The story had promise - a girl begins to have some dreams/visions of events she couldn't possibly have experience with. She finds she is a clone. Granted it's set in 1983 so cloning was new and an explosive topic. However, the acting and the lines they deliver is just atrocious, almost unwatchable/sophomoric.

Imagine just being any ordinary teenager and finding out that you were adopted or not the biological child of whom you thought were your parents. An identity issue for any person. But imagine being an extraordinarily gifted 12 year old who discovers that you're actually a clone of a deceased genius, used by the woman you thought was your mother simply to fulfill an experiment. That's the story for Martha Byrne in this early cable movie, told in the most matter-of-fact ways by mother Dina Merrill, yet realizing that your whole identity is a lie and that every trait of your personality comes from someone long deceased. Byrne is a walking experiment, sent to special teachers and a scientific hospital where are more tests make her question her identity, and finding another clone of the same person.

The future Lily Walsh of "As the World Turns" had a very difficult upbringing on the daytime serial, but in this movie, her situation is far beyond what Lily went through. Then there's Anna's parents, Dina Merrill and Jack Ryland, as different as night and day. Ryland, a musician, believes in love and tenderness and genuine affection while scientists Merrill doesn't seem to have the capability of love if it doesn't fulfill her desire for scientific achievement. Merrill isn't completely unfeeling, but it's obvious that a woman of her scientific genius should have just chosen her career and not motherhood. Mark Patton may have his differences with his sister, but he's instantly disgusted by the revelation of what his mother did, and his goal to wake their mother up to her follies shows that he is definitely his father's son with his ability to love unconditionally.

in a major supporting role, Donna Mitchell is commanding as a musician friend of the parents who takes Byrne under her wing and becomes a tough taskmaster. At times, it seems that she has some sort of agenda, and throughout the film, that remains a mystery. The terrific Loretta Devine has a nice cameo as Byrne's teacher who discovers that she is a kleptomaniac and must put up with her insults while confronting her for her trespasses. Jack Gilford has a memorable cameo and a type of role that was completely different for anything he had played in the past. Virginia Stevens is very funny as an aging nurse who is not prepared to take crap from any teenager, yet finds that she has met her match.

But it is Martha Byrne herself who becomes the most memorable presence in this film, going from a confused and often nasty teenager to a young lady finding herself after realizing that her identity has been stolen from her. couldn't find she starts off as unlikable and seemingly someone that the audience could not root for, but quickly turn that around as she researches original Anna and finds out shocking things about her past, hoping to create her own identity while keeping the best traits that the late Anna has given her.

While there are more than just a few elements of "The Boys from Brazil" in this film, the theme of cloning get some unique insights as does the psychology of what happens when a child finds out that they are not who they have always thought they are. The film does take a dark turn in the last half hour and that gives it a very adult point of view that moves it from light science fiction to very subtle horror. This really is the type of film to make you sit and think and ask questions and research and discuss with the other people you watch it with.

The story is well-written, but the overall movie suffers from poor directing, acting and cliche characters.

The acting comes to first note. Through the entire film it's as if the actors are reading their lines from boards across the stage. Early Anna comes across as someone trying to portray an annoying brat rather than just an annoying brat. That said, it is interesting to see the actress show some chops as she progresses to her later stages, where she seems more relaxed and normal. I can only guess that comes from either growing experience in front of the camera-- or a personality more suited to her normal person.

But down to the last scene the acting of all seems forced, word-by-word without any improvisation. As I find it hard to believe they'd manage to have that many bad actors by coincidence, I have to believe it's the directing that causes such an amazing phenomena.

The plus side is a story with a reasonable plot, sensible progression, and lack of jump-the-shark stupid moments (common to this type of movie these days). The story held right to the end, without any sudden or unexpected letdowns (even if it did leave things slightly in the air, the possible outcomes were plausible and it was a decent conclusion).

One lack of logic was the climax near the end. Since cloning is not against the law (in the United States; it is banned in some other countries),there was really no reason for what was portrayed in the movie (spoilers withheld). That issue didn't ruin the movie, but it did make astute viewers question the motivation and extreme actions (or intended actions) of some characters. Since all this was done under full disclosure with willing participants, there was no reason for well, the entire last 10 or 15 minutes of plot. That was the one place I noticed where the ball was dropped a little. Nevertheless the story continued of its own right and worked out reasonably well.

Side note: I found it interesting that they used Apple II as their primary computer-on-set, since by 1983 the IBM PC had taken the market by storm. However the Apple was still going strong and had solidly immersed itself in the educational and publishing community (it took IBM some 15 years to break Apple's strangle-hold in those areas),so historically, use of that computer system that was a fairly accurate portrayal and pegs the time during which the movie was made.