujo, The Night Flyer, etc.).
In my opinion no one was more suited for the role of Collie Entragian than Ron Perlman, he gave the best performance in the entire production in my opinion (not to insult Steven Webber). Though Tom Skeritt wasn't as good as he could have been, he was still the perfect person for his role. Skeritt just didn't come off as an asshole as well as he should have. Everyone else was good, down to the Chinese actors who had absolutely no lines.
In summary if you read the book you will like this movie the only thing that wasn't in the movie was the tree-house that David went to in his mind (not necessarily a bad thing). The director did great job of filling in the viewer on loose ends throughout the film, and it is a strict adaptation of the novel. I've heard critics comment on his use of left wing ideology in this screenplay but I have no idea what they're talking about, maybe I'm just not politically coherent enough to understand, but I feel that the movie deserves the recognition as a horror movie over that of political satire.
Thank you so much for reading my opinion I appreciate you taking the time of day to observe what I have to say.
Very good until the ending
movieman89-217 December 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I watched this after I read the novel, which I thought was awesome.
The actors I thought were pretty good, especially Ron Pearlman who played the psychopathic cop, Collie Entragian. The special effects and the cinematography were pretty good as well.
They kept the film very close to the awesome novel. Until it got to the middle because they cut out some of the most important scenes from the book that they didn't put in the film, for example, in the book they meet another character, hiding in the ruins of the town. They also find much more of the history of the town. They cut out all this in the film, which was disappointing.
The ending, I thought I was very disappointed because they fitted bits that were very cheesy, that didn't fit the novel at all.
I would rather read the novel first before watching the film. But still I thought it was pretty good.
The actors I thought were pretty good, especially Ron Pearlman who played the psychopathic cop, Collie Entragian. The special effects and the cinematography were pretty good as well.
They kept the film very close to the awesome novel. Until it got to the middle because they cut out some of the most important scenes from the book that they didn't put in the film, for example, in the book they meet another character, hiding in the ruins of the town. They also find much more of the history of the town. They cut out all this in the film, which was disappointing.
The ending, I thought I was very disappointed because they fitted bits that were very cheesy, that didn't fit the novel at all.
I would rather read the novel first before watching the film. But still I thought it was pretty good.
Movie Misses the Book's Point
belovedjackass29 May 2006
Warning: Spoilers
There are better King books, but this is one I always reread. So of course I wanted to see how this one turned out, and while it's not awful viewed on its own merits, they completely missed what made the book so compelling. And that is the boy David's(Shane Haboucha) relationship with God.
It starts out well enough in the first hour. Peter and Mary Jackson are stopped by a cop on their way back to New York, the cop notices a bag of pot belonging to Peter's sister, yadda yadda, all hell breaks loose. Ron Perlman plays the possessed schizo cop exactly, with some parts menace and a whole helluva lot of giddiness. He's rounding up people for unknown reasons in a jail cell, and you later find out that he's been taken over by a buried entity called Tak, which Chinese miners let out about a century ago, and was just discovered again the days before. Alright...weird, I know, but now that plot's outta the way...
The other groups he rounds up is the Carver family, who all give pretty solid performances. Matt Frewer (My life for you!!) plays the God-crazy boy David's father, gives what is probably the only normal acting job. It's not rife with bad attempts as wit, just a dude who's losing his family and is going through hell.
Shane Haboucha SEEMS like he's giving a go at the same thing (and he CAN act, quite good, I've seen him on Law & Order, CSI, and Monk), but both the script and the director (Mick Garris, in his sixth Stephen King adaptation) seemed to pass him off as a breathy, holier than thou zealot that's totally unlike the book's version of David. There, he's simply mature for his age, and intelligent, but in the movie it's hard to even see him as a kid at all. It's like he's doing a bad impression of a middle aged evangelist, and he doesn't seem at all crushed as his family (starting with his little sister) is thrown to the side on God's will like flimsy paper cups.
Someone who should've taken more center stage is Johnny Marinville, played by Tom Skerrit. In the book (I know, I know, all this "in the book" bullcrap, but I can't find why they changed it) he's a straight up smartass, and you love him for it.
Because really, he's the only one who's along with the reader, thinking all of this is totally out there. But here, you only see him as a coward in a flashback, never the leader as he comes off as in the book. He was a good character because of it, a layered character, but that was excluded as well.
