"The Dollanganger Saga" Flowers in the Attic (TV Episode 2014) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
79 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
6/10
Blond on Blonde
wes-connors28 January 2014
An idealized, idyllic and seemingly wealthy 1950s family of six is suddenly hit with great tragedy. Stripped of their material goods, the family must move into an isolated Gothic mansion. In Virginia, "Foxworth Hall" matriarch Ellen Burstyn (as Olivia) gives them a frosty welcome. She insists the "four beautiful children with blonde hair and porcelain skin" must live in the attic, because their ailing grandfather disapproves of their existence. Conniving mother Heather Graham (as Corrine Foxworth-Dollanganger) hopes to inherit her father's estate, but must keep her children a secret until the old man dies. Increasingly neglected in the attic, the eldest children struggle to care for the younger twins as skeletons fall out of the mansion's closets...

Ending with awkward abruptness, this is the first in a series of "Lifetime" TV movies based on Virginia C. Andrews' popular stories. A previous feature film cut subplots involving incest from the story, but this version includes the incestuous feelings. The "taboo" subject was an important part of the original novel, but it doesn't translate well. When we first see two of the characters in question, they have clearly experienced the "body changing" developments latter referred to in the script. They talk about school and appear at a well-attended party (unlike the novel). Since sexual interest has begun, their attraction is more difficult to accept. In most school settings, the top physical condition of these two would not go unnoticed by most classmates...

Attractively proportioned co-stars Kiernan Shipka (as Cathy) and Mason Dye (as Christopher) handle the leading roles better than expected. Still, when he gives her a cool "punk" hairstyle, we wonder who cuts and shaves Mr. Dye's always neatly trimmed hair. The young stars and director Deborah Chow excel in reaction shots. In the supporting roles, Ms. Graham and Ms. Burstyn are engaging. Graham's character is cast to the wind, unfortunately; to really impress, she needed a couple more scenes. Possibly at her own insistence, Burstyn's character is more fully realized; this actress brings something extra to the role and is more intuitive about the medium. The six producers had to be happy with art/set direction and Miroslaw Baszak's photography.

****** Flowers in the Attic (1/18/14) Deborah Chow ~ Kiernan Shipka, Mason Dye, Ellen Burstyn, Heather Graham
25 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A truly faithful adaptation..
Falconeer19 January 2014
For those fans worried about the makers of this TV production not being faithful to the source material; this version is really wonderful. Featuring a beautiful, blond cast of talented actors, "Flowers in the Attic" makes the beloved Gothic novel come to life. With nice 1950's period detail, we follow the Dollanganger family to the sprawling Virginia mansion known as Foxworth Hall, a place filled with secrets and cruel deceptions. Four children will be hidden in an upstairs room by a selfish mother, determined to "win back her father's love," and thus inherit the vast Foxworth fortune. But you all know the story; this book series is such a big part of the childhood memories of so many people.

This new adaptation has it all; beautiful sets, top rate actors turning in frighteningly believable performances, and an intelligent script that shows absolute respect to the novel from 1979. It is obvious that everyone involved actually cared about what they were doing, which is rare for television movies, that so often look rushed and sloppily thrown together, just to meet a deadline. In other words, this movie has a heart. Veteran actress Ellen Buryston surprisingly lends the Grandmother a bit of a human side here, which in turn makes Corrine even more of an evil character. Not to say that the Grandmother isn't still terrifying; Buryston just gives her more depth. Heather Graham, usually known more for her beauty than her acting abilities, gives a surprisingly good performance as Corrine Foxworth; sweet, charming, selfish, and cruel; all at the same time. And later in the story, when she shows her true colors, it is quite frightening. She plays a great bitch. Cathy and Chris likewise were perfectly cast by two very talented young people. Cathy especially is multi-layered here, and she allows us to sympathize with her, without her acting too sweet, or innocent; here she is a "real person," a girl that we can relate to.

