Stranger with My Face (2009 TV Movie) User Reviews

Different but Likable

[Philattio · 6/10 · 6 October 2009]

I had gained a huge obsession with with the novel Stranger with My Face, written by Lois Duncan, after reading it 3 times.

Books that get made into movies always get bad feedback, for example: Twilight, The Da Vinci Code etc. So don't be surprised if you find yourself hating this film. There have been large changes to the movie compared to the novel. Laurie is originally Indian looking, unfortunately, she is casted with Alexz Johnson who is a blonde white girl. Significant characters; Neal, Meghan and her Father had been removed from the story. The existing characters are also very different however they are somewhat likable. The casting in this is film is good based on the screenplay, yet horrible compared to the novel. As much as I liked the novel I found myself connecting well with the loosely based characters; Laurie, Helen, Gordon, Shelley and Alexis.

I did enjoy the film, but I enjoyed the book better. I am a huge fan of horror films and I can adapt well with straight to DVD/TV films. If you enjoyed the book you may not enjoy the movie as huge changes have been made. Its not a great movie. But its not a horrible movie. I'd rather watch this instead of "Wrong Turn 2" or "Joy Ride 2."

Give it a chance see if you like it. Its not terrible and trust me its better than most movies that weren't released in theaters.

needs better style

[SnoopyStyle · 5/10 · 22 June 2021]

Laurie (Alexz Johnson) is haunted with the accidental death of her father. Her mother Shelley Stratton (Catherine Hicks) moves her and sister Alexis (Emily Hirst) to the family's remote country home. Alexis claims that Laurie tried to choke her in her sleep. Some of the kids at her new school seems to know her or seen her when it wasn't her.

This tries to do the it's-all-in-her-head misdirection. It's trying to be a paranoid mystery. It needs to hold back some of the school kids. It needs to slow-roll the information and maybe leave the reveal to the third act. It also needs better directing style to make this work. I can see this done in a better way. This is a Lifetime movie but the story may fit better as a psychological horror.

Disappointing

[pypsqweek · 1/10 · 12 April 2020]

I didnt know it was the Lois Duncan book until later on in the movie. I read the book as a kid. It wasnt a great plot. But it was okay. The movie itself wasnt any better and such a disappointment. It was boring and sadly white washed, which is annoying because the main character is Native American, which was one rarity when the book came out. Overall, the changes were the regular Hollywood changes. It had some parts true to the book but it was largely disappointing. Oh well, its a tv movie. I would not recommend even if I didnt read the book.

Strange changes...

[redxdress · 29 August 2009]

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.

Great book...

[sadworks · 2/10 · 27 May 2022]

It was one of my favorite books by Lois Duncan. The Acting and the script was terrible...though I would blame it on the Director...every actor reading lines as if the film was made in the early 80's, because they're all saying their lines the same way Heather Langencamp and Ronnie Blakely did in Elm Street.

Lois Duncan wrote a Great story. The film ruined it.

Did Lois Duncan approve this script???

[Sugarbehr1967 · 2/10 · 29 August 2009]

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.

Astral projection; dismal production.

[BA_Harrison · 3/10 · 1 March 2024]

I brought my daughter up to love horror films, but she also has an inexplicable liking for crap Canadian films, which is how I ended up watching Stranger With My Face, a made-for-TV supernatural thriller starring Alexz Johnson and Catherine Hicks. My daughter enjoyed it; I was less impressed.

Johnson plays teenager Laurie Stratton, who is struggling with the death of her father. A series of strange incidents leads Laurie to believe that she has a doppleganger who has been taking her place but her concerned friends and family think that she is imagining things as a result of her trauma. Eventually, Laurie learns that she was adopted and that she has an evil twin sister who has been using astral projection to cause trouble.

To be fair, there's potential for a good film here -- the astral projection idea is fun -- but the horrible Lifetime production values mean that the result is cheap and tacky. The direction is weak, the writing is lame, the acting is barely passable, and the special effects are bargain basement. The best moments feel like they have been cribbed from Ghost (1990) and A Nightmare On Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors (1987).

3/10.

I enjoyed it. Lifetime with a little SYFY

[MyPointOfView123 · 8/10 · 19 May 2020]

I am not a syfy fan but the film had enough "Lifetime" in it that I really didn't notice the syfy. However the script supervisor was off their game...again.

Astral Projection

[lavatch · 8/10 · 24 June 2020]

The extremely sensitive Laurie Stratton is a brilliant young artist suffering from the traumatic loss of her adoptive father. James Stratton was a distinguished painter who died when struck by a car. Laurie is haunted by that moment. When she begins to hear a voice and sense that she has a doppelganger, she is led to the book "Astral Projection" that provides insights into her unique paranormal experience.

In the course of the film, Laurie discovers that she has a long-lost twin named Lia. It is the spirit of Lia that keeps appearing to her, and Lia is definitely taking on a human form, appearing to some of Laurie's school chums. Lia also has a violent streak, as apparent in the scene where Laurie's little sister Alexis felt that she was being choked by Laurie. In fact, it was Lia doing the throttling. Body and spirit are now at war as Lia is successfully invading Laurie's physical being.

It slowly becomes clear to Laurie that Lia is seeking to take her place through the paranormal act of switching bodies with her unsuspecting twin. This has been a long-range project of Lia since the time that she was responsible for the death of Laurie's father. Lia became the incarnation of Laurie, and, when the father believed his daughter was in danger in traffic, he stepped in front of a moving vehicle and was killed.

The actress was successful in playing Good Twin/Bad Twin, and the direction of the film was first-rate with effective location scenes and camera angles. In a Lifetime picture, it is never a good idea for a character to get too close to a cliff, especially when in the presence of a demented character like Lia. Unfortunately for Laurie's eccentric and brainy friend Helen Tuttle, that advice was not heeded. Helen is pushed off the cliff and is sent into a coma for most of the home stretch of the film.

Another interesting character was a crippled boy who becomes the loyal supporter of Laurie and recognizes that her "host" has invaded Laurie's body and soul. Jeff "Scarface" Rankin becomes one of the heroes in rescuing Laurie from the netherworld.

By the end, Laurie's life may resume with her painting and a closer connection to her caring mom. In the denouement, one can only wish Lia all the best after she has crossed over to the other side. To Lia, one must bid a fond farewell and say: Rest in peace, perturbed spirit!!!

Lois Duncan was aware and did approve of the script.

[heatherjeane06 · 10/10 · 13 December 2009]

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.

watch and enjoy

[yonafarkash · 9/10 · 18 May 2017]

comparing the movie with the book is a mistake. using the book as a jumping off point for the movie is a better choice. i thought that the tone of the movie was what the book was aiming for. as a comparison, i thought the feel of i know what you did last summer was totally off in the movie as compared to what the author was aiming at in the novel. i think alexz played both characters very well, the last scene was totally perfect. personally i wish the look was more 70s which is when the book was written, it was weird to see it updated to a modern version. i read the book all through the 80s. in general i am a Lois Duncan fan and i think her novels are very original and can be used as new ideas for movies, because so many movies use the same plots with different characters.

Loved it!

[Eminemgirl31691 · 29 August 2009]

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. :)