My Sweet Audrina

I agree with the other reviews when it comes to rewriting the book and how LMN Blew it once again. Sometimes you just can't teach the old stupid dog new tricks or at least how to make a movie right. The deviation from the book cast an entirely different outlook on all the characters and led to a different ending from the book.

If LMN is going to use a book for the basis for a movie, at least follow the book and not make a nice guy out of a AH who is in the book. Anyway I found this quite disappointing and I like India Eisley as an actress, yet I found nothing worthwhile with this abomination. And don't these male actors know the difference between leering like a psycho stalker and admiration of beauty?

Yes another Botched job from lifetime.

My sweet audrina is one of the best books I've ever read. This movie however is awful. The acting is terrible and I can't seem to figure out why Arden and audrina seem to have Scottish accents??? If you enjoyed the book save yourself and do not watch this garbage excuse for a movie.

When she was nine-years-old, something awful happened to Audrina. This character is referred to as "the first Audrina." The tragedy has caused everyone to go crazy. The parents have another Audrina and try to protect her from the same awfulness by secluding her in the family mansion. This "second Audrina" is home-schooled. Also, she is forbidden to associate with the surrounding community. However, when a sexy piano teacher offers lessons, brooding papa James Tupper (as Damian Adare) lets the alluring young India Eisley (as Audrina) share the handsome man's piano seat. Strange. Modestly costumed, but in sultry make-up, Ms. Eisley's only friend is sisterly sexpot Tess Atkins (as Vera). Finally, although he supposedly only knows her as the village freak, muscular blond William Moseley (as Arden Lowe) has fallen madly in love with Eisley...

The above set-up really doesn't make much sense. However, the situations do become clear, by the end of the story. It's not a bad story, but what this TV movie does is show us the highlights in long family mystery. Unfortunately, events just happen. There is little attempt to build a mystery or piece them together. We are shown, not guided or told. The emphasis is clearly on sex fantasies. Apparently, this is the main thrust (sorry) of the assignment given director Mike Rohl and his crew. The performances are all highly sexualized. You don't see much sex, by the way, since this movie is geared toward foreplay and fantasy. The problem is... the story really wasn't about sex. The violent incident triggering the drama, and its repercussions, are lost in the mix. The best you can say that is everyone looks sexy and the photography, by James Liston, is outstanding.

**** My Sweet Audrina (2016-01-09) Mike Rohl ~ India Eisley, William Moseley, James Tupper, Tess Atkins

The book is almost a a creepy nightmare and this movie is a pink soap opera. There's a lot of elements that are missing here, first of all Audrina hair color , eyes color, her cousins hair color, Audrina has a little sister in this movie there's no sister. And there's lots of facts that are missing as well.

This movie is a total disgrace to the book. The book draws you in, but this piece of trash movie just makes you want to run away from the television.