उपयोगकर्ता समीक्षाएं

OK book adaptation - acting was fine but the movie storyline was very choppy and didn't allow for real character development. Although I like Heather Locklear, I would not have cast her in this role. In the novel, Reese is a brunette in her late 20's - a Rachel McAdams-type would have better suited the part. Jonathan Schaech was decent as Brody but again the lack of character development leaves you not really caring about anybody in this movie. Overall the movie leaves out some of the best climax moments in the book and the moments that are captured in the movie seem forced and over the top. Where Nora Roberts' novel draws the reader in with realized characters and steady plot flow, this movie speeds through this sleepy Wyoming town barely giving you a real glimpse into the story itself.

I am an avid Nora Robert's fan, so I was pretty happy the movie stayed close to the book. Many times when a book is changed to movie the soul of the book is lost, I didn't find this to be the case here. I didn't really like the flashback scenes, I found them to be too chaotic and hard to follow most of the time. Maybe this time could have been better spent giving some more time with Reese and Joni. Their dynamics and eventual friendship, in the book, enables healing for Reese. Without Brody's love and Joni's friendship would she have been able to come so far in such a short time? I don't think so! Regarding the cast: Johnathon Schaech, WOW! Can you say HOTTIE!!! He is a perfect Brody, just cute enough to be wanted by women, just rugged enough to be like by men. However; Reese is suppose to be a young woman beginning her career when her life changing event occurred, therefore: I hate to say it, but I do believe that Heather Locklear, while still beautiful, is too old for the part of Reese.

I thought Lifetime did a decent job adapting this fantastic novel into a movie. But come on, Heather Locklear? Isn't she a little old for the leading role (and the leading man)? I really enjoyed the Joanie character, but I would have liked to see more of Mac Drubber and Linda-gail. The setting of this film was superb, I loved all the scenic views. But again, I found myself wishing for more. I felt like this film was lacking the relationship between the characters. We probably could have seen more of the "crazy" side of Reece.

I was able to watch the whole movie, but the casting was pretty poor. Hopefully the next Nora Roberts film will be better.

This movie had many of the elements I love in a television film: suspense, intrigue, romance and, believe it or not, location. There were plenty of all in this film.

I have never been much of a Heather Locklear fan, but she shined in this film. It opened in a beautiful Wyoming town (whose location was actually the picturesque Alberta, Canada). She appears a bit distraught and nervous as her car breaks down in the town of Angels Fall. As she has a professional culinary background, as well as a need to pay her bills, she immediately procures a job as a cook at the local diner. Her delicious cooking, as well as her mysterious past, quickly make her a town favorite and a subject of gossip.

Jonathon Schaech plays a brooding writer who has recently relocated to the town. His initial demeanor, which could be interpreted as menacing, quickly turns to friendship, then romance with Locklear. After she witnesses a murder in the forest and the authorities find no evidence, there are rumors her mental state is deteriorating, compounded by a tragic event in her past. Schaech's character is her only champion, sleuthing the murder with her as well as helping her keep a grip on her sanity.

I am a Nora Roberts fan and this book I really loved. I think the movie is OK. Not great, but all right. At least they kept to the story. I see why it is described as a TV movie. It is made decently, but it has nothing extra.

I understand that they needed to squeeze everything in to the movie and that they had to cut some scenes. But some things could have done with some more attention. Like the scene when Reece sees the woman get killed.

Most things, like persons and scenes in the movie are the way imagined them. Most of the persons look like they are described in the book. Ther is 1 'BUT'. I usually like Heather Locklear, but giving a 46 year old woman the role of a 28 year old character is a bit of a stretch, I think.

where the faces are different, but the underlying message is still the same. This is a brand-new movie, and yet I've seen it a thousand times before.

The last fifteen minutes of it are as predictable as a sunrise, right from the opening credits.

Can the Hollywood producers not come up with a different idea, a new ending for their so called "thriller"s? Do they still believe that this type of ending has any thrill at all, when it's been done so many times? I'm not familiar with Nora Roberts as a writer, but this looks like it could well have been written by Mary Higgins Clark, or by me, for that matter.

I wouldn't rate this higher than 4 on the Richter scale.

I've seen some of the other Nora Roberts' novels that were made into movies. But, this is the first time that I've read the book and watched the movie. While the book did draw me in and kept me reading, the movie just didn't pull at me. I felt that the movie contained a lot of teasers, but didn't expand upon them. One example was Reese telling Joanie that there needs to be fresh herbs. The movie ends with us not knowing whether Joanie got those fresh herbs.