In terms of the effects and the gore, it's all surprisingly very much intact. Perlman's degradation is shown wonderfully, and the violence (corpses swinging from fans, pencils in the eyes, the kid's ear's bleeding after squeezing his head through the cell bars) isn't shied away from. Does it make up for what's lost from the book? No, but you see they were trying at least.
The good moments were kept- David's escape and killing of the coyote, the cop's crazy behavior, and the last China Pit scene were exact.
Anabeth Gesh and Steve Weber turn in crap performance, Gesh being the worst of the two. There wasn't a moment where her lines weren't making my eyes roll. Weber tries attempts at being a smart aleck and fails at it.
But the worst part about it is how they handled David's total story. For one thing, the scene where he asks "What no one dares to ask for", to bring his friend out of a coma, was way too brief and simple. It doesn't show that he converted, and it wasn't exactly clear that David owed God something because of it. And they didn't show destroying Tak WASN'T all that important; God was simply offended by it, and wanted it gotten rid of.
In that way, God was a character in the book. A little selfish, and plenty demanding. "Sane people don't believe in God", a line I liked from the book, is totally changed around in the movie when David says "Believing in God is sane". Er...alright.
They use the book's "God is cruel" message here, but you never believe it. In the movie, you have the feeling that God really is doing things for the better, when he really isn't. He took advantage of David's prayers, in a way.
And the last thing. A lot of people complained that David never seemed that disturbed by the deaths of his family throughout. Well, that's because he's under the idea that God would take him last, and that he'd be with them in the end. No dice. Like Johnny said, "Sometimes he makes us live", and the thought of David later having to cope with that so young was the most affecting part of the whole book. He's totally alone now. But here, he just sort of shrugs, thinks "Oh well, God did it, so it's not THAT bad...".
Phew...I'm not religious at all, but the way it was handled in the book was fascinating, and the fact that they totally missed they mark was the movies downfall. See it for the first hour, then watch as it all crumbles without the proper care it needed.
It starts out well enough in the first hour. Peter and Mary Jackson are stopped by a cop on their way back to New York, the cop notices a bag of pot belonging to Peter's sister, yadda yadda, all hell breaks loose. Ron Perlman plays the possessed schizo cop exactly, with some parts menace and a whole helluva lot of giddiness. He's rounding up people for unknown reasons in a jail cell, and you later find out that he's been taken over by a buried entity called Tak, which Chinese miners let out about a century ago, and was just discovered again the days before. Alright...weird, I know, but now that plot's outta the way...
The other groups he rounds up is the Carver family, who all give pretty solid performances. Matt Frewer (My life for you!!) plays the God-crazy boy David's father, gives what is probably the only normal acting job. It's not rife with bad attempts as wit, just a dude who's losing his family and is going through hell.
Shane Haboucha SEEMS like he's giving a go at the same thing (and he CAN act, quite good, I've seen him on Law & Order, CSI, and Monk), but both the script and the director (Mick Garris, in his sixth Stephen King adaptation) seemed to pass him off as a breathy, holier than thou zealot that's totally unlike the book's version of David. There, he's simply mature for his age, and intelligent, but in the movie it's hard to even see him as a kid at all. It's like he's doing a bad impression of a middle aged evangelist, and he doesn't seem at all crushed as his family (starting with his little sister) is thrown to the side on God's will like flimsy paper cups.
Someone who should've taken more center stage is Johnny Marinville, played by Tom Skerrit. In the book (I know, I know, all this "in the book" bullcrap, but I can't find why they changed it) he's a straight up smartass, and you love him for it.
Because really, he's the only one who's along with the reader, thinking all of this is totally out there. But here, you only see him as a coward in a flashback, never the leader as he comes off as in the book. He was a good character because of it, a layered character, but that was excluded as well.
In terms of the effects and the gore, it's all surprisingly very much intact. Perlman's degradation is shown wonderfully, and the violence (corpses swinging from fans, pencils in the eyes, the kid's ear's bleeding after squeezing his head through the cell bars) isn't shied away from. Does it make up for what's lost from the book? No, but you see they were trying at least.
The good moments were kept- David's escape and killing of the coyote, the cop's crazy behavior, and the last China Pit scene were exact.
Anabeth Gesh and Steve Weber turn in crap performance, Gesh being the worst of the two. There wasn't a moment where her lines weren't making my eyes roll. Weber tries attempts at being a smart aleck and fails at it.
