I've yet to see a movie made from a Dean Koontz novel that comes close to capturing the thrills and suspense he creates with the written word. While this movie is good enough to stand on its own, I think I'll stick with his novels.
22 Reviews
Once again
finnerss8 October 2000
I felt compelled to write this review, although not much to my satisfaction. If you liked this movie, read the book, the book is a real piece of art. I regard myself as probably Mr. Koontz' biggest fan in Mexico. The movie, to be honest, is once again proof that his novels are real hard to put onto screen due to their amazingly crafted content. The cast, very disappointing. Stephen Baldwin is a great actor, just watch "The Usual Suspects", but the direction is to blame in this one, he just doesn't come up to the expectations of the colorful Martin Stillwater from the novel, far from it. And even more, miles away from reaching the powerful role of Alfie. The girls render a fairly good performance but obviously not helped by the director.
The scene where he reads the story is a moment to remember in the book, while in the movie it just comes out mellow and way too corny and cliched, at least some effort was made to remain truthful to the scene in the book.
It's a shame that no one has ever reached the power to render a good Koontz' story on the big (or even the small) screen. As a screenwriter one of my greatest wishes is to write an adaptation, particularly for "lightning". Don't know what else could I say, I guess the movie turned out into an international intrigue type instead of the human-dwelling experience the book is. The explanation about mistaking the blood samples is simply an insult to imagination and creativity, I am disappointed that Mr. Koontz' as Co-Producer would go with that. I am looking forward to finding a good adaptation of his novels. Phantoms wasn't that bad, but it wasn't in the same vicinity as the novel, despite the fact that he has the screenwriting credit. Hideaway, is a good movie, but doesn't reach the depth of the ending sequence in spite of all the effects. Servants of twilight, same story, face of fear, really to turn off the TV with the very first twelve minutes. I still have to watch the "Intensity" mini series.
Watch this movie, but also read the book.
The scene where he reads the story is a moment to remember in the book, while in the movie it just comes out mellow and way too corny and cliched, at least some effort was made to remain truthful to the scene in the book.
It's a shame that no one has ever reached the power to render a good Koontz' story on the big (or even the small) screen. As a screenwriter one of my greatest wishes is to write an adaptation, particularly for "lightning". Don't know what else could I say, I guess the movie turned out into an international intrigue type instead of the human-dwelling experience the book is. The explanation about mistaking the blood samples is simply an insult to imagination and creativity, I am disappointed that Mr. Koontz' as Co-Producer would go with that. I am looking forward to finding a good adaptation of his novels. Phantoms wasn't that bad, but it wasn't in the same vicinity as the novel, despite the fact that he has the screenwriting credit. Hideaway, is a good movie, but doesn't reach the depth of the ending sequence in spite of all the effects. Servants of twilight, same story, face of fear, really to turn off the TV with the very first twelve minutes. I still have to watch the "Intensity" mini series.
Watch this movie, but also read the book.
Praise for Brittney Lee Harvey
whpratt120 March 2007
This was a very very long entertaining film that really could have been cut in half before it started to become one big boring film. Stephen Baldwin,(Marty Stillwater/Alfie) played two characters in this film and gave a great performance fighting against himself and having to prove himself to his own family. Julie Warner, (Paige Stillwater) gave a great supporting role as his wife who had two girls, Caley Cuoco,(Charlotte Stillwater) and Brittney Lee Harvey (Emily). Brittney Lee Harvey is a very young girl and gave a simply great performance as the younger sister. Caley Cuoco is another actress who gave a great supporting role and a appeared on a great TV Show with the late John Ritter. Nice Sci-Fi film with lots of action but entirely too long for me.
Stephen Baldwin is stuck in a Paper Bag with a bad haircut!
rixrex24 September 2007
Sorry to say, in this outing, Stephen Baldwin can't act his way out of a paper bag. To top it off, his haircut looks like it was done by a barber school drop-out. Here he has two roles, that of the family man writer of mysteries, and the other a "clone" raised to be a killer without a memory.
I get that his alter-ego would be pretty lame in the emotive expressions department due to his upbringing, but Baldwin does the same thing with his main writer character. Of the Baldwin brothers, he is pretty much the most limited in acting ability, yet can still do well if directed well. That didn't happen here. This is evidenced by other superb actors being allowed to put in rudimentary performances.
