hyped garbage

A Disappointing Continuation

In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

she saves the movie from a script who has not science to drive a spectacular story. because , if you do not know the original adaptation or the book, it is not easy to understand a ball of events, dialogs and decisions in the right light. the desire to make an easy horror is not the most inspired option in the case of Flowers in Attic. because the result is only a stinky improvisation. because the good intentions of the actors is obstruction by a scriptwriter and a director with the desire to transform a superb story in a kilt of mist. and that is the fact for who the best choice in that case is Ellen Bustyn who gives a decent dose of credibility to a chaotic project.

I really don't see the need for remakes, especially when they're done so badly. Carrie, Robocop, Psycho, were all classic films and if not perfect, pretty darn close in their own right. Whenever they remake films like this, they ruin it with overdone effects, veering too far away from a story, or repeating the script almost word for word. Those films were classics for a reason. Flowers is no exception. In the original, the children were shiny and beautiful when they arrived. By the time they left, they looked so miserable, malnourished and waif-like, you believed they'd been stuck up there in that attic for years. The attic was an oppressive and claustrophobic place, even though the kids tried to make it more pleasant. In the remake, there are real flowers and sunlight, and it's quite a pretty and joyous space. Whilst I adore Ellen Burstyn and her legendary acting ability, her character showed too much compassion for the children and there were times when I thought she would scoop them up and give them a hug. Louise Fletcher nailed the part. She was cold, detached and totally intimidating. The role was written perfectly for her, so Ellen cannot be blamed for the new version. She did the best with what she was given. The acting otherwise was meh (apart from Carrie's reaction to the news about Corey), but they're kids, so once again, can be forgiven. But don't even get me started on Heather's acting. How does she get work? She sounded like she was reading her lines off the back of her hand, and she was completely wrong for the part. Victoria Tennant had substance. When she slapped Cathy, you really believed she hated her. The original may not have been true to the books 100%, but it was entertaining, believable, and the acting was good. And if it ain't broke, why try and fix it?

I read these books when and as they were released so it's definitely been a while. I loved the books and became a fan of most of V.C. Andrews books. I was so excited when I heard they were making the original movie but so disappointed when I saw it. Here again I was so EXCITED hoping that this time they would really capture the emotions that I felt reading the books. I won't go as far as saying it was a waste of my afternoon and I will watch Petals on the Wind just for the nostalgia but my expectations have been tempered quite a bit. I did enjoy Ellen Burstyn/Grandmother (always plays evil with eerie accuracy) ,Kiernan Shipka/Cathy, and Mason Dye/Christopher but other than that it was certainly nothing special. I read a review that said Heather Graham/Corrine seem bored and vacant. I actually didn't think she was anything more than a robotic distraction. The movie would have been better with her written out of it.

My wife who read the book many years ago was looking forward to this film adaptation. She informs me that the film was faithful to the book.As for me I probably not the target audience for this Lifetime Original Movie. Its mainly targeted at a female audience and despite the star casting of Ellen Burstyn, it has made for TV written all over it and the largely interior sets very much displays its low budget if glossy origins.The film is about a group of four children locked in an attic in the care of their stern and wicked grandmother while their glamorous mother (Heather Graham) tries to reconcile with her father and inherit his money. Over time the two older siblings embark on an incestuous relationship and discover that there mother has abandoned them and worse they are superfluous to her new life and they plan to escape.The film is plain, old fashioned, even a tad hammy. Burstyn imbues her character with some emotions and care towards her grandchildren but in the main she is a harridan. Graham starts of as the caring mother but over time she has entered her own glamorous world and you get the feeling she cares less about her kids.The younger children play their parts well, the older children did not convince. They did not look like kids locked up in an attic, malnourished, living in a troubled existence.