But the worst part about it is how they handled David's total story. For one thing, the scene where he asks "What no one dares to ask for", to bring his friend out of a coma, was way too brief and simple. It doesn't show that he converted, and it wasn't exactly clear that David owed God something because of it. And they didn't show destroying Tak WASN'T all that important; God was simply offended by it, and wanted it gotten rid of.
In that way, God was a character in the book. A little selfish, and plenty demanding. "Sane people don't believe in God", a line I liked from the book, is totally changed around in the movie when David says "Believing in God is sane". Er...alright.
They use the book's "God is cruel" message here, but you never believe it. In the movie, you have the feeling that God really is doing things for the better, when he really isn't. He took advantage of David's prayers, in a way.
And the last thing. A lot of people complained that David never seemed that disturbed by the deaths of his family throughout. Well, that's because he's under the idea that God would take him last, and that he'd be with them in the end. No dice. Like Johnny said, "Sometimes he makes us live", and the thought of David later having to cope with that so young was the most affecting part of the whole book. He's totally alone now. But here, he just sort of shrugs, thinks "Oh well, God did it, so it's not THAT bad...".
Phew...I'm not religious at all, but the way it was handled in the book was fascinating, and the fact that they totally missed they mark was the movies downfall. See it for the first hour, then watch as it all crumbles without the proper care it needed.
Thriller Turns Theology Light
johnny-ramstedt8 May 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Desperation starts out as a promising thriller that plays like a combination of The Hitcher (1986) and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974). A couple driving through the Nevada desert are being harassed and soon arrested by a menacing deputy, suitably overacted by Ron Pearlman. Suddenly however, the movie turns into something much less exciting. Not to give too much away, the focus of the plot turns to a young boy named David, hell-bent on religion.
Horror films have a great, inherent potential for dealing with religious themes in an intelligent way. Unfortunately, Desperation screws it up. The worst part is not the painfully obvious references to the Bible, such as multiple close-ups of sardine cans (mirroring the feeding of the five thousand), but the feeble, folksy theology preached by the ever-praying David. The endless one-liners and dialogues concerning God's qualities are about as profound as a Jesus Saves!-bumper sticker in purple Comic Sans.
David doesn't even seem to be scared of the supernatural villain, but faces it and its enslaved minions with a strange resolve reminiscent of a parody of Jesus. Courage is not the absence of fear, said Ambrose Redmoon. And after we learn that God is on their side, we cease to care about the characters, recognizing that they will emerge as victors even in the case of gory death.
(There is a scene involving an old, black-and-white film, which could be genuinely spooky that is if it did not yield in to modern cinematography and CGI.)
Horror films have a great, inherent potential for dealing with religious themes in an intelligent way. Unfortunately, Desperation screws it up. The worst part is not the painfully obvious references to the Bible, such as multiple close-ups of sardine cans (mirroring the feeding of the five thousand), but the feeble, folksy theology preached by the ever-praying David. The endless one-liners and dialogues concerning God's qualities are about as profound as a Jesus Saves!-bumper sticker in purple Comic Sans.
David doesn't even seem to be scared of the supernatural villain, but faces it and its enslaved minions with a strange resolve reminiscent of a parody of Jesus. Courage is not the absence of fear, said Ambrose Redmoon. And after we learn that God is on their side, we cease to care about the characters, recognizing that they will emerge as victors even in the case of gory death.
(There is a scene involving an old, black-and-white film, which could be genuinely spooky that is if it did not yield in to modern cinematography and CGI.)
All in all, pretty good.
demor21524 May 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I was debating watching this new mini, but I'm glad I did. I like the book, with some reservations. I hate the way Stephen King kills off small children. That just doesn't set well with me. Having said that, it is still a good story and is well written. The t.v. adaptation was very true to the book and I thought well put together. Mr. King is certainly improving his screen play writing abilities. The dialog flowed well and was easy to follow, as opposed to "The Stand" (which I dearly love despite its many flaws) where sometimes the dialog left you wondering if the characters were even in the same scene.
I found the scenes with the spiders and snakes to be especially scary and well done. I thought the acting was good and Ron Perlman's performance was excellent. As usual, there was enough humor at the right times to break the tension where needed. Overall, a good result.
I found the scenes with the spiders and snakes to be especially scary and well done. I thought the acting was good and Ron Perlman's performance was excellent. As usual, there was enough humor at the right times to break the tension where needed. Overall, a good result.
