Nous n'irons plus au bois

Definitely Canadian-made, with Nastassja Kinski, whom I haven't seen in years, getting all of the casting budget. The rest of the actors were Canadian and not known to me - therefore, for a while, it was difficult to tell the blondes apart and the young leading men apart from one another. I didn't recognize Kinski at first (I forgot she was in it).

Anyway, the story is Sybil-esquire. A girl is abducted as a child, comes home two years later - flash forward to adulthood. She's a college student, and one of her professors is murdered. She is accused, and her sister, who works for the D.A.'s office, goes on leave to defend her.

This is a typical Sonny Grosso production - that godawful music and a draggy pace. The story held my interest, and the acting ranged from good to adequate. The lead woman was quite good, except when she cried, she wasn't crying and needed the glycerin they use to fake tears. Not in the budget I guess. Not sure what's up with Kinski - she is still beautiful certainly and she was always a good actress. At the time of this TV-movie, she was about 42 years old - I suppose with her ingenue days over, the going got tougher.

Entertaining if you can tell everyone apart. To me a lot of them looked alike.

FYI this movie just came out on video. I noticed it along with a few other MHC videos when I was at the video store, and since I had a rent-one-get-one-free coupon and like suspense, I decided to check it out.

First and most important, I liked it! Knowing it was a TV movie, I didn't go into it expecting `Citizen Kane.' I haven't read the book, and I'm embarrassed to say it, but I didn't figure out the ending. (Yes, I'm pretty dense, so I guess you have to take that into account.) It's definitely one of the most heinously cliché-filled movies I've ever seen, but I really don't think it matters. It's entertaining.

The story as told in the movie is of a now college-aged woman named Laurie who was kidnapped and molested when she was a little girl. She has now developed multiple personalities to cope with it, and when an English professor she is close to is killed, she's the main suspect. Her sister and a psychiatrist try to help her. The weakest part of the movie is the return of the couple who kidnapped Laurie. Maybe this part of the plot is covered better in the novel because what's here seems to have some gaps. It was still interesting, but it's one of those things where I wonder if the director had to trim the movie down and cut out the part that explained what the hell the deal was.

Other than that, I thought the acting was pretty good. I liked Andrea Roth as the older sister, and Kim Schraner as Laurie was good at doing the multiple personality thing except for several moments of probably unintentional complete out-of-control cheesiness. But I think they fit right in. The movie's biggest bonus is that the psychiatrist is played by Michael Shanks from Stargate SG-1, who I didn't realize was in the movie when I rented it (The video box gives Nastassja Kinski top billing, and she is in very few scenes.) He actually has a pretty big role in the movie, which is fine with me because as I was watching, I realized he's almost good-looking enough to make me pass out. In fact, I'm now in favor of human cloning.

So, if you like suspense/mystery, have a rent-one-get-one-free coupon, and want to give your brain a break and drool over Michael Shanks for 90 minutes, I recommend it!

This is a fairly good adaptation of the novel. The acting was pretty good and the story was a bit more unique than the other Mary Higgins Clark movies I've seen.

It was an okay movie, but they didn't get in depth enough and I felt like the book was so much better that it makes me want to read the book over to see if it's my imagination. But it's better than a lot of things, and I watched the whole thing so that gives it some definite advantages over a lot of things. The characters seemed shallow and their acting seemed forced. That was disappointing. It only skims the surface of the book, which I was disappointed in. I really liked the ending though, and that was a major plus in it's favor. Overall I think it's better than some of the other books made into movies and I look forward to seeing some of her others.

Not a bad flick. It was enjoyable, but when the movie reached its conclusion, it was equivalent to a soda which had gone flat. Not bad, still drinkable, just missing that pop and fizz.

I fail to see why they advertised this as "STARRING NASTASSJA KINSKI." She did not star. She supported. In a MINOR role. Would that she HAD starred, but the storyline would have needed to be adjusted to account for her age. Not that she is ancient. She is lovely, as usual. She just didn't have much to do.

Michael Shanks as the psychiatrist has the shining role in this film. I had never seen him in anything before, but came away thinking "he is one to watch." I believe the actress with the lead role was Kim Schraner. NOT one to watch. Her performance was standard and cliche. Someone should have told her, "Playing someone with a multiple personality disorder does not mean you need to slam your two palms on either side of your head every time a new 'alter' appears."

The plotline with the tv evangelist was a little murky. I still do not entirely understand what happened with that. I guess you had to read the book. For me, Mary Higgins Clark writes great suspense, but with cardboard characters. With the exception of Michael Shanks, the cast of this movie largely fulfills that prerequisite. (I exempt Nastassja, because her part was so peripheral).

An average, but quick paced tv melodrama.