Captive du souvenir

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.

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 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.

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.