Personally, I thought Heather Locklear was too old to play the part of Reese Gilmore. I like Ms. Locklear and think she is a good actress when she is cast in the right role: Sammy Jo Dean Carrington in Dynasty, one of her best characters.

Understanding that this movie was a made for TV movie and had to work within time constraints, it could have been presented differently and still told the story in a way that would have kept my interest. I would suggest that if you haven't read the book yet, don't read the book until after you've watched the movie.

I have long been a fan of Nora Roberts, but never had the chance to see any of her work retold in a movie. It was definitely worth the wait.

I don't think the plot was altered all that much from how the story was originally told, although there were some things added or changed a bit to throw suspicion around.

The parts that were cut from the story(understandably) did not detract from the movie version - both were excellent.

I could identify with both of the lead actors as playing their characters straight from the book. Johnathon Schaech was especially good as Brody and was well matched with Heather Locklear as Reese. The other characters fit in almost as well, with some minor differences that I had pictured in my mind. But, of course, everyone sees things a bit differently.

I hope the next three movies are done as well as this one was.

All of you who wrote positive reviews, what movie were you watching? There are so many things wrong with this movie, it would take hours to list them all.

I've been reading Nora Roberts' books since her first serial romance way back when. She is a great writer and writes great books. I was somewhat surprised to see her name attached to this movie as a consultant, because if I were her, I'd sue. This movie was awful. The only thing the movie was true to was the characters, location and concept. So much was left out and altered I believe a name change would have prevented me from realizing it was based on the book.

Heather Locklear was way too old and I think it was her plastic surgery that got in the way of expression. Other than the freaky flashbacks (which seemed to focus on electric shock therapy that I don't even remember from the book) and the obvious scenes (sleeping in the tub or with a knife) I never bought her as Robert's freaked-out-Reece.

Brody was perfectly cast, although they played him much softer than he was in the book (I'm not commenting on the performance just the appearance, as I believe, to a large degree, good or bad acting, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder).

The remaining characters didn't play well for me, particularly Lo, and I was disgusted with their pathetic and obvious attempts at distraction using Lo as a red herring. . . just sad.

They included so many odd details from the book that never went anywhere in the movie, for instance, Reece kept mentioning the herbs, but nothing ever happened (in the book, Joanie allowed her to purchase some) and the Lo/Linda Gail romance, as abbreviated as it was in the movie, should have been left out as it was distracting and, for someone who read the book, left hanging and useless.

Read her books and skip the movies. It was ridiculous, but then I was pretty sure it would be. I won't waste my time with Montana Sky.

If you read the book you can tell within the first 10-15 minutes of the movie that it is going to suck. So to help keep my ranting down I will list the issues I have with the movie rather than go into deep detail.

1. Reece is suppose to be in her early twenties and not her forties. It wouldn't be so bad if Ms. Locklear could have at least pass off as in her mid thirties and her botox didn't make her face look swollen. Swollen face does not equal looking like you are 20-some years younger.

2. Reece has PTSD, tendencies and is OCD. When being questioned about the cook job she is smiling some time, flippant about having her car break down and can't leave and too perky. When questioned about how long she'd been on the road she is annoyed. Never once did she come across nervous during the "interview" nor when she got behind the grill. She's suppose to be uneasy and anxious.

3. Movie shows Reece sleeping in the bathtub with the door closed. Reece has issues with small space. She was traumatized by being shot inside a closet so doesn't like small spaces. There is a point in the book where she is taking a bubble bath and said other times she had tried with the door locked but always ended up scrambling out of the tub to open the door. When she has the door open can't be in there for that long. Even when she showers she has to recite multiplications to get through being in there. With all that said, there is no way in hell she would sleep in the bathroom with the door shut.

4. Joanie is way too nice/soft spoken. Joanie IS a nice person but she doesn't use kid gloves, is rough spoken, straight to the point and pretty much is the kind of "tough love" person. The kind that will be like "that sucks, i am really sorry that happened but it can help make you stronger so get on with it". She won't pity you but push/help you move on.

5. The "panic attack" that she had in the store never happened. That was royally stupid, dumb and definitely a WTF moment. In the book she was happy and excited about buying stuff for a place she was going to live in. So if you read the book and see that BS in the movie it will definitely be a "Thats effing retarded!" And then Brody WALKING the box of stuff to her place. I understand they did that to cut time out and jumble their meeting, the backfire Reece thought was gun and her moving into the pace together but still it was stupid. In the book Brody got roped into helping her bring her stuff to the apartment is because he had a car and she had more than just one box of stuff. I won't even start in on how bad Locklear's acting was on trying to look terrified of thinking the sound of a car backfire was a shot gun. The movie plays down Reece's fears and what she was going through. That right there ruined and voided important parts of the story. The story itself isn't just a love murder story but also to see how Reece over comes her battle with the tragedy in her past.

