Les deux visages de ma fille

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.

Laurie (Alexz Johnson) is haunted with the accidental death of her father. Her mother Shelley Stratton (Catherine Hicks) moves her and sister Alexis (Emily Hirst) to the family's remote country home. Alexis claims that Laurie tried to choke her in her sleep. Some of the kids at her new school seems to know her or seen her when it wasn't her.

This tries to do the it's-all-in-her-head misdirection. It's trying to be a paranoid mystery. It needs to hold back some of the school kids. It needs to slow-roll the information and maybe leave the reveal to the third act. It also needs better directing style to make this work. I can see this done in a better way. This is a Lifetime movie but the story may fit better as a psychological horror.

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.

It was one of my favorite books by Lois Duncan. The Acting and the script was terrible...though I would blame it on the Director...every actor reading lines as if the film was made in the early 80's, because they're all saying their lines the same way Heather Langencamp and Ronnie Blakely did in Elm Street.

Lois Duncan wrote a Great story. The film ruined it.

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.