A Face Oculta

Ok.. I was planning to give this one a bad review, and when I found out that I saw the 127 minute edited version and not the hour longer original version, it just came clear to me how lucky I was. In short, if you've ever seen a thriller before then you will know all the twists and turns and it's just boring and bad. As for the "effects" when Stephen Baldwin wrestles himself... we just fell over laughing. And if you've ever read more than one Dean R. Koontz book then you probably know it involves a government experiment gone wrong. Avoid. Please.

I felt compelled to write this review, although not much to my satisfaction. If you liked this movie, read the book, the book is a real piece of art. I regard myself as probably Mr. Koontz' biggest fan in Mexico. The movie, to be honest, is once again proof that his novels are real hard to put onto screen due to their amazingly crafted content. The cast, very disappointing. Stephen Baldwin is a great actor, just watch "The Usual Suspects", but the direction is to blame in this one, he just doesn't come up to the expectations of the colorful Martin Stillwater from the novel, far from it. And even more, miles away from reaching the powerful role of Alfie. The girls render a fairly good performance but obviously not helped by the director.

The scene where he reads the story is a moment to remember in the book, while in the movie it just comes out mellow and way too corny and cliched, at least some effort was made to remain truthful to the scene in the book.

It's a shame that no one has ever reached the power to render a good Koontz' story on the big (or even the small) screen. As a screenwriter one of my greatest wishes is to write an adaptation, particularly for "lightning". Don't know what else could I say, I guess the movie turned out into an international intrigue type instead of the human-dwelling experience the book is. The explanation about mistaking the blood samples is simply an insult to imagination and creativity, I am disappointed that Mr. Koontz' as Co-Producer would go with that. I am looking forward to finding a good adaptation of his novels. Phantoms wasn't that bad, but it wasn't in the same vicinity as the novel, despite the fact that he has the screenwriting credit. Hideaway, is a good movie, but doesn't reach the depth of the ending sequence in spite of all the effects. Servants of twilight, same story, face of fear, really to turn off the TV with the very first twelve minutes. I still have to watch the "Intensity" mini series.

Watch this movie, but also read the book.

The actors chosen to play the characters were adequate at best. The premise of the story was changed, making much less sense. The only thing that remained the same was the fact that there was an author and a clone of him. After that the story deteriorates.

I don't know why a Dean Koontz book cannot be made into a movie without making ridiculous changes to the story line. The changes that were made took away the motivation from the characters, so there is no understanding why they do what they do. Drew Oslett actually has a significant reason in the book for pursuing the clone, but that is completely lost in the movie. Clocker's role was pretty insignificant in the movie, but was essential in the book. This movie was not worth the two nights of viewing. If you want a good story, read the book.

I've yet to see a movie made from a Dean Koontz novel that comes close to capturing the thrills and suspense he creates with the written word. While this movie is good enough to stand on its own, I think I'll stick with his novels.

Sorry to say, in this outing, Stephen Baldwin can't act his way out of a paper bag. To top it off, his haircut looks like it was done by a barber school drop-out. Here he has two roles, that of the family man writer of mysteries, and the other a "clone" raised to be a killer without a memory.

I get that his alter-ego would be pretty lame in the emotive expressions department due to his upbringing, but Baldwin does the same thing with his main writer character. Of the Baldwin brothers, he is pretty much the most limited in acting ability, yet can still do well if directed well. That didn't happen here. This is evidenced by other superb actors being allowed to put in rudimentary performances.

Stephen Baldwin looks as though he'd be super as a Western villain, as he has that sort of appearance, smallish darting eyes, a sneering sort of smile. Though I typically like him in films, and partly because he can't rely upon the Baldwin appearance, he's not really got the leading man looks. He can still be a fine character actor.

FYI, the US DVD release states on the back that it's the 132 min version, but in fact it is the full-length two-part 190+ min version as was originally broadcast. I think they just took the shorter version VHS liner notes and placed them on the DVD.