User reviews

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.

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...

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.

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!!!!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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/

I just wanted to say after finishing Desperation I felt like I had wasted three hours of my life. I have been an avid King fan for years but all I can say is I hope the book was better than the movie. Someone tell me it is please !!! I wont give anything away for those that were lucky enough not have seen it. Now lets see what did this movie lack ? For starters plot. The plot was thinner than Kate Moss and there was no character development, which King normally in his worst novels still does well. This movie had zero. This was the biggest mess of a battle between good and evil I have ever seen. In closing to any one who did not watch it on ABC last night I beg of you don't waste your money even renting this if it ever comes out on DVD. Again if the book was better great!