Kirpianuscus 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.

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.

scs0 I know people compare these to the books and the original film so here is my personal exposure to the franchise: I caught the last 15 minutes of Petals on the Wind, DVR'd & watched Flowers in the Attic, learned it was a book series with an earlier film adaptation, watched the 1987 version of the film, and then watched Petals on the Wind.I found the Lifetime version better than the original largely because Ellen Burstyn's performance of the grandmother was superior to that of Louise Fletcher's from the earlier film. While both grandmothers came across as an evil b**ch, Burstyn's grandmother constantly showed elements of depth where she seemed to be intellectually focusing intentionally on WHAT they were (the product of incest) because she didn't want the emotional attachment that would result if she learned WHO they were. (A good scene was the one where the children made her a poster for Christmas) As evil as she was, she constantly exhibited blips of humanity that always made me wonder if she would develop a bit into the role of an antihero. Of course she never did, but Fletcher's grandmother was a much more predictable 2-dimensional character. The odd thing was that I had looked forward to Fletcher's performance since she masterfully portrayed Kai Winn on Star Trek: Deep Space Nine who could be a cold-hearted b**ch one day and decent the next.Aside from that I find the films complemented each other nicely as little holes in one version were filled with the other with the Lifetime version seeming to have an overall better quality to it. It is unfortunate that the 1987 version had a completely different ending because Lifetime's ending allowed for revenge in its sequel. That being said, both films felt like they were rushing their stories to fit into 90 minutes and I think both would have been improved with an additional 30 minutes of time. For example, in neither version did I really feel like the kids spent much time in that attic and until the times they started getting poisoned and the grandmother withheld food as a punishment, I found them surprisingly well fed.

bousozoku Victoria Chase should have been cast in the Lifetime Original Movie "Flowers in the Attic", as its over-dramatic, self-indulgent mother.I always thought that Heather Graham could act well, but this film proved otherwise. Did she never have any really difficult moments from which to draw? I saw the original movie way back when, and was surprised to see a remake. Remakes tend to promise much but add nothing. This one seemed to subtract a lot for the mere thought of a sex scene.While Ellen Burstyn's character was certainly unlikable, she couldn't make me hate her. I felt sorry for her. That never happened with Louise Fletcher. She found a way to make her character truly evil.Equally, I never felt the sympathy for the children--it was all two dimensional. They were just there, bored. I kept waiting for one of them to pull out a phone and take a selfie.The crew did a good job, however.