Les deux visages de ma fille

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.

I brought my daughter up to love horror films, but she also has an inexplicable liking for crap Canadian films, which is how I ended up watching Stranger With My Face, a made-for-TV supernatural thriller starring Alexz Johnson and Catherine Hicks. My daughter enjoyed it; I was less impressed.

Johnson plays teenager Laurie Stratton, who is struggling with the death of her father. A series of strange incidents leads Laurie to believe that she has a doppleganger who has been taking her place but her concerned friends and family think that she is imagining things as a result of her trauma. Eventually, Laurie learns that she was adopted and that she has an evil twin sister who has been using astral projection to cause trouble.

To be fair, there's potential for a good film here -- the astral projection idea is fun -- but the horrible Lifetime production values mean that the result is cheap and tacky. The direction is weak, the writing is lame, the acting is barely passable, and the special effects are bargain basement. The best moments feel like they have been cribbed from Ghost (1990) and A Nightmare On Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors (1987).

3/10.

I am not a syfy fan but the film had enough "Lifetime" in it that I really didn't notice the syfy. However the script supervisor was off their game...again.

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.

comparing the movie with the book is a mistake. using the book as a jumping off point for the movie is a better choice. i thought that the tone of the movie was what the book was aiming for. as a comparison, i thought the feel of i know what you did last summer was totally off in the movie as compared to what the author was aiming at in the novel. i think alexz played both characters very well, the last scene was totally perfect. personally i wish the look was more 70s which is when the book was written, it was weird to see it updated to a modern version. i read the book all through the 80s. in general i am a Lois Duncan fan and i think her novels are very original and can be used as new ideas for movies, because so many movies use the same plots with different characters.