I can say that every major plot point of the novel was covered in this movie, except for one that I can remember; the passages in the novel where Chris lets Cory drink his blood, after the Grandmother has cut off their food supply, is sadly absent; sad because that is one of the most powerful images from the book, and shows just how much Chris loved his siblings. But every minute of it's short running time was used to maximum effect. At under 2 hours, we still get the feeling that the children are in that upstairs room for 2 years. And I have to say that this production has a gorgeous look to it as well. It must be mentioned too, that the controversial theme of incest is dealt with, and handled very tastefully; it is still shocking, but it never feels exploitative. I'm happy to say that this is a total success all around. If you are a fan of the novels, and haven't seen this movie version, i recommend that you give it a watch; I can't imagine anyone being disappointed with this one.
55 out of 75 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Nicely done effort but fails to achieve lift off.
egf35321 September 2018
Cinematography and staging above par. That's about all there is to say that stands out about this movie, Though the film remains more faithful to the book then its previous 1987 incarnation The acting and characters fail to connect to heart strings of the viewer which was not the case with 1987 version. Ellen Burstyn's character comes across as just a crabby grandmother type Heather Graham seems much more a older sister to Cathy then her Mother, Christopher as effeminate and Kienman Shipka as intellectual tomboyish figure just going along the ride waiting for her ending. Though faithful to book in a lot of ways and Cinematography above par. There just isn't the feel of dread and other emotional stirrings you got from the book or 1987. You don't connect with the characters in this one. Instead they are just there doing their acting bit. Though Ellen Burstyn's character in this film is flat due too direction and writing Ellen Burstyn's performance reflects a honed actor at her finest; acting royalty.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Good...But Could've Been Great
dentlakesha19 January 2014
My very first introduction to V.C. Andrews came when I was about 10 years old. My mother, usually very protective and conservative when it came to movies, actually let me watch a movie called "Flowers in the Attic." It was kind of an "I-think-you-can-handle-it; it'll-be-our-secret" moment. :-) I really liked it, and even though as an adult I think it's actually pretty tame, that movie retains, for me, an element of the taboo and outrageous. A few years after that I read the book and realized how sanitized it actually was.

I was so excited to learn that there was going to be a 2014 remake of "FItA." However, I was a little nervous to learn that Lifetime was going to be the venue. After reading the book, I thought that the only TV station that could do it justice would be HBO, Showtime or Starz. So nonetheless, I excitedly awaited the premier of this on Lifetime, so much so that I waited until midnight to catch the replay (I was spending MLK weekend in a cabin with some girlfriends and a few guys that I couldn't convince to tune in for the 8pm showing!). After viewing it, I decided that it was neither better nor no worse than the 80s film.

First of all, the Lifetime film was much closer to the novel, even down to small details like the picture of Hell in the room. Unlike the 80s film, in which the story took place in the present time (the 80s), the remake takes place in the correct time period, the 50s. This film succeeds in some places and fails in others.

The good: Again, very close to the novel. The film is also beautifully shot with gorgeous 50s period costumes and dark, Gothic eerie-ness. Ellen Berstyn as "The Grandmother," Olivia, was good. What's funny is she actually portrayed a three-dimensional character, as opposed to Louise Fletcher's 80s portrayal, which was more one-dimensional, but, to me, MUCH more evil and fun to hate. BUT when Ellen's Grandmother got nasty, she got NASTY very well! When a grown woman threatens a little kid and makes a fist, that's pretty disturbing! The actor who portrayed Chris was also good, or at least better than the one who portrayed the character in the original.

The neutral: The lead actress who played Cathy (Kiernan Shipka) portrayed her completely differently than the one that played her in the 80s film (Kristy Swanson). Instead of a sweet, quiet and occasionally angry girl, we get a very 21-st century, kind but sarcastic hard @$$. This could be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on your taste and/or how you interpreted the book.

The bad: Heather Graham is a gorgeous, sexy and talented actress. However, I can't help but feel that most of her talent must lie in comedy. She looked beautiful in the costumes, but I didn't care for her acting in this at all. And, well, this movie was kind of boring. Despite the producers actually showing some of the more tawdry details of the novels, I still felt that Lifetime held back. To me this was the opportunity to capture the craziness of the novel, and it just failed.

I did enjoy this, but it wasn't any better than the original film, unfortunately. It was just a slightly different version.
30 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Please don't eat any pastries!
BandSAboutMovies24 June 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Has any author been more made for Lifetime than V.C. Andrews? Nope. So it was no surprise when the network announced that four movies based on the Dollanganger saga would begin airing on its network in 2014. Unlike the 1987 theatrical film, the ending follows the book.

Of course, it's the same basic story of the Dollanganger children Chris (Mason Dye, MTV's Teen Wolf), Cathy (Kiernan Shipka, Mad Men and Netflix's The Thrilling Adventures of Sabrina) and the twins Carrie and Cory who must endure after the death of their father and eventual abandonment by their mother Corrine (Heather Graham) inside the attic room of their brutal grandmother Olivia (Ellen Burstyn).

