So much average

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

I was very disappointed with Lifetime's adaptation of "Flowers In The Attic" (2014) but I decided to give the first sequel they produced a try, hoping that it would get better. The answer? Yes and no. While Ellen Burstyn once again walks away with the "Best Acting" honors (despite her role being significantly smaller than in the first movie), the acting in "Petals" was generally better than in "Flowers"; even Heather Graham improved somewhat. The real problems with this Lifetime presentation are the rushed directorial pace, cheap budget, and the weak way the story has been adapted from the book. If you haven't read the novel, you will probably enjoy the film for what it is; a soap opera-like time waster. If you've read the books in the series, as I have, you will see how far it deviates from the source material.Of course, there's no such thing as a completely faithful adaptation; time constraints and plot are often altered to make things move quickly or to create more drama. However, not only is the timeline off (reducing Paul Sheffield and his relationship to Cathy, Chris and Carrie to a backstory) but so many things have been added that simply did not happen in the book. Cathy's relationship with Julian (Will Kemp) as well as his mother and other ballet dancers in the company she joins is either watered down or left out completely. We don't understand why she marries Julian here, or why she puts up with his abusive behavior. Carrie's death is pushed ahead (when in fact, she pre-deceased Paul in the book) and there is very little character development as to the trials she faced at school or trying to live a normal life after being deprived of sunlight and food to the point where her growth was stunted. A love interest was invented for Christopher, a young woman named Sarah (Whitney Hoy), who evidently serves no purpose other than to lead to Cathy and Chris being "discovered" as to their forbidden love and desire for one another, and for them to move to another state where no one knows them. In the book, Cathy spends most of it not only consumed with revenge (which does play a part here) but also fighting her love for Chris (who tells her he will never love anyone but her) by becoming involved with Paul, Julian, and later her mother's husband, Bart Winslow (Dylan Bruce). The latter two men do have roles here, but the complex nature of their relationships to Cathy are not really explored, no doubt due to the 90-minute running time. Which begs the question: why not make the these adaptations of V.C. Andrews' book into a two-part miniseries for each installment? Maybe Lifetime just didn't have the budget, but these films could have been so much better. The climax again, feels very rushed; atmosphere is also lacking. The confrontation between Cathy and Corinne contained none of the power that it had in the novel. I have to say, however, that Rose McIver and Wyatt Nash give better performances than Kiernan Shipka and Mason Dye, and it was nice to see Carrie (Bailey De Young) get more screen time and she did well with the little that she was given.It's okay for what it is, just don't expect it to reflect the book.

I got my hands on these novels when I was in early high school. My mother had owned them and I found them in a box in the basement and devoured them. As an adult, of course this series is a lot creepier than I though it was then. After watching the first in this series, Flowers in the Attic, and finding it to be not too far reaching from the original storyline, I had high hopes for the second, this installment, Petals on the Wind. Unfortunately, I was sorely disappointed.The fact that it opens up to Dr. Paul Scheffield's funeral was enough to send me digging through my bookshelves to make sure that I wasn't remembering everything wrong. Sure enough, Paul was just as big a part of that book as I had remembered. Not only did he take the three siblings in, he nearly married Cathy! Removing him from the movie's storyline did it a great injustice.Then there was the horrible job done of Cathy's career (in the books, she was going on world tours), Julian (they were married, he tried to destroy her feet, and after the accident - which Cathy was NOT in - he killed himself), Henny (she was mute!) Chris's turmoil (he was NEVER able to overcome Cathy - there was no Sarah in the books and that whole thing doesn't even fit with the story), Carrie's unhappiness (she was incredibly depressed during most of the book, and at the school, the girls left her bound, gagged, and blindfolded on a roof to die - she survived but broke her leg), and her death (Alex was not a minister to start with - Carrie had an ingrained fear of religion thanks to the grandmother), and Cathy's views of her mother (she did not try to reach out in love - she only wanted revenge in the books, and PLOTTED to steal her mother's husband). This wasn't just omitting parts of the story or changing little details to make a film watchable (think Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire). They had to completely rewrite entire chunks to make their botched adaptation work.I have not watched If There Be Thorns or Seeds of Yesterday yet, though I will. Hopefully they fare better than this one. It's an okay movie overall for a Lifetime.Just don't go into Petals on the Wind thinking it will be anything like the original novel, or you'll be heavily disappointed.

A good film overall. It generally follows the book but in a different order. It should have followed more closely because the film missed out on vital things, like what happened when they left, how they met the doctor and the relationship between Cathy and Paul. Their first few years at the family home with doctor Paul and how Cathy came to dance and actually meet Julian. Also where Cathy is in New York that was 5 ish years too late, as that happened a lot younger in the book. Carries incident in school where she's locked in the room happened when Carrie was around 9 where she was then removed from school. The film doesn't really explain what happens with Julian and why Jory is called that.I liked the fact that they showed Corine in her house trying to hide the attic and the grandmother telling everyone about the poisoning of Cory in the first film/book.Overall a good film but it was spoilt by the fact I've just finished the book and it wasn't directly following the book.

Petals on the WindThe best way to get revenge on a bad parent is to abuse them when they get senile.However the siblings in this drama have chosen to attack much earlier.A decade after their mother (Heather Graham) and grandmother (Ellen Burstyn) held them captive in the attic of Foxworth Hall, the surviving Dollanganger children: Cathy (Rose McIver), Chris (Wyatt Nash) and Carrie (Bailey Buntain), mourn the death of their adopted father.With a forbidden fire still burning for each other, Chris and Cathy unwillingly take-on unrelated lovers as they pursue careers in medicine and ballet, respectively.But a failed encounter with their estranged mother sets off a scheme to spoil her and her new husband's life. Based on the sequel to Flowers in the Attic, this latest installment in the Dollanganger series is as tawdry, melodramatic and campy as its predecessor. Furthermore, the best revenge an incestuous couple can get on their mother is having her baby-sit her two-headed grandchild. Yellow Lightvidiotreviews.blogspot.ca