More of a Rough Draft
toilet_poodle24 May 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I thought the pseudo-theology presented here was unbelievable, unconvincing and TAKed together badly. If you read the book, maybe you can help me patch things together, because the movie certainly didn't. What is TAK? As a deity, he's pathetic. You can go to his home and blow it up... most gods don't have an actual residence, or talk to you in electronic-sounding colloquialisms. Too bad his, umm, hole got violated though. Are all animals pretty much subject to him, indiscriminately? Is he based on ANYTHING at all? Native American? What did the 2 Chinese miners have to do with him? Did they simply unleash him and get taken over, was TAK supposed to be of Asian origin? Did they bring him there? What? Why were there dead bodies everywhere, but that select little group (unharmed) in the jail? Why not just kill them right away? How does it make sense to kill the little girl and leave the grown-ups alive? I was waiting to see what the predictable group of strangers had in common, but there wasn't anything. "Collie Entragian" - I thought maybe that name was supposed to be a clue, or a joke I didn't get. Still not sure... Another great name was "Pie," the soap-carrying ghost sister. David seemed like a sad Christian reincarnation of (what's his name, the kid from the Shining). What's with Stephen King and his fixation on kids with eerie powers and pseudo-divine connections anyway (Shining, Pet Sematary, Firestarter)? And will he ever just get over himself, and do something that does not involve a writer as a main character? Doesn't this seem a bit recycled?
Fans of the book will like it. King fans who haven't... might.
WyllyWylly7 July 2012
I read Desperation (and its twin, the Regulators) years ago when they were released and like most King novels, though "gee, this would be a good movie if done right." I never knew about the miniseries and found it here on IMDb. Upon that discovery, my internal argument went: "Five stars, meh. King wrote the teleplay though, so it can't be all bad."
I took the plunge, watching this with my wife. I've read it, she has not. We are both King fans and enjoy his work. And in the end, we both like this production.
The teleplay closely follows the novel, and there are plenty of details for those who have read it. The casting could have been better, I think - all of the actors involved seemed a little less than convincing but they also weren't phoning it in. Ron Perlman was great as the lead bad guy, and as a reader he was just what I expected. Tom Skerrit was the other big name that people will know, and I didn't think he was enough of an asshole (the character in the book most decidedly is).
The movie itself plays out more like a horror flick of King's in the vein of Carrie or his earlier work, which is not a bad thing, but I felt it detracted from the deeper story underneath at times. I would have preferred more character development but again, King wrote the teleplay and if he felt it told the story, I can live with that. Kudos to King for providing the back story that is necessary to the plot in a concise way that the movie format needed instead of trying to weave it in more subtly.
My wife, having not read the book, had more questions about what was going on at times but agreed that it kept her interest right up through the end. Thus, my recommendation is to watch this if you like King's work, but it would not be an introduction to his world. I also believe that reading the book first will deepen your enjoyment of the movie because it, too, holds your interest and keeps you wondering.
I took the plunge, watching this with my wife. I've read it, she has not. We are both King fans and enjoy his work. And in the end, we both like this production.
The teleplay closely follows the novel, and there are plenty of details for those who have read it. The casting could have been better, I think - all of the actors involved seemed a little less than convincing but they also weren't phoning it in. Ron Perlman was great as the lead bad guy, and as a reader he was just what I expected. Tom Skerrit was the other big name that people will know, and I didn't think he was enough of an asshole (the character in the book most decidedly is).
The movie itself plays out more like a horror flick of King's in the vein of Carrie or his earlier work, which is not a bad thing, but I felt it detracted from the deeper story underneath at times. I would have preferred more character development but again, King wrote the teleplay and if he felt it told the story, I can live with that. Kudos to King for providing the back story that is necessary to the plot in a concise way that the movie format needed instead of trying to weave it in more subtly.
My wife, having not read the book, had more questions about what was going on at times but agreed that it kept her interest right up through the end. Thus, my recommendation is to watch this if you like King's work, but it would not be an introduction to his world. I also believe that reading the book first will deepen your enjoyment of the movie because it, too, holds your interest and keeps you wondering.
So-so King adaptation
bowmanblue6 July 2014
Stephen King's books have a habit of being hit and miss when they make the transfer from paper to the screen. In fact, more of them have been 'misses' that 'hits.' This one falls into that grey area somewhere in between.
As per usual, anyone who's read the book 'Desperation' is based on laments how it's been interpreted on the big screen. I hear it's best to just read the book. It was supposed to be a two (or more?) part TV mini series, but, in the end, got turned into a 'made-for-TV' movie. It runs at about two and half hours and – sometimes – feels every bit as long.