However, where the original film only hinted at the incest between Chris and Cathy, this one uses it as the bait to keep you watching the movie. Hey - it's 2019. For some reason, 90% of all pornography seems to be incest based these days. Perhaps V.C. Andrews was on to something.

Instead of trying to tie the ending off with a neat - or poorly realized - ending, this time the story naturally leads to the second book of the series, Petals on the Wind, which aired four months later.

I'm pleased to state that I have all four of these films - are you surprised? - and I didn't even wait for the four pack from Walmart. No, I have them all individually because I bought them the moment they came out. Not every movie has doughnuts killing mice and children, you know.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Disappointed again...
LiveLoveLead19 January 2014
I read the Flower's In the Attic books when they first came out. I was around 19 years old. The series was very popular and controversial. I was excited when they made the first movie in 1987, but was hugely disappointed in the script and acting. This movie adaption was not much better. I felt Heather Graham did a poor job of portraying the mother, Corrine. They made her so shallow from the beginning and didn't really portray how close the family was in the beginning and how hard the decision, for the mom, to move back home was. Graham's acting was so one dimensional. The kids weren't very good actors either.

The movie had most of the information and scenes from the book, but failed to translate the feeling/emotion of the book: the fear, the breaking down of trust, the desperation of eldest kids, especially during the twins declining health, the anger, pain, confusion and survival instincts that the kids went through.

So, bottom line for me is that it was just an OK movie, a B-movie ...nothing special, and didn't portray the feelings of V.C. Andrews original story. There are a lot better movies out there about children abandoned or mistreated by their moms...try Mommy Dearest, Sybil, Gracie's Choice, Kramer vs. Kramer, East of Eden, Evelyn, Nowhere Boy (John Lennon's childhood, An American Crime...these are all much better movies to spend your time watching, in My Humble Opinion!
16 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Heather Graham- what were they thinking?
farishthas28 January 2014
Warning: Spoilers
While reading a few of the other reviews prior writing mine, one thing can be concluded unanimously, what were they thinking when they cast Heather Graham? I don't think that she's a bad actress, I just think that she was a poor choice for this role. I read the series much later than other reviewers, about 8 years ago when I was a senior student in High School, it was one of those stories that I got to late and that too by mistake, I actually read Petals on the wind first and then followed up with flowers in the attic and the rest.

Getting to my point, Corrine, though a desperate woman was not a clueless one, she had a certain cunning charm and used her feminine wiles to get far enough, lets face it she even used them on her clearly impressionable and devoted son Christopher, Heather Graham was not convincing, she lacked a certain depth that came across in the character in the actual book.

The other actors though not great had a certain charm that sort of fit their roles, one has to understand that a page turner like flowers in the attic will most likely never be as good on film, in 91 minutes, how much of emotion can you display... Cathy was barely aware of herself in the movie but Chris was very much into Cathy, his desire was pouring through the screen and I enjoyed it that they remained almost entirely faithful to the book when it came to that aspect.

I never saw the '87 movie version so I cannot make a comparison in that instance. However, I can say this, it was not an altogether terrible movie and I am intrigued to see what they do with the next one... for all intensive purposes I do intend seeing the previous movie version and will most likely review that as well.

All in all, flowers in the attic was not a bad movie but needed a slightly more promising cast and a more emotional dynamic. I guess desperation cannot always be faked, sometimes it just needs to feel that little bit of real to be believable... not perfect but worth the watch for a fan!
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Disappointing remake of Flowers in the Attic.
suzanneoxford19 January 2014
I have read the book, Flowers in the Attic. This is a Gothic type mystery where children were locked up in the attic not to be seen. V.C. Andrews was able to convey a dark and sinister atmosphere with Olivia Foxworth being a truly evil grandmother, showing them absolute contempt. Heather Graham portrays their mother, who becomes bored with her life and pursues a man who is supposedly their grandfather's attorney. She stays gone for long periods of time and brings back gifts which are supposed to compensate for her absence. Heather Graham is not right for this part. She comes across as rather vacant and bored, but does not project a sense of evil, which is well demonstrated in the novel. Ellen Burnstyn is an excellent actress and there is no doubt that she can barely tolerate her newly acquired grandchildren. She gives a fantastic performance.

There are gaps in this movie and the viewer is left wondering exactly why the daughter of Foxworth was alienated from her family. Heather does not even come across as a mother, but more like a best friend to her children. But maybe that is the intended effect. She obviously is not interested or does not care about their well-being.

