actually, Lois Duncan was very pleased with their decision on the script. if you would of checked more into it you would of found that out. it wasn't terrible at all. i don't think they could have chosen a better cast. and the leading woman, miss Alexz Johnson did an amazing job. especially under the pressure of playing twins with completely different personality. instead of judging on the differences between the book and movie, judge on the talent they put into it. there are major differences between the book and the movie its self but honestly i found it to make the movie much more interesting. i like the connection they made with painting, and how the other twin could not match that. it gave way for the mother to find out the truth about the soul that was no longer her daughters. you guys will just have to check it out.

I watched this movie recently and thought it was fascinating. I did not read the book, but watched this movie because I am a huge Alexz Johnson fan. I thought she did an amazing job playing twins, especially the evil one. Its amazing that someone with such an amazing voice and musical talents can also be such a wonderful actress. I thought the plot was very interesting and Alexz was convincing as the evil twin, it was a little frightening. To the people who are angry that it wasn't exactly like the book: when was a book ever made into a movie that was exactly like the book? Never, it's impossible, to make a book into a movie, things are always changed, elaborated, etc. for various reasons to make the movie better, more interesting, because of the director, and for many other reasons. The movie should be judged as a movie not as a book. :)

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 loved this book as a kid and think it's cool to make a movie out of it. But why change so many elements of the story? I don't see why the dad was killed off. Also, more importantly, the main character i the book is supposed to be part Native American (if I remember correctly), yet the actress playing her is blonde. Updates to the story are fine, but there are so few movies with strong, especially female, main characters who are people of color. Why take that out? Were they afraid that people might be offended by (or uninterested in) the depiction of Native American spirituality? There are other changes to the original story, but that's sort of the most obvious one. It's entertaining enough for a TV movie, but disappointing that they had to "update" it to the point of looking like so many other teen suspense movies.