Cleveronix A different way of telling a story

MusicChat It's complicated... I really like the directing, acting and writing but, there are issues with the way it's shot that I just can't deny. As much as I love the storytelling and the fantastic performance but, there are also certain scenes that didn't need to exist.

Zandra The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

Fleur Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

tedrico SUBSTANDARD ACTING & FX. however ... for the most part, like most Stephen King movies (not all), this was a B-rate film! Having read the "Regulators" by Stephen King but not "Desperation" by Richard Bachman (King's pseudo name). I was left wondering why the 2 don't quite match up ... or perhaps they do! In the film, "Desperation", God is a character with no equivalent in the book, "The Regulators". And in "The Regulators", Seth is a character with no equivalent in "Desperation". Or... is the Seth character the parallel universe equivalent of the God character in "Desperation"? If you've read them and are familiar with Seth -- you can certainly see a parallel between the two as Supreme & All Powerful Creator. The first hour of this film, is utter garbage, but it picks up immensely via use of Black & White flashback footage, that shows the viewing audience how the demon, "Tak", was unleashed from deep within the Nevada Silver Mines in the first place. This film adaptation only rates 2 stars in my book. NUFF SAID!

Anders Olsen Well, this is actually my fav King story. Not that I don't like Shining, Mile, It etc. there's just something about this one, I really like. As with all books, you put your own faces on the characters, which makes it kind of hard to say whether or not, a cast is right or wrong. In this case, I will pick 3 people out. First and foremost, Steven Webber. Not that I have anything agains him, but he bares no resemblance of the Steve Ames in the story. I don't want to get into a lot about it here, it simply makes no point. Read the book, you'll see for yourself. Cynthia Smith. Again, she does not bare any visual resemblance to a girl, that is described as Orphan Annie From Hell. In the book, she comes across as a bit naive, but sharp witted and humorous. Not so much here though. And that's a shame, she's a great character in the book, one eaaily connects with. The last is Tom Billingsly the Vet. He's a lot more edgey in the book than in the movie. I don't know why that switch was made. But that goes for all the characters I've mentioned here.The rest of the cast fits pretty well, Ron Pearlman, should have played a bit more on the false sense of security and kindness Entragian originally uses.The speed of the movie, I don't get. You don't see how the Carvers got there, you don't get the background story of what has happened over the last few days. Only short bits anyway. There's also made changes that generally don't make sense, both in terms of storyline and characters.For what it is, it's an OK piece of made for TV film. But do yourself a favour, read the novel fist.It's one of those

wryterzblock 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...

WyllyWylly 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.