Also in the book VC Andrews was able to convey a sense of anxiety and claustrophobia as the children feel suffocated from living in such close quarters with no freedom. You can feel their sense of doom and emotional deprivation, as they slowly realize that they are in a sort of prison and may never get out. The director, Chow does not give the viewer this feeling of doom. If there is a sense of frustration and anxiety with their surroundings, it is mild discontent compared to what the book shows. Without this psychological drama, it greatly diminishes the sense of doom, which Gothic novels are big on portraying.

I would not watch this movie again. I had a hard time following it and in a way kind of boring.
41 out of 59 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
the story revolves around a dysfunctional family after the death of the father.
ayushsingh199623 January 2014
Warning: Spoilers
the movie is well played throughout. the cast is beautifully assembled. the story line is good and induces a theme of horror without any ghosts or supernatural element. the characters Cathy and Christopher are well played by the actors. the story revolves around a dysfunctional family after the death of the father. the mother moves them all to their grandparents whom they have never met. the four children are made to stay in an attic for nearly two years, while their mother moves on without them. it shows the struggles they undergo due to isolation and their learning of the truth and dealing with it. the isolation and its effect on the children is shown very carefully including the incest which was handled well..
12 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Faithful without a Pulse
kevinfbarker21 October 2020
While this is technically more faithful to the novel than the previous adaptation, everything is crammed into 90 minutes so that the dramatic moments haven't time to properly breathe. It leaves the whole film feeling cold, emotionless, and oddly paced. Even an extra 15 minutes would have helped a little bit, but Ellen Burstyn tries her best to put her own stamp on the Grandmother role.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Where Have All The Flowers Gone?
Noirdame7920 September 2017
Warning: Spoilers
. . . . . and when will they ever learn?

That was what was going through my mind as I watched this attempt by Lifetime. Some have raved about it because it included more of the incestuous relationship between the two oldest siblings (toned down though it was for television) but that alone does NOT make it a better film. With one exception, the acting was atrocious. Heather Graham has given some decent performances over the years, but this was not one of them. She seemed to be sleepwalking through the entire movie. Kiernan Shipka was monotonous and irritating as Cathy (her voice-over included); Mason Dye was stiff, and there was no chemistry between Christopher and Cathy. Cory (Maxwell Kovach) and Carrie (Ava Telek) were pretty much non-entities in this version. Ellen Burstyn, fine actress that she is, gives a good performance but she was completely miscast as the grandmother. Not menacing, dominant or intimidating and far too sympathetic. It's hard to imagine the older kids being scared of her; the twins, maybe.

CGI took the place of the family mansion, Foxworth Hall (doesn't anyone scout for locations anymore?), and the sets, frankly, looked like sets. The music was also nothing special. Worse, the movie feels extremely rushed; while it is mentioned that Cathy, Chris, Cory and Carrie were locked away for nearly three years, no attempt was made to make them look sunlight-deprived or lacking for food. The bond between the two older siblings was downplayed, and their role as parenting the twins barely shown, making their closeness and growing romantic feelings for each other come out of nowhere. Christopher's ambition to become a doctor, which was an important part of his character and the story, is completely omitted. Cathy's love for dance is hardly mentioned, and they were not really locked away as they were in the book or the 1987 version. Corrine is such a blank slate and it's never explained why she left her kids there for so long. The attic seemed to have lost much of its significance as well.

While the 1987 film is flawed, V.C. Andrews did have script approval and the intent of the director (who also penned the screenplay) was to be as close to the book as possible. Unfortunately, a negative reaction at test screening caused the studio to severely cut the film and add an ending that fans of the novel rightly despised. Even with those changes, it is still superior to the TV adaptation in terms of acting, chemistry, location, atmosphere and music. Louise Fletcher was terrifying as the grandmother, and Ellen Burstyn just wasn't, despite giving the best performance in the Lifetime presentation. The 1987 movie has a very haunting feeling that will stay with you after it is over (helped by Christopher Young's amazing score). Let's hope that the original director's cut will see the light of day and will hopefully obliterate this vapid, hollow Lifetime tripe from memory.
18 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Fantastic Fun
cnycitylady18 January 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Finally, a version of this movie we can all appreciate and love, am I right? The '87 version ain't got nothing on this. The acting was on point and the story actually stuck to the original narrative.

Kiernan Shipka, of Man Men, captured the resilience and defiant nature of Cathy so perfectly, and professionally sprinkled her with desire and trust. She turned a character some would call spiteful and cruel into one that is brave, honest, loyal and true. Heather Graham made you hate Corrine and Ellen Burstyn added that sympathetic tone to the grandmother. The cast knew full well just how to portray these heavy characters without making it seem unreal.