Stephen Baldwin looks as though he'd be super as a Western villain, as he has that sort of appearance, smallish darting eyes, a sneering sort of smile. Though I typically like him in films, and partly because he can't rely upon the Baldwin appearance, he's not really got the leading man looks. He can still be a fine character actor.
FYI, the US DVD release states on the back that it's the 132 min version, but in fact it is the full-length two-part 190+ min version as was originally broadcast. I think they just took the shorter version VHS liner notes and placed them on the DVD.
I get that his alter-ego would be pretty lame in the emotive expressions department due to his upbringing, but Baldwin does the same thing with his main writer character. Of the Baldwin brothers, he is pretty much the most limited in acting ability, yet can still do well if directed well. That didn't happen here. This is evidenced by other superb actors being allowed to put in rudimentary performances.
Stephen Baldwin looks as though he'd be super as a Western villain, as he has that sort of appearance, smallish darting eyes, a sneering sort of smile. Though I typically like him in films, and partly because he can't rely upon the Baldwin appearance, he's not really got the leading man looks. He can still be a fine character actor.
FYI, the US DVD release states on the back that it's the 132 min version, but in fact it is the full-length two-part 190+ min version as was originally broadcast. I think they just took the shorter version VHS liner notes and placed them on the DVD.
This movie did no justice to a great novel
dl_lipken27 July 2005
The actors chosen to play the characters were adequate at best. The premise of the story was changed, making much less sense. The only thing that remained the same was the fact that there was an author and a clone of him. After that the story deteriorates.
I don't know why a Dean Koontz book cannot be made into a movie without making ridiculous changes to the story line. The changes that were made took away the motivation from the characters, so there is no understanding why they do what they do. Drew Oslett actually has a significant reason in the book for pursuing the clone, but that is completely lost in the movie. Clocker's role was pretty insignificant in the movie, but was essential in the book. This movie was not worth the two nights of viewing. If you want a good story, read the book.
I don't know why a Dean Koontz book cannot be made into a movie without making ridiculous changes to the story line. The changes that were made took away the motivation from the characters, so there is no understanding why they do what they do. Drew Oslett actually has a significant reason in the book for pursuing the clone, but that is completely lost in the movie. Clocker's role was pretty insignificant in the movie, but was essential in the book. This movie was not worth the two nights of viewing. If you want a good story, read the book.
DId they read the book?
jguidry-125 April 2005
Warning: Spoilers
OK, I only saw 20 minutes or so of this movie, but I was flipping channels when I noticed the title. I am in the middle of this book and thought, "Oh Cool! I am reading this!" So I thought I could watch a bit of it and be okay. NOT!!! The movie started out with what I am guessing is the explanation at the end of the book. Talk about spoiler!! I changed the channel after only five minutes and would check back on it every once in a while. How knows, maybe I had the wrong story. Again...NOT! Then, at about an hour and a half through the movie (TV time), they show the first 100 pages of the book, and then not even as written. There was no reason to change what they did either. I don't want to be one of those freaks that itemizes every detail of the Star Wars flaws and composes it into a graduate thesis on it so I will say this - Boy - what a waste! Unfortunately, I have yet to see a decent Koontz movie made. Love the books. Read them instead. They are definitely worth the time.
On and on and on ...
sparky-11328 February 2000
Good Film. Decent Acting. Fine Plot (kinda like Soldier). Too Long !!!
The film starts well. It had me thinking that this kind of GM/Clone type stuff is possible and may well have been tried by governments as we speak. After a great opening 45 minutes the film descends into farce. Chase, evade, catch fight, chase, escape, fight, catch, chase, etc... At on point it feels like a superman flick. One leaves as the other enters, etc. Laughable. I did however enjoy the pathetic special effects when Baldwin was fighting with himself. Shocking!
The film starts well. It had me thinking that this kind of GM/Clone type stuff is possible and may well have been tried by governments as we speak. After a great opening 45 minutes the film descends into farce. Chase, evade, catch fight, chase, escape, fight, catch, chase, etc... At on point it feels like a superman flick. One leaves as the other enters, etc. Laughable. I did however enjoy the pathetic special effects when Baldwin was fighting with himself. Shocking!
