Thanks for the memories!

Terrible acting, screenplay and direction.

If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

Okay, so I read the book and I LOVED it... it was probably one of my favorite books I've read! I was so excited to hear that there was a movie made of it so as soon as I finished the book I ran and watched the movie... and it was so disappointing!! Too much of it was left out that I am sure if I never read the book that I would have totally hated it and been confused... it just seemed too choppy... I guess it was because the book was too long to be a movie, but if they had try to squish that much stuff from the book into a 2 hour movie then it shouldn't have been made... or they should have made it extremely long, which also would have been annoying. But anyway... I am not sure whether I would have liked it if I never read the book by I might have... but I guess I will never know!

I was very impressed with the acting in this Tv movie, I thought that Christine Casarsa did very well with her role as Young Sarah, though I thought that the girl who played young laurie looked a bit older than 4, the acting over all was WONDERFUl, both leads (Sarah,Laurie) Cast very well!, Very good plot too!

I knew something was amiss when we started this movie. The awful soundtrack repeated itself over and over and over. And I just loved the theme song that played each time the villains were shown. Just priceless!Obviously, this is no Titanic, but hey, we spent the same $3.59 to rent this baby as we would have with any other movie, so I'm going to complain anyway! Cheesy acting, cheesy direction, and a cheesy production value made this movie almost laughable.But then I was somewhat involved with the story. It wasn't perfect and didn't quite make much sense, but at least I paid attention through the whole thing. The same can't be said for Lara Croft Tomb Raider: Cradle of Life.Overall, I'd say it was decent. As my mom notes, story should outweigh all, and it holds great weight in how I view this movie.My IMDB Rating: 4/10 My Yahoo! Grade: C (Mediocre)

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.