Anyone who is not familiar with the book already will want to read it as soon as this movie ends. The Lifetime network took one of the most beloved and tortured novels of all time and made it into a beautiful love story that even the most uptight zealot can appreciate. 8.3/10
22 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Ellen is the reason!
Sylviastel18 January 2014
I think Ellen Burstyn gives the best performance in this television remake. Heather Graham is wrongly casted as Corrinne Foxworth though! She does do a fine job though overall. The beginning sets up the past as a loving nuclear family. When their father dies, the family becomes desperate financially. So they go Virginia where they learn the truth about family secrets. They leave quickly without telling anybody of their plans; board a train under another name; get off in the middle of the night at a closed train station; they walk to Foxworth Estate. There grandmother doesn't welcome them with open arms. She has stay unknown to the servants and their grandfather of their very existence. The children do an admirable acting job despite difficult material. Overall I'm impressed with this updated version.
10 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Generic, glossy, and bland
Leofwine_draca8 January 2017
FLOWERS IN THE ATTIC is an ill-advised reworking of the classic Virginia Andrews novel about a grandmother keeping her grand kids locked up in the attic and the trouble which ensues. The film was already made, memorably, back in 1987, so why the producers felt the need to do another generic version I have no idea.

And I wish they hadn't: everything about this version of FLOWERS IN THE ATTIC screams play-it-safe predictability. The more shocking aspects of the novel are merely hinted at and what we get inside is a slick and glossy production with zero power. The only interesting performer here is the reliable Ellen Burstyn, tackling a horrid character with bravado, but the rest are terrible, particularly the young actors who are completely devoid of charisma. A sequel, PETALS ON THE WIND, followed.
13 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
decent
Vincentiu19 September 2014
a decent adaptation. interesting performance of the lead actors. an OK Gothic atmosphere. but something missing. not very clear, few characters as sketches or stamps, an old recipes with new ingredients, Ellen Burstyn as pillar of story in precise role who explores many from her character sides, the film is almost an introduction to series. and it is not a bad fact. but the impression to discover a sketch, the feeling the story has not real roots, the incest theme presented in superficial manner, all does a fragile construction. sure, it is a good film. decent adaptation, remarkable young actors. but it could be better. that represents a certitude.
6 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Entertaining, but one big flaw.
mburr-9657911 November 2019
I found this movie a pleasant enough way to pass a couple of hours but right at the start it was spoiled somewhat for me with the death of the husband and father.One minute, he is a vice-preident of the company, sales executive for the whole east coast and next thing the family is destitute.i am quite sure an astute business executive like him would have adequately provided for his family with life insurance, and the company would surely have had provision to cover something like that. Not explained at all.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Review
skypie-324006 May 2019
Flowers in the attic wasn't a completely terrible movie. The movie wasn't as good as the book (expected.) but it did basically summarise the book with differences. I feel as though it everything went too fast and you didn't have time to process anything in the movie leaving you to not feel the pain the characters actually went through and not feel any emotions towards the characters.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Great...Could Have Been Greater...
bronzesrv3 September 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Being an avid V.C Andrew's fan, I was so excited to see this remake Ellen Burstyn was EXCELLENT! She gave me absolute chills! I read in another review, where the reviewer said she was more of a three-dimensional role where the other grandmother in the original film was one-dimensional, That was so true. I loved how this old evil granny show her "soft " at times, like when she offered them fruit, when she had real flowers for their make believe garden and last but not least, when she teared up at the Christmas present the grandchildren made for her even though she did not take it, you could see the look on her face as if she almost wanted to. I don't think this role fit Heather Graham well, maybe I've seen her in too many comedies LOL. It was as if she was simply not mature enough for this role. I do like how this version of the movie was more like the book versus the original one. As far as the other actors, I like the twins better from the first version of the movie, The Twins had a little more interaction and speaking roles in the first film. Especially the boy Corey. I thought the actors that played Cathy and Christopher were better in this version. Not to keep comparing the two movies but that is what happens when you make remakes LOL. Overall I think Ellen Burstyn really makes this movie! I give it a 7 because again Heather Graham didn't seem to fit the role and the twins could have had more interaction and speaking roles.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Highly Anticipated, Sorely Disappointed
netsrik200018 January 2014
I just finished watching the premiere on Lifetime. I'm confused how the movie already has ratings. The original version got worse ratings on this site but was much better than this remake. The story is the same but the acting was awful. Ellen Burstyn was amazing as always but the rest of the cast was mediocre at best. I can overlook the children not being that great as I assume that they were newbies but I expected more from Heather Graham. They didn't do the original movie or the book justice. It was not worth watching or waiting for. Sorry that I wasted my time. I would recommend reading the book or seeing the original movie if you want the best version.
30 out of 49 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Excellent movie
Dave_douell7 January 2019
This was one of those movies that really made me angry. To me, that's a sign of a good movie. I know my blood pressure went up! For those who gave it a low rating because it didn't meet their expectations after reading the book, you can't expect a 90 minute movie to be exactly like the book. Especially with such an emotion provoking subject. I highly recommend watching.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Still uncomfortable Subject from weak Director
SnoopyStyle2 February 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Corrine (Heather Graham) is living a suburban dream. Her husband has just been promoted, and she has four beautiful children (Kiernan Shipka, Mason Dye). Then her husband dies in a crash. She's forced to go back to her parents. Her father doesn't know about the kids, and her mother (Ellen Burstyn) is a mean spirited bully. She's been written out of her father's will, and she's trying to get back into his good graces. So the kids are stashed away in the attic.

