Stranger with My Face

comparing the movie with the book is a mistake. using the book as a jumping off point for the movie is a better choice. i thought that the tone of the movie was what the book was aiming for. as a comparison, i thought the feel of i know what you did last summer was totally off in the movie as compared to what the author was aiming at in the novel. i think alexz played both characters very well, the last scene was totally perfect. personally i wish the look was more 70s which is when the book was written, it was weird to see it updated to a modern version. i read the book all through the 80s. in general i am a Lois Duncan fan and i think her novels are very original and can be used as new ideas for movies, because so many movies use the same plots with different characters.

actually, Lois Duncan was very pleased with their decision on the script. if you would of checked more into it you would of found that out. it wasn't terrible at all. i don't think they could have chosen a better cast. and the leading woman, miss Alexz Johnson did an amazing job. especially under the pressure of playing twins with completely different personality. instead of judging on the differences between the book and movie, judge on the talent they put into it.

there are major differences between the book and the movie its self but honestly i found it to make the movie much more interesting. i like the connection they made with painting, and how the other twin could not match that. it gave way for the mother to find out the truth about the soul that was no longer her daughters. you guys will just have to check it out.

It was one of my favorite books by Lois Duncan. The Acting and the script was terrible...though I would blame it on the Director...every actor reading lines as if the film was made in the early 80's, because they're all saying their lines the same way Heather Langencamp and Ronnie Blakely did in Elm Street.

Lois Duncan wrote a Great story. The film ruined it.

I had gained a huge obsession with with the novel Stranger with My Face, written by Lois Duncan, after reading it 3 times.

Books that get made into movies always get bad feedback, for example: Twilight, The Da Vinci Code etc. So don't be surprised if you find yourself hating this film. There have been large changes to the movie compared to the novel. Laurie is originally Indian looking, unfortunately, she is casted with Alexz Johnson who is a blonde white girl. Significant characters; Neal, Meghan and her Father had been removed from the story. The existing characters are also very different however they are somewhat likable. The casting in this is film is good based on the screenplay, yet horrible compared to the novel. As much as I liked the novel I found myself connecting well with the loosely based characters; Laurie, Helen, Gordon, Shelley and Alexis.

I did enjoy the film, but I enjoyed the book better. I am a huge fan of horror films and I can adapt well with straight to DVD/TV films. If you enjoyed the book you may not enjoy the movie as huge changes have been made. Its not a great movie. But its not a horrible movie. I'd rather watch this instead of "Wrong Turn 2" or "Joy Ride 2."

Give it a chance see if you like it. Its not terrible and trust me its better than most movies that weren't released in theaters.

I waited and waited and waited for this movie to get better, and when it did, it was too late. I kept referring back to the book, which was very detailed, and although I understand it is normal to take poetic license with a book, there were a few glaring errors: (WARNING: POSSIBLE SPOILERS)

1. James Stratton doesn't die in the book, and it is Shelley (the mother) who is the painter, NOT Laurie.

2. Helen Tuttle is the one who introduces Laurie to 'astral projection' in the novel..they completely destroyed her character in the movie, making her a somewhat psychic, but unbelieving character, making believe that Laurie suddenly 'discovered' astral projection' on her own.

3. The Native American aspect was totally ignored, as mentioned in the last post. It is the fetish that is supposed to protect Laurie and has a very prominent story point at the end of the novel.

For the most part, it was only during the last part of the movie did the true nature of Lois Duncan's excellent YA novel come through...but for me it was a waste of time. 2 out of 5 stars. I am sure Lois Duncan didn't approve of this. I'd love to hear what she thought.