The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

If you're interested in the topic at hand, you should just watch it and judge yourself because the reviews have gone very biased by people that didn't even watch it and just hate (or love) the creator. I liked it, it was well written, narrated, and directed and it was about a topic that interests me.

This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

What a bunch of incompetent idiots. They hire Locklear, and photograph her so that she ends up looking like Jocelyn Wildenstein. They hire aging uber-hunk Schaech, show him ripping off his shirt in steamy scenes, and then don't show his chest. Who knows, maybe Locklear was having a bad-face day, and Schaech was having a bad-chest day.I felt sorry for the actors having to grind their way through this stuff; I guess its an indication of how difficult it is for them to find decent roles. The story is unusually dumb, and does a disservice to people with serious mental problems who have been helped by some of the procedures depicted.

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.

All of you who wrote positive reviews, what movie were you watching? There are so many things wrong with this movie, it would take hours to list them all.I've been reading Nora Roberts' books since her first serial romance way back when. She is a great writer and writes great books. I was somewhat surprised to see her name attached to this movie as a consultant, because if I were her, I'd sue. This movie was awful. The only thing the movie was true to was the characters, location and concept. So much was left out and altered I believe a name change would have prevented me from realizing it was based on the book.Heather Locklear was way too old and I think it was her plastic surgery that got in the way of expression. Other than the freaky flashbacks (which seemed to focus on electric shock therapy that I don't even remember from the book) and the obvious scenes (sleeping in the tub or with a knife) I never bought her as Robert's freaked-out-Reece.Brody was perfectly cast, although they played him much softer than he was in the book (I'm not commenting on the performance just the appearance, as I believe, to a large degree, good or bad acting, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder).The remaining characters didn't play well for me, particularly Lo, and I was disgusted with their pathetic and obvious attempts at distraction using Lo as a red herring. . . just sad. They included so many odd details from the book that never went anywhere in the movie, for instance, Reece kept mentioning the herbs, but nothing ever happened (in the book, Joanie allowed her to purchase some) and the Lo/Linda Gail romance, as abbreviated as it was in the movie, should have been left out as it was distracting and, for someone who read the book, left hanging and useless. Read her books and skip the movies. It was ridiculous, but then I was pretty sure it would be. I won't waste my time with Montana Sky.

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.