Not as good as the book, but not bad
ss97-131 December 2006
I would say all in all a decent TV movie. There was a lot from the book that never made it into the movie but that is to be expected. I'm sure Koontz himself would have done things different if he could have had FULL control. But considering the books are generally butchered for the screen anyway there is not much you can do about that.
The movie flowed well and the acting was solid. The kids were very real and believable, and Baldwin was good in the duel role. I thought the wife (played by Julie Warner) could have been cast better, she seemed a bit out of step with the feel of the story.
It's worth watching.
The movie flowed well and the acting was solid. The kids were very real and believable, and Baldwin was good in the duel role. I thought the wife (played by Julie Warner) could have been cast better, she seemed a bit out of step with the feel of the story.
It's worth watching.
Worst Movie EVER!!!
knives85226 July 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Wow, this movie crosses the line between Bad and HORRIBLE. I'm afraid to go rent movies that I am not familiar with now just because of this Piece of crap! The storyline is confusing as hell. It has nothing to do with the occult or demons, but the over done "Man made to be a killing machine". I'm not sure what happened in the first hour of the movie, but too much happens; yet NOTHING happens to any of the characters. The ending dragged on and ON AND ON AND ON! It would be a better ending if a meteor crashed into their town and all the characters died. I mean seriously, it'd be more believable. The acting is terrible. The directing is terrible. The backstory is awful. I was so shocked at how gosh-awful the movie was that I just sort of sat there and watched the credits scroll by on the screen.
Much better!
FiendishDramaturgy19 January 2004
Warning: Spoilers
As far as Dean Koontz films go, the adaptations to his works usually leave me feeling ... robbed of a good experience. His novels are excellent, but the adaptations are horrid.
With "Phantoms," some actual money was spent, and Dean R. Koontz himself write the screenplay, and was one of the producers. This made for the best Koontz movie to date. This time, Mr. Koontz is a co-executive producer, and apparently retained a bit of control over this production by doing so, because this is even better than "Phantoms."
If this keeps up, his work may actually one day receive the attention and financial backing it deserves.
That having been said, this is a fun movie. The youngest Baldwin not withstanding, the acting performances (especially those of the two girls featured as Baldwin's daughters) were extremely good, the direction this time was better than decent, and the story was not too badly ripped.
I was actually quite surprised with the raised level of quality to this production. I was also surprised to find that I highly enjoyed this film; it was fun, quirky, and well executed. I found this movie was actually quite well done. Yes, of course, it could have been better, but this could possibly be the turn around for Koontz and his work.
At least, I hope so.
On the "B" scale, this movie rates an 8.8/10.
That's a 7.2/10 on the "A" scale from...
the Fiend :.
With "Phantoms," some actual money was spent, and Dean R. Koontz himself write the screenplay, and was one of the producers. This made for the best Koontz movie to date. This time, Mr. Koontz is a co-executive producer, and apparently retained a bit of control over this production by doing so, because this is even better than "Phantoms."
If this keeps up, his work may actually one day receive the attention and financial backing it deserves.
That having been said, this is a fun movie. The youngest Baldwin not withstanding, the acting performances (especially those of the two girls featured as Baldwin's daughters) were extremely good, the direction this time was better than decent, and the story was not too badly ripped.
I was actually quite surprised with the raised level of quality to this production. I was also surprised to find that I highly enjoyed this film; it was fun, quirky, and well executed. I found this movie was actually quite well done. Yes, of course, it could have been better, but this could possibly be the turn around for Koontz and his work.
At least, I hope so.
On the "B" scale, this movie rates an 8.8/10.
That's a 7.2/10 on the "A" scale from...
the Fiend :.
do not rent it! burn all the copies!!!!!
jebiga16 March 2000
wow! the worst movie ever!!!! i'm so anxious to write about how bad it is - that i had to log in here while it is still running on my VCR. where to start...? baldwin, ok. - can someone be really that bad or there is some kind of special training for it? if they hired a beer bottle (plain 12oz beer bottle) to act instead of hit - it would have done a better job. screenplay? already seen - about 50 times. altogether - i already spent too much time on this... so 1/10.
Great Movie
lisahgreen3 June 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I don't see why a lot of people on here are so hard on this movie,I personally thought it was a GREAT movie.The acting was good especially from Stephen Baldwin,its not easy to play a duel role,but I thought he did a really good job on it. Yea the movie was a little long when it could have easily only taken less time. Other than that I really enjoyed it.I even stayed up until 5:00 in the morning and was exhausted,but just couldn't seem to pull myself away from the screen. Some one mentioned that they couldn't see compassion in the characters,well I think Stephen's characters definitely showed a lot of compassion.I got attached to Marty Stillwater ha-ha.Thank goodness he didn't die. I was kind of sad to see Alfie die because he did save Marty's two girls,he never tried to hurt any of the family members,he was just creepy. So all in all I would recommend this movie! Especially if you like to watch late night movies,this makes a great one.
A good two night movie.
vbel27 September 2017
A famous author (not Dean Koontz) meets his evil clone. The clone wants to lead a normal life by taking over his family.
I don't know why so many reviews are down on Baldwin. I thought that he and the whole cast did a good job, including the four child actors.
The movie's a little slow but still good if you take two nights to watch it. It's much better than Servants of Twilight (from Koontz's novel Twilight) and many other of his movies.
Intensity was really good as was the more recent Odd Thomas.
I don't know why so many reviews are down on Baldwin. I thought that he and the whole cast did a good job, including the four child actors.
The movie's a little slow but still good if you take two nights to watch it. It's much better than Servants of Twilight (from Koontz's novel Twilight) and many other of his movies.
Intensity was really good as was the more recent Odd Thomas.
Dumb and Dumber
guilfisher-110 March 2007
For this should be the title for this bad made for TV movie adapted from a novel by Dean Koontz. Stephen Baldwin stars along with Thomas Hayden Church, both gentlemen of whose work I like. But this is not one of them. I was embarrassed for them both to appear in this loser. First of all it just dragged on and on and on. Four hours to be exact plus commercials. Awful. To put these two good actors through the pace of this was cruel. Didn't they know they were doing a bad film? Then add the distinguished James Coburn and the likes of Julie Warner and that cinched it for me. All of the actors have great bodies of work in the career. Why this one? It seemed that both Baldwin characters were as stupid and vacant as the other. There was no difference. And what's with the blonde hair? Don't recall Baldwin ever being a blonde. For effect? There wasn't an ounce of compassion in any of the characters. Possibly Warner at times, but then she was confused as we all were as to who was who. Come on, a wife can tell her husband from a phony. No sympathy there. All the actors had one expression on their faces. Confusion. I wonder did they know what was happening? Oh, well I suppose I have to give this a 2 star just in respect of the work I know the cast can really do with good scripts and good direction.
Great family suspense film.
dennyfusek27 June 2000
When I rented this movie, I did not know that it was a TV movie. It was really good, however, and the best thing about it is that there is a lot of suspense, but no vulgarity or excessive violence. It is a murder movie that the whole family can enjoy.
Wait.. you mean the short version was this boring?
Cactus-51 August 1999
Ok.. I was planning to give this one a bad review, and when I found out that I saw the 127 minute edited version and not the hour longer original version, it just came clear to me how lucky I was. In short, if you've ever seen a thriller before then you will know all the twists and turns and it's just boring and bad. As for the "effects" when Stephen Baldwin wrestles himself... we just fell over laughing. And if you've ever read more than one Dean R. Koontz book then you probably know it involves a government experiment gone wrong. Avoid. Please.
The BEST Koontz adaptation ever filmed. ENTERTAINING!
mr. vess30 April 1999
I've seen all the Dean Koontz adaptations except for one, the oh-so-elusive THE FACE OF FEAR. And I've got to tell everyone that this was by far the best of 'em all. I don't know what the budget for this movie was, but it LOOKED pretty damn expensive. The director of photography is immensely talented-this film looked a lot better than most theatrical releases I've seen. Teleplay writer Stephen Tolkin is a very talented writer in his own respect... he created some really awesome dialogue here and changed the character of Drew Oslett. I'm not at all mad about this-the change worked VERY well. He made Drew a more sympathetic character than Koontz created...and he did so well. My only complaint about the movie is the ending... I was hoping the movie makers would use the book's ending, which was very exciting. But alas, they settled for a shoot out which wasn't nearly as kinetic as what Koontz created. All in all, I give this flick ***.5/****
Well done, more fantasy than science
Alan-401 September 2001
I rented this as a DVD, unaware that it was originally made for TV. The screenplay has obvious breaks in it where commercials are meant to go, and they were so emphatically built up that I kept reaching for the "mute" button on the remote!
