CommentsXp Best movie ever!

Rio Hayward All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Adeel Hail Unshakable, witty and deeply felt, the film will be paying emotional dividends for a long, long time.

Roxie The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

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?

dhainline1 I was looking forward to this "Flowers in the Attic" movie as one that would follow the book to the letter with the incest and scary grandmother. It did with the incest, but Ellen Burstyn could never be mistaken for the tall, rawboned, threatening grandmother from the book! Louise Fletcher was born to play the Grandmother! In the book, Cory and Carrie, the small twins were terrified of the grandmother. They would never have gone up to her like this movie's version of Cory and Carrie! As for Cathy, I thought Kiernan Shipka brought a vulnerable strength to Cathy and like the Cathy in the book, she was smart, stubborn, and in regards to Corinne, her mother could smell a rat.

Prismark10 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.

capone666 Flowers in the Attic (2014) It is not recommended that today's overweight youth spend time in the attic lest they fall through the ceiling.Which is why this drama takes place back in the 20th Century.Following the death of her husband/half-uncle, Corrine (Heather Graham) moves her children (Kiernan Shipka, Mason Dye, Ava Telek, Maxwell Kovach) into her parents' mansion.While she is welcomed back by her mother (Ellen Burstyn), her sinful offspring must be kept secret.Confined to a remote bedroom, the siblings find solace in a cavernous loft. As weeks turn into years, and the children mature, the older relations connect in forbidden ways, while the younger succumb to strange ailments.Lifetime's adaptation of the V.C. Andrews novel, this made-for-TV-movie adheres more to the source material than the 1987 feature film - but it's acting is not much better.Incidentally, when you marry your sister she doesn't have to change her last name. Yellow Lightvidiotreviews.blogspot.ca