My Sweet Audrina (2016 TV Movie)
5/10
Okay as a movie, but disappointing as an adaptation
8 October 2021
Warning: Spoilers
On its own, this is not a bad film. The production values are quite good (especially with the interior scenes), and it has a reasonably gothic atmosphere, the music is decent, as is most of the acting. If you haven't read the book, you may like the film.

As an adaptation of the novel, this is an extremely watered-down presentation. Granted, the book is quite massive, covers a lot of years and no doubt some of it would have been difficult to translate to the screen. However, several important characters are either missing or have very little screen time, so their importance to the plot and to the main characters doesn't register. Some of the characters were whitewashed to make them more likable.

As another reviewer noted, 90 minutes just isn't enough time to tell these stories. Lifetime would have done better if they had produced them as miniseries. The complex nature of these novels by V. C. Andrews doesn't always translate well within a limited budget.

India Eisley was a good choice to play the older Audrina, but I don't know why Lifetime seems to have a problem with giving the actresses wigs when hair color is such a crucial part of the characters. James Tupper did well as Audrina's father Damian although he's not nearly as detestable as he was in the book, and Tess Atkins did what she could as Vera in the limited amount of screen time she had.

Nothing remarkable, but enjoyable enough if you can let go of any expectations as to following the source material.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed