GamerTab That was an excellent one.

Nessieldwi Very interesting film. Was caught on the premise when seeing the trailer but unsure as to what the outcome would be for the showing. As it turns out, it was a very good film.

Huievest Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

WillSushyMedia This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

FunkyLee32 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!

nansee FYI this movie just came out on video. I noticed it along with a few other MHC videos when I was at the video store, and since I had a rent-one-get-one-free coupon and like suspense, I decided to check it out.First and most important, I liked it! Knowing it was a TV movie, I didn't go into it expecting `Citizen Kane.' I haven't read the book, and I'm embarrassed to say it, but I didn't figure out the ending. (Yes, I'm pretty dense, so I guess you have to take that into account.) It's definitely one of the most heinously cliché-filled movies I've ever seen, but I really don't think it matters. It's entertaining.The story as told in the movie is of a now college-aged woman named Laurie who was kidnapped and molested when she was a little girl. She has now developed multiple personalities to cope with it, and when an English professor she is close to is killed, she's the main suspect. Her sister and a psychiatrist try to help her. The weakest part of the movie is the return of the couple who kidnapped Laurie. Maybe this part of the plot is covered better in the novel because what's here seems to have some gaps. It was still interesting, but it's one of those things where I wonder if the director had to trim the movie down and cut out the part that explained what the hell the deal was.Other than that, I thought the acting was pretty good. I liked Andrea Roth as the older sister, and Kim Schraner as Laurie was good at doing the multiple personality thing except for several moments of probably unintentional complete out-of-control cheesiness. But I think they fit right in. The movie's biggest bonus is that the psychiatrist is played by Michael Shanks from Stargate SG-1, who I didn't realize was in the movie when I rented it (The video box gives Nastassja Kinski top billing, and she is in very few scenes.) He actually has a pretty big role in the movie, which is fine with me because as I was watching, I realized he's almost good-looking enough to make me pass out. In fact, I'm now in favor of human cloning.So, if you like suspense/mystery, have a rent-one-get-one-free coupon, and want to give your brain a break and drool over Michael Shanks for 90 minutes, I recommend it!

zollywog OK?? This was the most confusing movie I've seen in a long time! Nothing Makes sense! A girl with spilt personalities is accused of murdering her college professor who was actually murdered by his wife, yet the people who kidnapped the college girl as a child causing her to have had split personalities are involved in setting up the murder? Why? For what reason? Don't waste your time. Read the book it must provide more critical information! Otherwise you'll watch the entire movie wondering how on earth all these characters are tied together and then never find out at the end! Awful! I'm going to develop split personalities myself trying to figure this out!

lia00027 Kim who play Laurie is a clever actress, she can be different girl and have a lot of potential to be a good actress not just because her beautiful body or her beautiful face.The story is easy to think if we look it again in second time. I already look it in many times, but the first time I saw it I know that this film must be take from good novel from Marry Higgins Clark. Too bad Laurie can not make a couple with Dr. Donnely.