It's about a collection of various characters who all get (unfairly) 'caught' by – the slightly unhinged – Sheriff of a town in the middle of nowhere, subtly called 'Desperation.' Then, once incarcerated inside his cells, they have to come up with a way of escaping from more than just the immediate bars that surround them.
First of all, it's worth mentioning that we have Ron Perlman on the cast list, who – as usual – turns in a brilliant performance as the afore-mentioned nutter-Sheriff. Any fans of Ron's will enjoy the film just on his appearance. However, what's left is good and bad as the rag-tag band of survivors try to figure out what happened. It's a bit like The Stand, only not as long and therefore with a 'rushed' feel in places and 'not enough information' in others.
Also, it's worth noting that the film relies heavily on 'God' to move the plot forwards. Atheists beware – they may get a little tired of everything the Almighty doing being right all the time.
It's not a great King adaptation, but it's certainly not the worst either. Enjoy it for its perks and do your best to forgive it for the parts when it drags a bit.
http://thewrongtreemoviereviews.blogspot.co.uk/
As per usual, anyone who's read the book 'Desperation' is based on laments how it's been interpreted on the big screen. I hear it's best to just read the book. It was supposed to be a two (or more?) part TV mini series, but, in the end, got turned into a 'made-for-TV' movie. It runs at about two and half hours and – sometimes – feels every bit as long.
It's about a collection of various characters who all get (unfairly) 'caught' by – the slightly unhinged – Sheriff of a town in the middle of nowhere, subtly called 'Desperation.' Then, once incarcerated inside his cells, they have to come up with a way of escaping from more than just the immediate bars that surround them.
First of all, it's worth mentioning that we have Ron Perlman on the cast list, who – as usual – turns in a brilliant performance as the afore-mentioned nutter-Sheriff. Any fans of Ron's will enjoy the film just on his appearance. However, what's left is good and bad as the rag-tag band of survivors try to figure out what happened. It's a bit like The Stand, only not as long and therefore with a 'rushed' feel in places and 'not enough information' in others.
Also, it's worth noting that the film relies heavily on 'God' to move the plot forwards. Atheists beware – they may get a little tired of everything the Almighty doing being right all the time.
It's not a great King adaptation, but it's certainly not the worst either. Enjoy it for its perks and do your best to forgive it for the parts when it drags a bit.
http://thewrongtreemoviereviews.blogspot.co.uk/
It was going so well...
aghosh6914 December 2006
So I am a big fan of Stephen King novels and movies alike and there is rarely a time i argue about a movie that deviates from a book. I haven't read the book before I watched the movie and still there was something very off about it. I should have been aware that Stephen King movies like to keep a low profile on the movie synopsis and it was a treat to see how well this movie started off. It was good... till the lead up to the conclusion. I couldn't help but comment on Ron Pearlman's character (and obviously the actors acting that brought the character to life. Had a good suspense and definitely an attention grabbing flow to the movie. But the ending... it seemed rushed.. there was too many questions and there was never a proper explanation (hell there was no explanation) for this... this... weird phenomena. Of course considering its something like another portal and supernatural but there was never really a very good connection between the questioning of faith in God and this bizarre incident. The ending was waay too rushed and the cool setup of "Tack" by Pearlman suddenly became a big time wuss... this movie would have made it to a 5 had it not disappointed me so much with the conclusion... Still its a movie anyone can enjoy and of course not all would find it as disappointing as I did.
Long lonely highway.
michaelRokeefe10 October 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Stephen King condenses a teleplay out of his mega-page novel DESPERATION. Unsuspecting travelers along I-50 are arrested by a small-town corrupt sheriff(Ron Perlman)and put in cells at the sheriff's office in the small deserted town of Desperation Nevada. But right away each prisoner realizes that there is something not right with the sheriff. Among the prisoners are a couple with a young boy(Shane Haboucha), who has discovered the will and ways of the Lord and calls on him to help fight the powers of evil in Desperation. An eclectic writer(Tom Skerritt), one of the latest to be arrested, has his own egotistical ways to deal with their situation with the supernatural. The evil spirit enters a new body after wearing out the one its using.
