Falconeer 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.

Gochi 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.

dutchchocolatecake 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.

John Doe I stumbled across this film while watching TV a few weeks ago. The film, "My Sweet Audrina" is based on a novel by Virginia C. Andrews. I watched the movie because I thought India Eisley was a good actress and liked her from a few other projects she was in.The story, (although confusing, and I'll try to explain it as best as I can from what I understood of it) tells the story of a girl named Audrina who, (from what was said in the beginning) is the second Audrina who had a sister before her also named Audrina who died from an accident in the woods (I will not say what, you have to watch the film sorry). The second Audrina wants to be perfect like the first and was isolated from the world, and has a step-sister/second cousin named Vera. Audrina's mother died during child birth to Audrina's sister. (I could be wrong on this so forgive me if I am). Anyways, there are three Audrina's (played by three different actresses in the story, one for three different stages of her life), and one day she falls in love with a boy named Arden.The story is interesting and kind of confusing but is well written and keep your attention span going for 88 minutes.The acting is very well dome from India Eisley, James Tupper and Tess Atkins. I recommend this movie to see once but not much else. I won't spoil any more of the film so just watch it yourself.I give My Sweet Audrina a 6/10