Lucybespro It is a performances centric movie

Odelecol Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

Erica Derrick By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Rosie Searle It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

loschavez It was understood this would be a sorely depressing film, considering the unpleasant subject. I never read this novel, but any screenplay it contained would have tended toward low expectations. Even in this era of cloned flops.--Spoilers coming: Here we see nothing uplifting, not even the growing children. I've known some wonderful kids with Down's Syndrome. A sweet Downs child is usually more than able to capture your heart by sheer innocence and good will.Here the daughter Phoebe has that responsibility thrust on her because all the other characters are dreadful. They only convey grief and/or ignorance of the subject matter. Ostensibly because this novel all occurs in unenlightened days when Downs babies were referred to as "Mongoloid idiots." But in this plot there can be no excuses. Because her father, this "Memory Keeper" is a practicing physician. Yet, from panic he condemns his baby girl to an institution that seems nothing more than a zoo. Emily Watson's role is supposed to show love and compassion. She's this plot's lynch-pin. But what she acts out is deadpan worry. Both the mother who was deceived, and her boy the twin brother, are played with less nuance than her Downs-afflicted daughter emotes.Indeed, she carries on cheerfully. The plot, however, sags in all the important places. Except for some tearful expressions by Mom and Dad in early development, hardly any acting of significance is filmed. IMHO, the director of this movie ought to bow out of the profession and let others take the blame for depressing, bad films.

ecjones1951 a novel has a reading group study guide at the back. It's as if the author or publisher knows that the novel itself isn't strong enough to merit lively discussion without prompts or cues.That appendix of Kim Edwards's "The Memory Keeper's Daughter" provided a handy script for the Lifetime movie adaptation. But it makes a big gaffe, and it's a doozy: the title character and her brother are almost incidental!I read the book to the end mainly because I found Caroline Gill to be such a very strong, very compelling character. I never pictured Emily Watson in the role, although she is superb, given what she has to work with. But what is an actress of Watson's caliber doing in a middling TV movie anyway?Dermot Mulroney, as David Henry, is doomed from the start. In the book the reader doesn't so much feel what David is going through as he is told.The script doesn't bring the character any more to life, and Mulroney is not actor enough to fill in the blanks, nor to overcome the ghastly work by the makeup department in his final scenes.In the book and movie, David's wife Norah is used as a coat hanger over which to drape issues afflicting the disillusioned housewife: suspicion, booze, affairs, a time-killing job and self-absorption. In the thankless role, Gretchen Mol follows Spencer Tracy's advice; she hits her marks and doesn't bump into the furniture.Oh, well. There have been far worse books and far worse movies made from them. The novel "The Memory Keeper's Daughter" touches on so many issues that it explores only a few of them very thoroughly. The movie wisely cuts out many a subplot and yet it still feels long, sluggish and predictable. It's too bad that Lifetime Network, which has a huge following, doesn't spend a little more coin and effort making better movies from better stories.

shimmer765 Does anyone know the name of the song that Paul is playing on the guitar when the family is vacationing at the beach???I really enjoyed the book, but I wasn't entirely thrilled with the way the movie turned out. The book kept me turning the pages... I really thought that the movie didn't portray the struggle that Caroline went through with Phoebe growing up and her passion for her as a mother.It really only touched on many of the aspects of the book and in my opinion the movie was sort of a quick synopsis of the book. The acting was OK... not Oscar-worthy or anything, just OK.It was, however, entertaining, but I'm glad I read the book first!

SoulxSide Based on a fairly bland "best seller," this film - like most other Lifetime movies - played out more like a reenactment than an actual movie. The only difference here was that Meredith Baxter wasn't in it. The women in this don't age even over a span of like 20 years and the acting in general is pretty bad.The characters in this were all cliché and one-dimensional. The story was of the cheesy nature. I wouldn't recommend it, but it's the kind of thing that people who loved the book and people who watch that network all the time will think is great. I only watched it because my girlfriend wanted to see it so she wouldn't have to read the book her sister loaned to her. It wasn't made for someone like me - my girlfriend cried a little at the end though, so she didn't think it was as terrible as I did.