Stranger with My Face

I didnt know it was the Lois Duncan book until later on in the movie. I read the book as a kid. It wasnt a great plot. But it was okay. The movie itself wasnt any better and such a disappointment. It was boring and sadly white washed, which is annoying because the main character is Native American, which was one rarity when the book came out. Overall, the changes were the regular Hollywood changes. It had some parts true to the book but it was largely disappointing. Oh well, its a tv movie. I would not recommend even if I didnt read the book.

I am not a syfy fan but the film had enough "Lifetime" in it that I really didn't notice the syfy. However the script supervisor was off their game...again.

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.

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.