Also starring are: Steven Weber, Annabeth Gish, Matt Frewer, Charles Durning and Henry Thomas. Perlman is absolutely perfect and Skerritt is no slouch himself. This happens to be the sixth Stephen King story to be directed by Mick Garris. The typical old story of all that is good vs unbridled evil has that masterful touch of King; and for his fans, this is not to be missed.
Also starring are: Steven Weber, Annabeth Gish, Matt Frewer, Charles Durning and Henry Thomas. Perlman is absolutely perfect and Skerritt is no slouch himself. This happens to be the sixth Stephen King story to be directed by Mick Garris. The typical old story of all that is good vs unbridled evil has that masterful touch of King; and for his fans, this is not to be missed.
As to be expected, it's not a great book-to-film translation but is as true to the books as possible.
addzi_the_dark_one22 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I loved Desperation and The Regulators, well, the books anyway. So when I saw that a made-for-TV film based on Desperation was out there, I felt compelled to check it out.
The characters read very much the same dialogue from the book (the teleplay was written by King), but they lack the conviction and emotional balance that was a big part of the book. The way they look has been accurately captured in the film, especially with Collie Entragian. Ron Perlman was definitely the man for the job.
Unfortunately, the film fails to keep any kind of pace and the suspense and tension are wasted. I didn't feel a whole lot for the characters and wasn't sad to see a lot of them wiped out by Tak.
The Stand was of a far better quality than this, so there's no excuse as to why this couldn't have been done here.
A bit lazy, really.
The characters read very much the same dialogue from the book (the teleplay was written by King), but they lack the conviction and emotional balance that was a big part of the book. The way they look has been accurately captured in the film, especially with Collie Entragian. Ron Perlman was definitely the man for the job.
Unfortunately, the film fails to keep any kind of pace and the suspense and tension are wasted. I didn't feel a whole lot for the characters and wasn't sad to see a lot of them wiped out by Tak.
The Stand was of a far better quality than this, so there's no excuse as to why this couldn't have been done here.
A bit lazy, really.
Good TV Film
Bob_the_Hobo24 November 2010
I'm a big fan of Stephen King's Desperation (the novel) so I was excited for the cast when it was released. I was not disappointed.
Ron Perlman plays Collie Entragian, a Sheriff's Deputy who, along with the rest of the small town of Desperation, has gone through a considerable change. Now he kidnaps anyone near his middle-of-nowhere town, and locks them in his city filled with the dead. Soon we find that he is no longer Collie, in fact something from below has taken over...
This was a fun movie, very enjoyable. The acting is really good, with Steven Weber, Charles Durning, and Tom Skeritt rounding out the cast besides Perlman. The effects are good as well.
Overall a good TV movie. Enjoy.
Ron Perlman plays Collie Entragian, a Sheriff's Deputy who, along with the rest of the small town of Desperation, has gone through a considerable change. Now he kidnaps anyone near his middle-of-nowhere town, and locks them in his city filled with the dead. Soon we find that he is no longer Collie, in fact something from below has taken over...
This was a fun movie, very enjoyable. The acting is really good, with Steven Weber, Charles Durning, and Tom Skeritt rounding out the cast besides Perlman. The effects are good as well.
Overall a good TV movie. Enjoy.
Tak!
Hey_Sweden13 October 2019
This TV movie, scripted by Stephen King himself from his own best-seller, concerns a very isolated area of Nevada where a demonic cop named Collie Entragian (Ron Perlman) has started to abduct travellers and hold them prisoner inside his jail cells. Among his victims are an egomaniacal writer (Tom Skerritt), a kindly old veterinarian (Charles Durning), a family in an RV, and a young wife (Annabeth Gish). What we find out is that the real Evil is not Entragian, but something within him; a boy named David (Shane Haboucha) turns to God and prayer for the answers.
This viewer found this rather engaging entertainment, definitely better than expected. Mick Garris, a veteran interpreter of Kings' works, does well as director, creating a bizarre and twisted world where dead bodies are littered throughout streets, and where countless dogs and other animals serve as the eyes and ears of the true villain of the piece. Granted, the mythology that King created for this story can get goofy, with a lot of silly dialogue, but he also gives his audience a chance to ponder the whole nature of God and faith. In any event, this is a compelling situation in which the protagonists are placed, and the whole idea of characters uniting to combat an ultimate Evil is always worth exploring.