6. When Reece was on the cliff seeing the murder taking place she never tried to run to them to stop the murder in the book. In the movie she saw it happening, without thinking starts to go towards them, almost falling off the cliff, falls down to her backwards, has a flash back, gets back up to see them suddenly gone, stumbles/runs down the trail, out of now where Brody scares her. In the book Reece ran into Brody, before seeing the murder, on the trail while she was hiking up. Brody's reason for being there, he was doing research since he was "killing someone up there later" in his book. Reece goes to the cliff sees a guy strangle a girl till she stops moving, turns around, runs back down the path and literally runs into Brody on the trail rather than him coming out of nowhere. It's only when she is stumbling back down the trail, before she ran into Brody the second time, that she starts to get what she just saw and her memory mixing together. She is indifferent in the movie saying "She's dead. There is nothing we can do for her now" and Brody is the one who says to call the sheriff. In the book she is hysterical and wants to get help. BIG difference in attitude. The little snip in the movie after the sheriff left seemed ridiculously stupid considering the way she was before. In the book it makes sense since she was scared, upset and wanted to get help. In the movie, nope, it was retarded.

Honestly, the list goes on and on but we are limited on how many words we can put in here. So these were just the major complaints that affect the whole movie and those were in just 30 minutes into it. If I added the smaller ones and the other issues from the rest of the movie, it would never fit here.

My recommendation, don't watch the movie and read the book. If you can't read the book then listen to the unabridged audio book. It is almost 15 hours long but worth the time where the movie isn't worth the botox Heather Locklear use to try to look younger.

I really enjoyed this book and so I may have set my expectations for the movie a little too high - I was a bit disappointed. Although the movie followed the book closely, I thought that Heather Locklear was too old for the character of Reese. She also did not fit the book's description of Reese. I also believed that the actress that played Joanie was not a good fit and she was not as important a character in the movie as she was in the book. Jonathan Schaech, however, was a wonderful choice for Brody as was the actor that played the doctor. I still enjoyed the movie. I should have known better than to expect the movie to be as good as the book.

Being slim and petite, Heather Locklear was believable in this role, but age-wise a bit long-in-tooth in terms of her age versus the part's. She's also nearly a decade older than her co-star/romantic interest - so perhaps the time's arrived for Heather to enter into more mature roles.

One of the others within this comment section termed the Brody character as "brooding." A better adjective couldn't be chosen.

No surprise, a made-for -TV ," Lifetime" flick, while set in the U.S., actually filmed in Canada. However, the town of Canmore, Alberta, provided outstanding setting and scenery - and is a place I believe I'd enjoy visiting sometime.

The "gal-on-the-run-fleeing-a-past-traumiaic-experience" is one which has been done several times in "Lifetime" and similar genre (perhaps not as frequently as the psychotic neighbor, or spouse with a hidden past, but fairly close).

This flick was kind of like an all right - but not sensational - meal, but where there weren't any condiments to ease its blandness.

The actors here were all competent, but I realized what the problem was when I could here the audio, but had to be out of view for a couple of times. All films, plays and TV dramas/comedies have rehearsal readings, and sometimes stage presentations are produced with "readings" rather than actors in costume and on-set.

The performances in this flick made all of the actors sound like they were doing a reading rather than truly acting in their roles. They did this ably, but there was a wooden, static quality throughout.

Give it a 5* - might be one less if weren't for the scenery.

I actually love this movie. Love the locations/ scenery- and the story. Is it Academy Award material? No- but it's doesn't claim to be anything then what it is- I watch it every Fall-

What a bunch of incompetent idiots. They hire Locklear, and photograph her so that she ends up looking like Jocelyn Wildenstein. They hire aging uber-hunk Schaech, show him ripping off his shirt in steamy scenes, and then don't show his chest. Who knows, maybe Locklear was having a bad-face day, and Schaech was having a bad-chest day.

I felt sorry for the actors having to grind their way through this stuff; I guess its an indication of how difficult it is for them to find decent roles. The story is unusually dumb, and does a disservice to people with serious mental problems who have been helped by some of the procedures depicted.