Stometer Save your money for something good and enjoyable

Exoticalot People are voting emotionally.

AnhartLinkin This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

Humaira Grant It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

bks-508-290401 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?

flwrsatc I love the series and decided to watch the live action to see all the things I had imagined and envisioned in my head, come to life. I tried my best to give it a chance even though the acting was poor and the actors were not at all what I had imagined. but I had to draw the line with the scene where Chris cuts Cathy's hair. Chris comes off as your average horny teen boy which makes it very difficult to appreciate what happens later. and the way he cuts off her hair was so rough and nonchalant. Chris in the book never would have cut her hair like that. such a shame. the movie created no depth for the plot nor characters making this seem like just a sick, deranged, (barely) thriller. If only the directors, producers, actors, everyone could have taken a little time to read and appreciate the book, the movie would have been much better. but nonetheless, I love the book so 5 stars goes automatically.

Keith Wells 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.

Robert W. I believe I have seen the original Flowers In The Attic film but its been years! Its been even longer since I read the book. However, I know the story well and it is truly a brilliant and gripping story with underlying tones of incest, abuse and religious fanaticism. I think the story is due for a re-telling and under the right direction and writing should be a stone cold success. Lifetime decided they could do it and you know I won't lie...the film is watchable. Somehow I found it gripping enough to stay with it and I didn't hate it. Some reviewers have called it "watered down" and I think that's a huge understatement. It is very watered down and still covers some very taboo areas but the performances, nearly all of them, are so cheesy and "Little Theater"-esque that its hard to say the film "good" necessarily. I think its just the original story that makes this so watchable. VC Andrews was a brilliant writer and its easy to become enamoured with her stories. The film goes from a story about children being held captive to a Blue Lagoon type romance between brother and sister that is simply hard to believe or accept. This rendition of the story is full of holes that make little sense and they do nothing to paint over.I will start with Heather Graham who I have always been sort of indifferent towards. She is a decent actress that I've never really liked nor disliked. Honestly, she's sort of awful in this. She seems ridiculous and delivers her lines with such excruciating blandness that she literally is laughable in a very dark, serious film. Not to be outdone, I'm afraid to say the older children are not much better. Kiernan Shipka and Mason Dye have some good scenes (and believe me it gets awkward) but they just seem so stiff and cheesy in their line delivery. I don't suppose its a great script but they don't do anything with it that's for certain. The only thing I can say is that they're campy performances make the entire film seem even more awkward which actually works in the favour of making this more watchable. Odd but true. Ava Telek and Maxwell Kovach are actually pretty good in small roles as the younger siblings. Thankfully they always manage to keep them out of the more awkward and abusive scenes. Ellen Burstyn should really be the saving grace to this film. She is a legend and I will say she easily gives the best performance but that isn't saying much amongst this cast. I actually found they underused Burstyn in a lot of ways but she definitely gives an edge to the role but I still think it could have been more.There is so much content here to this story and I think Lifetime spent FAR too much time focusing on the incestuous relationship between Chris and Cathy. I know they were purposely trying to be shocking and water cooler type viewing but it stumbles and misses the mark with so many other great things in this story. The musical score for the film is really good, haunting and noticeable and drives the story forward. The redeeming qualities of this film are not unnoticed. Towards the end there is a lot of emotion, the campier performances get slightly better and some of that original story that rips your heart out is certainly present. At times I thought this would be a total laughable write off and then I would find myself being shocked and on the edge of my seat. Somehow, they pull it off but the missed potential should not go unmentioned. I think its good they got a woman director, Deborah Chow, but someone with more experience would have helmed a much better film. There are a lot of unanswered plot holes, and things they rush over far too quickly but it is what it is and this is what we have. I'm actually anxious to go back and watch the original film now. And to prove this wasn't a total write off...for some unknown reason I was pleased to hear Lifetime was doing the sequel film in a month or so. Maybe this film will find a place in cult history after all. 7/10