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!

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!

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.

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.