A pretty strong cast is assembled here. Skerritt is obliged to play a real Jerk of a man who might not be redeemable. The wonderful Durning reels off exposition with style. Steven Weber is amiable as Skerritts' loyal employee who picks up a sexy hitchhiker played by the delightful Kelly Overton. Haboucha is appealing as the kid who does find his faith severely tested towards the end of the picture. Matt Frewer is good as the kids' dad. And Perlman clearly has so much fun as the maniacal Entragian that you miss him once he disappears from the story. He's the best thing in it.
Overall, a fun movie (originally planned as a two part miniseries, but whittled down to a three-hour, one night TV movie); its ending is somewhat underwhelming, but it has enough good stuff in it (effects by Gregory Nicotero and Howard Berger, music by Nicholas Pike, etc.) to make it palatable.
Seven out of 10.
This viewer found this rather engaging entertainment, definitely better than expected. Mick Garris, a veteran interpreter of Kings' works, does well as director, creating a bizarre and twisted world where dead bodies are littered throughout streets, and where countless dogs and other animals serve as the eyes and ears of the true villain of the piece. Granted, the mythology that King created for this story can get goofy, with a lot of silly dialogue, but he also gives his audience a chance to ponder the whole nature of God and faith. In any event, this is a compelling situation in which the protagonists are placed, and the whole idea of characters uniting to combat an ultimate Evil is always worth exploring.
A pretty strong cast is assembled here. Skerritt is obliged to play a real Jerk of a man who might not be redeemable. The wonderful Durning reels off exposition with style. Steven Weber is amiable as Skerritts' loyal employee who picks up a sexy hitchhiker played by the delightful Kelly Overton. Haboucha is appealing as the kid who does find his faith severely tested towards the end of the picture. Matt Frewer is good as the kids' dad. And Perlman clearly has so much fun as the maniacal Entragian that you miss him once he disappears from the story. He's the best thing in it.
Overall, a fun movie (originally planned as a two part miniseries, but whittled down to a three-hour, one night TV movie); its ending is somewhat underwhelming, but it has enough good stuff in it (effects by Gregory Nicotero and Howard Berger, music by Nicholas Pike, etc.) to make it palatable.
Seven out of 10.
Name suits it well
MartianOctocretr512 July 2009
Desperation time, alright. Ron Pearlman hams it up in what appears to be a satire of his own satire character, Hellboy. Annabeth Gish and Tom Skerrit aren't bad in their roles, but the paper thin script and atrocious direction give them very little to do. The remaining cast members blandly deliver expository lines that lead nowhere.
Stephen King has had both success and failure in adapting other books he has written for the screen. This one goes to the goof-ups list. The script meanders wildly, without any cohesion. It's hard to take anything seriously, as the same slick-wannabe camera work shows us people towering like giants from an ant's point of view. Why things are happening as they are? You won't know, and you probably won't care, either. Clichés like the old "evil entity possessing a peace officer" routine are rampant.
Still, it can pass the time if you're really bored. But don't expect much.
Stephen King has had both success and failure in adapting other books he has written for the screen. This one goes to the goof-ups list. The script meanders wildly, without any cohesion. It's hard to take anything seriously, as the same slick-wannabe camera work shows us people towering like giants from an ant's point of view. Why things are happening as they are? You won't know, and you probably won't care, either. Clichés like the old "evil entity possessing a peace officer" routine are rampant.
Still, it can pass the time if you're really bored. But don't expect much.
Can't believe King did the screenplay
papadea195325 May 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I have seen this movie, and I read some of the boards. I have to agree with many that this was one of the worst adaptations I have ever seen and I cannot believe that Stephen King actually let this thing go through to production. While it is true I did not read the book, if it was as bad as the movie, I feel sorry for all of you who slogged through it. This being said, I have to say that I also did not read "Misery", "Cujo", "The Green Mile", "Shawshank Redemption", "Stand By Me", ad infinitum. There were also VERY many I DID read however, including The Dead Zone, The Stand, It, Salem's Lot, ad infinitum, and EVERYTHING that I have seen before THIS (including the fore-mentioned that I did not read) movie has never been less than excellent. I believe in this whole thing I must blame the director. The director, and the producer, are ultimately the ones to blame for a movie making it or failing. Even Creepshow was better produced and directed than this thing and it was obviously on a lower budget. I found the dialog somewhat stilted and the boy a bit farcical. The religious aspect ("We must love God and Serve God", "God is cruel", "God must be everything" trichotomy) was a bit hard to stomach. I'm wondering where Mr. King is headed these days. I just hope that Stephen King comes out of his depression over this movie quite soon and gets back to his old form.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