The acting is alright. This is mostly on the shoulders of the two young actors. They are mostly able bare the burden. Ellen Burstyn is grand in her performance. Heather Graham compliments her quite well. If there is one problem, it's the unimpressive directing styles. The subject matter of incest is still as controversial as ever. It hasn't lost any of its taboo since it was written. Relative unknown director Deborah Chow just doesn't have the style or the skills at this point. The restrictions of shooting in limiting sets don't help any either.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
The Top Fourteen Reasons to Stay in the Attic
thesar-221 January 2014
Warning: Spoilers
1. These new flowers in the attic should count their blessings: they got a grandmother as menacing as Sophia Petrillo.

2. With every one thing they got right from the book, they got two more things wrong. The movie was so far behind ten minutes in, it would never recover.

3. Too bad Heather Graham already peaked both with her role in 2009's The Hangover and with any hangover she's had.

4. How this didn't end up on the Syfy Channel with its amazingly appalling acting is still being investigated.

5. So, 38 whippings make you neither in pain nor bleed nor uncomfortable in any way. Tell me again how this is pleasurable for sadists?

6. Hmmm, one of the four siblings gets a haircut or all of the children starve for a week. I wish I had these 1950s dilemmas!

7. Oh, and they chose to let the young children starve not soon after Cathy asks her younger sister to consider her her new mom. The apple doesn't fall far…repeatedly.

8. Yes, as long as the police officer acknowledges who the spouse of the deceased is, he is allowed to simultaneously tell everyone at what is obviously a surprise birthday party that the birthday dad is dead. Even to his young children.

9. Telling your son: "You look just like your father when I first met him" and then kissing him on the cheek might be considered innocent in most families, but here… well, that boy's spidey sense should've been off the charts.

10. On the positive side, all the flaws and problems with the original are now completely baseless. The 1987 film should now be considered a masterpiece.

11. This bible-thumping grandmother's definition of a slut is a woman that has slept with one man her whole life. Actually, I think the bible would've given this woman a pass.

12. "Are we so terrible or stupid or ugly…" says Cathy. According to the book: no. But, this casting director had other ideas.

13. As treacherously bad this remake was, it's still not the worst remake of all time. That belongs to 1998's Psycho. This is number two worst and knocked 2010's A Nightmare on Elm Street to number three worst.

14. Amongst all the mistakes and misinterpretations of the source material, giving the Grandmother the slightest acts of mercy to the children is the number one sin of this film. Sadly, there are multiples of times she appears lenient and soft. It would've been better just to write her out even though the story practically revolves around her than to make her look sympathetic.
17 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Loved it
linda-glass23 April 2021
I couldn't look away, was captivated from the start till the end. Had me guessing which I loved. Suspense Hitchcock style. Exceptional story telling, will not forget this movie.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Horrendously campy re-telling of a classic story
Robert_duder12 April 2014
Warning: Spoilers
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
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Disappointed ..story simplified, some details changed, average acting and just did not have that something
katarzynkaprazynka17 February 2018
I recommend everyone to read the book first and then you would understand why the movie is not too good... Many scenes are simplified and lack of great details that could be shown..also some of the parts are slightly changed, but it makes a big difference. When I was watching the movie it was ok, but it just did not have that something...I think that the movie could be longer to reflect the story more and the acting could be improved as well.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed