Hellen I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

SpuffyWeb Sadly Over-hyped

Chirphymium It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

Invaderbank The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

Jack Vasen That's a quote from after Nate was watching a movie, but it pretty much applies to this film.The story is passable for a mystery and romance.The acting, however is bad. It is stiff and lacks feeling. There is no real chemistry between Nate and Meg. LeAnn Rimes just never seems sincere in any of her lines. There was very little humor, although I did like the scene with Nate talking to the dog and him talking back. I think the directing had a lot to do with all of that and the climatic scene was very badly staged.If you can stand lifeless acting, the story might be enough to make this movie worth watching.

Leofwine_draca This workmanlike adaptation of a Nora Roberts novel doesn't have much to recommend it, unless you're a sucker for cosy mystery yarns. There's the usual amalgamation of tragedy, skeletons in the closet, romance, obsession and a murderer and nothing much new to get excited about. I liked the snowy backdrop to the action but didn't care much for the square-jawed simpleton hero, Eddie Cibrian, and his cold-as-ice love interest Leann Rimes. Ironically, the two actors fell in love while filming, but they have zero chemistry on screen.Rosanna Arquette appears, but is unrecognisable from earlier in her career, having gone under the knife. I'm not a guy who can usually spot the identity of the murderer in these sorts of films, but he was glaringly obvious here, even to me, right from the very beginning, so it was a chore to keep watching.

bill-790 I'm puzzled by the reactions of those who trash this film. It's no world-beater, but it's a fairly entertaining film most fans will probably enjoy viewing. Nothing particularly novel here, but it's well enough done for a TV movie and if nothing else has some great scenery.Possible spoiler: There is one serious flaw in the script. The newspaper editor is murdered and the killer tries to make it look like suicide, even leaving a phony suicide note on the editors computer. The problem here is that there is no mention of any attempt to ascertain whether there were powder stains on the dead man's hand.I was put off by the existing reviews before watching, but now think those reviews are unfair. We're not talking about a classic work of cinema here, but I have seen really bad movies, and this one is certainly better than those.

mellissasue Someone should tell LeAnn Rimes that simply reading the lines with a bitchy attitude doesn't make you an actress. I was never a huge fan of Meg in the novel, but Rimes managed to suck what I did like right from the character.I understand that an adaptation has to change things in the screen version, but is it necessary to strip all the good stuff? I made it through the first half hour of this mess and I had to turn it off. A complete disappointment with none of the atmosphere that sucked me in while reading the book. Eddie Cibrian was fine as Nate, but I missed the setup to the story that had been done in the novel -- with Nate settling in as sheriff that really made the book for me. It was a murder mystery sure, but there were more to it in the book and I missed that in this adaptation.This is just like the 2007 collection that aired -- I could only get myself through one of out of the four movies more than once. They keep taking Nora Roberts and pairing her wonderful novels to barely anything at all. Why does a mediocre guy like Nicholas Sparks get all of his novels on the big screen and Nora gets no special treatment beyond stunt casting?