What a beautiful movie!

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.

Blistering performances.

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

Once again, Lifetime TV attempts to adapt a novel by the much loved cult author V.C. Andrews. The Dollanganger series was a mixed bag, successful in some ways, but failing when they made alterations to the source material. "My Sweet Audrina" falls victim to the same kind of amateurish "tweaking" of the original story.To be fair, Lifetime didn't have so much to work with, as this novel wasn't really the author's best work, unlike the Dollanganger series, which was a huge success all over the world. This film is successful on some levels, such as the set design and cinematography being really gorgeous, as well as the mostly unknown cast. The house in which the drama takes place is a visual treat that will please fans of Gothic and romantic architecture. I just wish the script had been more like the novel. Yes, it is a rather strange book, and I imagine Lifetime didn't want to gamble on something that would put off their usual audience. So what we get is less of a Gothic horror/mystery, and more of an erotic thriller/soap opera production that Lifetime TV is known to produce. What a shame; the books were immensely popular, and the movie could have garnered more attention if it had been a bit more unique and daring. As it stands, "My Sweet Audrina" is still worth a look as a curiosity piece for fans of the V.C. Andrews books. It's surprising that this weird book was ever made into a movie in the first place.

I have to say that I have loved all the other V.C Andrews books to movies, the Dollanger Series was lovely. When it came to this movie, the lead is beautiful but her acting skills are quiet lacking, she mumbles lines, and I really can't say she had any real chemistry with her male lead. I adored Vera more, which is saying a lot when I read the books, I couldn't stand her.One of my biggest disappointments is Audrina's hair color, in the novel it was described as blond, with many other shades in it. In fact it is a key point in the "First" Audrina's story. Where she say's all girls of her hair color is witches and attempts to "call down a curse" on the boys. So this is a minor cosmetic thing, but its a big one to me. Also Audrina's eyes were suppose to be purple, V.C Andrews wrote her to be Gothic, and I feel that this movie fails to deliver it.By the end of it your just wanting for her to find the truth out so it will end. The story builds but goes no where.

I really wanted to give this movie more than five stars, but it appears that Lifetime isn't interested in doing V.C. Andrews books right to earn a higher rating.Lifetime needs to learn to ask fans what is important about these books before making them. If they can't even get the character's hair color right, then why are they bothering at all? This is a serious question. Color symbolism was important to V.C. Andrews books, which they would know if they had read the books and taken them seriously enough to write a script to reflect it.There's so much wrong with this movie, I can't even. But I'll try.1. Damien was ruthless, cruel, and a charming psychopath. The movie implies he is a creepy child molester which is stupid. They would know this if they read the book.2. Arden was much more of a selfish, demanding dick in the book. He had his good qualities but deep down inside he was only concerned about himself and his own guilt ridden psychological complex. The movie makes him look like god's gift to Audrina, which he wasn't.3. Billie Lowe is missing.4. Sylvia is missing.5. Mercy Mary teatimes were missing.6. Audrina's hair color was missing. It was a point of her identity in the book and tied her to her mother.7. Vera's hair color and eye color was missing. Vera's eye color was supposed to betray her true father - Damian.8. Ellsbeth was portrayed as a milquetoast pushover. Yes, Ellsbeth stayed at Whitefern because she was still in love with Damian. However, in the book her personality was much more disciplined and stuffy. She was nowhere near as nice in the movie.9. The ending was mixed up and made no sense. The chronological order of events were switched around.10. The rapists in the book were Audrina's classmates, not 18 year old teenage boys.There are excellent visuals and atmospheric qualities of this movie that were overshadowed by the hack job the script writer gave to V.C. Andrews book.

Atmospheric and nicely filmed, this adaptation of VC Andrews non Flowers series novel is worth a watch for fans of her books. W young girl is home schooled and kept confined in her family's mansion - but what secret is the family hiding about her deceased sister? The faults of a typical VC Andrews story are there - one dimensionally evil people, rather abrupt shifts in plot direction, but it's still good fun. The implausibility of the plot doesn't matter - after all it is a fantasy of sorts.The cast is watchable. As Audrina India Eisley's acting has improved a lot from Secret Life days and she makes quite a lot of this far fetched tale believable. Her love interest is played by the Royals' William Mosely looks a bit old for her and his British accent comes across. James Tupper of Revenge is okay enough as the father.The love scene is kind of laughable as she transforms suddenly from frigid to the opposite.For fans