Fall Into Darkness (1996)

A disappointment

POSSIBLE MINOR SPOILERS, THOUGH NOTHING MAJOR!

This was a disappointing adaptation of the book, probably because I liked the book so much. There were lots of unnecessary changes. For instance, the girl who gets murdered. What was the point of that? There was enough drama in the story as it was. The thing I like about Christopher Pike's books is that they rely on so much more than body counts and cheap thrills. The story is not about people dropping dead left and right. Sharon finding the body in the closet was forced in there and there's no excuse for that. It annoyed me.

Second of all, they change Jerry's death from suicide to accident on the train tracks. Why couldn't they have just kept the suicide? Getting him from the house to the train tracks was just weird.

I understand that it's easier to show the whole Jerry plot in present tense as opposed to through flashback or through dialogue. That would have been very difficult. So I didn't mind that the story began when Jerry was alive. I liked that, in fact. The one thing that I didn't like about the book is that we never got a sense of Ann and Jerry's relationship. Obviously she was devastated by his death. He was her little brother and the last remaining member of her family. But if a dead character is going to be right at the center of a story, I need to get a sense of what kind of person he was. And that's what I liked about the movie. I liked that we got to see a little bit of Ann and Jerry's relationship, though I would have liked to have seen more interaction between them. Their relationship, as well as Ann and Sharon's, is at the heart of the story. Also, Jerry and Sharon's relationship is essential to the movie as well. What we got was a lack of relationship. I realize that Sharon wasn't interested in Jerry, but Jerry didn't really seem all that interested in her either, except in a very cursory way. And I felt that there was no way that Ann would believe that Jerry felt that strongly about Sharon when he'd only known her a short period of time and they hadn't had much more than one date. A person doesn't get drunk and wander onto the train tracks because a girl he only just met rejects him. Or if he does, I need to know why the girl's so important to him, or what kind of mental or emotional problems he has, and I didn't get any sense of that with him. There was no explanation for why Ann would be driven over the edge (no pun intended) by Sharon's behavior toward him, which was in no way dismissive, only normal, friendly interest and nothing more. Why would she blame Sharon for her brother's problems? Certainly it's her brother's problem if he can't get it through his head that a girl is under no obligation to date him just because he finds her cute and talented. Actually, I take that back. Now that I think about it, Sharon actually was fully aware of Jerry's interest in her and she expressed some mutual interest. So why did she suddenly reject him? Why did she claim to like him when she was talking to Ann, only to reject him when he tried to kiss her? Come on. She must have known where Jerry's feelings were headed. So that whole relationship between them was kinda rushed and not really explored. So yeah, I still feel it should have been explored more. I also feel that Ann blamed herself for Jerry's death and was projecting onto Sharon. If that's true, it would have been interesting to see that possibility explored more in the book and movie. Was Ann and Jerry's relationship strained? Usually when someone hates another person so much and for such a flimsy reason, they're covering up their own guilt. But I suppose I'm asking for too much from a simple made for tv movie.
Charlotte Ross is a fine actress, but she just seemed to give Ann a whole new personality. It wasn't horrible, but I just never pictured Ann having a sassy Sharon Stone-like quality. It's not a big deal.
Tatyana Ali did well with the material though there were times when her goody-goodyness really got on my nerves. She showed none of the spunk of the book Sharon.
I didn't mind so much that the courtroom scenes were eliminated. I never really felt like the courtroom scenes were important to the book. I felt like that was more of a device to tell the main story, through testimony. I know other will disagree with me. That's just my opinion. I did feel like the tone of the story remained, for the most part, pretty much intact. It's just that there were so many little things that bothered me.

But I am glad I watched it. No doubt. It was fun to see.
August 12, 2008

GREAT MOVIE, WHY SO HIGH?

I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THIS MOVIE, IT'S A GOOD MOVIE, AND I THINK THAT THIS IS THE BEST ROLE THAT LATE ACTOR JONATHAN BRANDIS EVER PLAYED. YOU WOULD HAVE NEVER GUESSED THE END WOULD TURN OUT THE WAY IT DID. THIS IS GOOD SUSPENSE MOVIE THAT YOU CAN SIT DOWN AND WATCH WITH YOUR FAMILY. MY MOM AN I WERE SEARCHING EVERYWHERE, AND THIS IS THE ONLY SPOT THAT HAS IT. WHY IS THE PRICE SO HIGH? July 22, 2007

More reviews at Amazon.com ...