rixrex 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.

guilfisher-1 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.

ss97-1 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.

finnerss 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.