The story itself works, and Baldwin does a good job of carrying off both the good guy and the bad guy role. The writer and director seem to have the good sense not to overdo things.
Take for example the kid characters. Two young girls, obviously hostage bait, and they end up in the bad-guy's hands more than once. They're cute, but they are neither too brainless or unreasonably savvy, and we've seen too much of both extremes in that role in similar films. The older one does some fairly clever thinking that adds to the story.
Less well convincing were the cops, who start out good when they doubting the hero's story, but actually become more passive as the show goes on.
Probably the best thing to watch is not the villain, but the villain's villain, Drew Oslett Jr. Thomas Church actually looks like he could be James Coburn's son. But it is character's internal pain that drives the whole story. Church does his best, but it would have been interesting to give him more screen time to do it in.
The "science" part of this movie is really skipped over; anyone not willing to suspend disbelief will be sorely unsatisfied.
All in all worth seeing for a weekend with nothing else to do.
The story itself works, and Baldwin does a good job of carrying off both the good guy and the bad guy role. The writer and director seem to have the good sense not to overdo things.
Take for example the kid characters. Two young girls, obviously hostage bait, and they end up in the bad-guy's hands more than once. They're cute, but they are neither too brainless or unreasonably savvy, and we've seen too much of both extremes in that role in similar films. The older one does some fairly clever thinking that adds to the story.
Less well convincing were the cops, who start out good when they doubting the hero's story, but actually become more passive as the show goes on.
Probably the best thing to watch is not the villain, but the villain's villain, Drew Oslett Jr. Thomas Church actually looks like he could be James Coburn's son. But it is character's internal pain that drives the whole story. Church does his best, but it would have been interesting to give him more screen time to do it in.
The "science" part of this movie is really skipped over; anyone not willing to suspend disbelief will be sorely unsatisfied.
All in all worth seeing for a weekend with nothing else to do.
Great entertainment and excellent acting by Stephen Baldwin.
Quilyn25 January 1999
It is great to see Stephen Baldwin in a dramatic role after getting used to seeing him in comedies. This is by far the best display of his acting talent that I have seen and it appears to be very challenging with the dual role. This mini series is full of suspense with light hearted and touching moments interspersed. It is definitely something that can be watched more than once.
Pretty Good, considering...
kersus5 December 2006
I have not read the book that this is about, but it seems to follow a similar plot to other Koontz books.
Overall I considered this a dandy movie which was much better than most other Koontz adaptations. The acting was surprisingly good with no one detracting from the film and a few quite excellent performances as well as the sexy Julie Warner who did an excellent job.
My only real complaint is that the big explanation/twist/secret is given away at the beginning of the movie. This was also a big disappointment in Hideaways and it seems that Koontz screenplays have to be this way. Besides giving everything (the whole mystery) away at the start, this was a fun action/suspense movie that I quite enjoyed. It won't knock your socks off, but is certainly worth the time to view it.
Overall I considered this a dandy movie which was much better than most other Koontz adaptations. The acting was surprisingly good with no one detracting from the film and a few quite excellent performances as well as the sexy Julie Warner who did an excellent job.
My only real complaint is that the big explanation/twist/secret is given away at the beginning of the movie. This was also a big disappointment in Hideaways and it seems that Koontz screenplays have to be this way. Besides giving everything (the whole mystery) away at the start, this was a fun action/suspense movie that I quite enjoyed. It won't knock your socks off, but is certainly worth the time to view it.
Part 1 was a GREAT start...Can't wait for Part 2!
mr. vess27 April 1999
Well, I just watched part 1 of this flick last night. An excellent start. Teleplay writer Stephen Tolkin is quite talented... the first hour of part 1 he created almost entirely by himself...the material he used was only mentioned in Koontz's novel AFTER the action took place to explain things to the reader. And Tolkin took that info. and turned it into the beginning ot the movie. Brilliant! Thus far, I've also been impressed w/ Stephen Baldwin in 2 the main roles. But most impressive to me in part 1 was Thomas Haden Church as Drew Oslett. I've always liked Church, but never thought he was so talented as he reveals himself to be here. Well, after I watch part 2 on Thurs. night, I'll be back to talk more!
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
